Some more on the ABC coalition

Just got off the phone with coalition spokesperson Melissa Seixas. She says more than 300 people have applied for one of eight slots on Jeff Lyash's coalition. We're still waiting, however, to see if those names will be released.

Comments

[Joe]

This explains why the process needs to be open enough that everyone who wants to voice an opinion can. Some portions of this will have to be big events with many groups. This is the same process the city has used to reach
concensus on issues like the LDR's and
the Vision 20/20 process.

[Your Bawana]

They need to tell the applicants that it is a non paying job. Some of the applicants probably think it's a job with FL Progress.

[Who Cares?]

Who cares?

[Who Cares?]

Darden Rice said she will support taxes for a new stadium. Maybe she will be on the ABC Coalition. I bet she at least gets a campaign donation from the ABC Coalition!

[Clear Direction]

Dear Who Cares,

I believe Darden Rice was quoted on this very blog as saying that she was not comfortable using the Bed Tax for a stadium.

[Clear Direction]

Aaron,

I think all of us would encourage the ABC Coalition to be transparent and open regarding how it operates.

It would be interesting to see who has expressed a desire to be involved in this discussion regarding how best to accomodate the Ray's desire for a new Ballpark with the citizens concerns regarding waterfront preservation and fiscal responsibility.

It is most important, however, that whomever the nominees to the ABC Coalition are, that they be representative of all of the constituencies which have voiced their opinions throughout the ballpark debate.

While CONA will most certainly be asked to participate (and rightly so) it is also important that other citizen groups, which have received broad community support for their waterfront preservation and Fiscal responibility positions, to also be included on the board.

in order for this vocal constituency to buy into whatever the Coalition's ultimate recommendations are, they have to be included in that process.

I am optimistic that Mr. Lyash and Melissa Seixas understand the value in implementing a transparent and inclusive process.

[John]

Prediction:

The ABC coalition nominates its members, the list is made public, and public outrage starts all over again likely in part because POWW is not represented.

The coalition falls apart in the face of public scrutiny before any substantive talks even begin, leaving the Rays back at square one.

BOCC & Bear Creek again offer Toytown land to the Rays, after environmental studies of the site are complete, and the Rays team with the county to build their new ballpark/convention facility/hotels there with the help of nearby corporate support and bed tax $$ going towards the convention component.

Timeline: 5-7 years before groundbreaking on a new ballpark @ Toytown.

Trop is torn down thereafter and that site is cleaned and sold to a developer. Proceeds from the sale are also used to fund the new facility.

Al Lang Field is torn down, the property changed to DC-P parkland, and is made the permanent home of Sat Morning Market.

[Rick K]

I find Clear Direction's post at 1:22 PM to present an idea that makes little sense to me.

Why would it be in the community's interest (or the interest of the other Commission members) to appoint people on the Commission who do not agree 100% with the Commission's mission?

The ABC Coalition says, on their website (abc-baseball.com), under the "mission" tab,

"A Baseball Community, Inc. ("The ABC Coalition") will serve as a community-wide effort to identify what it will take to ensure major league baseball here is vital, viable and successful over a long period of time, in the best interests of our community. All contributing members of the Coalition fully share in this fundamental proposition."

That makes perfect sense to me. How is the commission better served by having someone who doesn't agree that the commission ought to strive to find what it will take to make MLB a part of the Bay Area for a very long time?

If someone has a real theory about how the commission will be better off with people who dispute or disagree with the idea of finding the best way to keep the Rays in this community, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[Thomas]

I think the commission should just be lawyers who are intent on holding the Rays to the lease they signed already.

The one that lasts through 2027.

The 30 year lease they are just 10 years into.

That would sure be keeping with the mission.

[Don Mott]

Rick K you continue to amaze me. After harping on Mr. Troxler for being negative you continue to do the same thing. You continue to paint all those who opposed the original stadium deal as evil, devious and untrustworthy. In case you haven't looked beyond your bloviating ego there were two reasons that project was shot down. And it was because of two different groups. Those who did not want a stadium on the waterfront and those who did not want a stadium paid for with public monies, i.e. taxes. No one that I'm aware of has said they did not want the Rays to be successful here they just don't want the stadium to be paid for with public money on the waterfront. I feel secure in saying that members of CONA and POWW both would love to see the Rays succeed here but without taxpayer support which is appropriate. Therefore it appears to me that any coalition without this type of representation is a green stamp to public funding. Even though the coalitions resolutions are not binding should opposition to these ideas be stifled by not being included? Seems kind of autocratic to me.

[Scaramouche]

Glad to see that the quicklink to this blog has dropped off the tampabay.com header. That means, I guess, that only Rick will continue to pay any attention to it -- and a few others, tuning in mostly to see what kind of Bizzaro-wisdom "content" Rick has come up with on any particular day.

The attraction must be kind of like the one that used to draw our yeoman farmer ancestors to the State Fairgrounds to view actual steam locomotive train wrecks, staged right in the middle of the stadium area. The brave engineers would have a mile or so of track out each end to "get up a good head of steam." They would lock down the throttles and then jump off when it appeared the wreck would occur right in the middle of everything.

The best ones apparently were when the loco boilers exploded in a great whoosh of hot air.

How's about a contest for the best revision of the ABC acronym's bases: "Artful Bushwah Conspirators?"

[Scaramouche]

I guess I have missed the "mission statement published by Lyash until just now:

"A Baseball Community, Inc. ("The ABC Coalition") will serve as a community-wide effort to [hold it now, better read this part carefully...] IDENTIFY WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO ENSURE MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL HERE IS VITAL, VIABLE AND SUCCESSFUL OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, [wait for it..., here it comes, the toss-off subordinate clause...] 'in the best interests of our community.' All contributing members of the Coalition fully share in this fundamental proposition."

What the hey? Is this community's pocketbook to be a guarantor of the "vitality, viability and success" of a commercial enterprise known as "Major League Baseball, Inc.?"

I don't remember signing up for that job. Do you? I thought it had something to do with finding a more acceptable location for a possible future stadium. If Lyash's artful statement is gonna be the actual deal, I want a share of the bidness in return, and a voice on the lineup and trade strategy and player salary negotiations, and who gets what kinds of add-on advertising and merchandising deals, and how to furnish the executive suites from the good stuff available at Goodwill. Anything else is just more "welfare state for inept capitalists."

No blank checks for a bunch of hoodoo-artist "securitizing engineers," who helped fire up the locomotives that took part in the latest train wreck of our national economy and had the sense to jump off just before the crash.

Is it already time to unlimber the public’s guns again, and blow that Inc. out of the water? POWW! and away it goes!

Rick has ANTIs in his PANTIs.

[Clear Direction]

Dear Rick K,

The desire to preserve our waterfront and the call for fiscal responsibility from our city leaders in no way precludes an individual or group from wanting the Ray's to be a vital and longterm part of our community!

Nor, do I beleive that the Ray's can only be successful if the team plays baseball in a waterfront stadium.

I further beleive that by exploring all the possible avenues for private financing that the need for public funds could be greatly reduced if not eliminated.

Therefore I beleive it makes sense for The ABC coalition to be inclusive of and therefore representative of that constituency with the thousands of red signs.

Afterall, Rick, one of the other Missions of the ABC Coalition (in case you overlooked it) is to expand the fan base and corporate support for the ballclub. This would require encouraging individuals and groups which are not currently thought of as Ray's backers to support the team.

I beleive that in order to broaden the community's support for the team bridges need to be built between the team and ALL of the community. Only by reaching out can the ABC Coalition and by extension the Ballclub be successful!

Clear Direction

[John D]

OK, call me terminally cynical, but Ima gonna repeat my contention that there's no point in getting worked up about ABC. The only way this "commission" will be "successful" is if it includes as members all local politicos--because when the "work" is done, ABC will turn its "findings" over to the aforesaid politicos, who will then:
A. Accept all findings!
B. Reject all findings!
C. Thank ABC and then file all findings!
D. Finally do what they would do right now!
We will wait, while our elected reps also wait, and for what? Nothing new.
So don't worry about the makeup of ABC--it won't matter.

[Rick K]

The site's "spam" filter blocked my last post. That is weird. I just spent 30 minutes on it. I wonder if it had a naughty word in it.

[Clear Direction]

I would charicterize it as appropiate not weird Rick

[Thomas]

"Rick has ANTIs in his PANTIs."

That is so high quality.

[John]

There is a god. It's name is spam filter.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Could Mr. Lyash define exactly what "WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO ENSURE MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL HERE IS VITAL, VIABLE AND SUCCESSFUL OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME"
means?

Does this mean the New York Investors should be able to make a reasonable return on their money. By this definition THERE IS NO NEED FOR A NEW STADIUM.

The Forbes Baseball Valuations reveal just how greedy our New York friends truly are!!!
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html?boxes=custom

They value the team at 290 million dollars this year. Mr. Sternberg paid 200 million. That's a 45% INCREASE IN EQUITY IN JUST THREE YEARS!!!
Last year the team posted gross revenues of 138 million with a net profit of 29.7 million or a PROFIT MARGIN OF 21%. Not spectacular but certainly healthy. If you take that profit and compare it to the current value you get a captalization rate of 10%..again not spectacular but when viewed in context MORE THAN ENOUGH TO
REMAIN VITAL, VIABLE AND SUCCESSFUL.

May I add a little more context to these figures. Prior to this season...which means ALL THE YEARS this data is based upon...the Rays were not simply bad..they were viewed as an inferior product...a minor league team masquerading as a major league team. In simple statistical words they were literally the WORST team in all of baseball and had been their entire existence.

Given that we are all thrilled the Rays have improved...pat on the back to Messrs. Sternberg, Silverman, and Friedman..as we all suspected..IT WASN'T THE STADIUM IDIOTS..IT WAS THE PRODUCT. After some initial restraint and skepticism the Rays started drawing very well. In fact correct me if I'm wrong but I believe they've already had 5 sellouts. I have not documented that number I speak from the top of my head...but my point remains valid.

The valuations you see are based on the WORST team in baseball!!! And the numbers are STILL VERY HEALTHY..or as Mr Lyash would say..very vital, viable and successful. Now figure in what has happened this year...our very FIRST YEAR EVER of having one of...if not THE BEST..team in baseball..and you can only imagine how much money our New York friends are raking in. Bully for them they deserve it! They made a great investment!

However HOW CAN ANYBODY claim NEED? It's getting to the point of obscene when you look at the numbers and the resulting attendance increase from a first place team.

I drive a very servicable car. I would however prefer a Rolls or Bentley...or perhaps someone will give me a new waterfront stadium. I might like a new Rolls but I CERTAINLY DON'T NEED ONE!!!
I can wait to see the BS Lyash and his fellow monopolists from MLB unleash to even ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY NEED!!!!

[Cathy Wilson]

When ABC was first announced, I had thought it was to be a PUBLIC process much like Vision 20/20 or the LDRs and was concerned that it seemed to be forming in such a private fashion. Since then, I've learned that ABC is actually a PRIVATE entity, filed as a non-profit and soliciting donations.

As a PRIVATE group, they are free to say whatever they want for a mission statement, choose whomever they wish to sit on their panel and generally behave like an issue-oriented organization would. They certainly appear to be a super-sized version of the "Fans" group - sort of POWW's mirror opposite. And I would expect our city and county governments to listen to them just as they've listened to speakers from POWW. No more - no less.

The rest of us are still waiting for City Council to begin the PUBLIC process they need to get rolling on. That process should be open to all and include all the stakeholders in our community. This process should look at both the Tropicana site and the Al Lang site to help decide where our interests are as a community. ABC cannot be a substitute for this necessary dialogue on such an important issue.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Cathy,
You have nailed this entire issue. Excellent post!!!

[since1962]

council@stpete.org is where to address the issue of participation.

Apparently only 56 e mailers have access to Julie Weston and the Mayors 'spin room' of sycophantic support as mentioned at Thursdays council meeting.

E MAIL THEM!

[Clear Direction]

Government user fees are the BEST taxes. When certain government benefits are received or enjoyed dispropotinately by some people, it is completely appropriate to charge those people for the narrower portion of government benefits.

A good example is National Parks. There is some widespread benefit to the government owning the parks. But the expenses associated with allowing people to visit the parks are most fairly borne by those who visit the parks. Other good examples are fishing licenses and drivers licenses and hunting licenses. Everyone benefits from having the government regulate these activities, but the individual licensees receive more benefits than the public at large, so it makes sense to fund 100% of the cost of issuing and administering licenses with user fees.

A user fee is the fairest and best tax!

Posted by: Rick K | August 05, 2008 at 02:50 PM

Rick K,

you posred the above on 8-5-08 on Troxblog.

I'm glad to see that you support the concept of the minority of the folks who use a service paid for by public funds, should be the ones who pay for it!

We may have agreed on the best way to finance the Ray's new stadium.

Now all we have to do is find a location the citizens approve of.

Clear Direction

[John D]

Hmm. . . while it may SEEM intuitive that user fees are the way to go, consider just one of the points that Rick K makes: National Park user fees.
In 1996, Congress passed a law allowing Nat'l Parks to raise fees above $5 and keep up to 90% of the proceeds. Since then, coincidentally, attendance at Nat'l Parks has taken a nosedive, while the Parks Service has maintained a huge surplus.
Now translate to a baseball stadium: as user fees (ticket prices) go up, attendance may indeed decline, but it doesn't matter because the owners will still reap millions.
So much for user fees: they're way too obvious--instead, ballclub owners ask the public to pay in tax monies, which are spread out over a much larger base.

[Clear Direction]

Aaron,

When you spoke to Melissa Seixas, did you inquire if the Blog on the ABC Coalition's website was removed due to a tecnical problem or if it was determined public input was not desired?

Many of your readers are curious why it was removed after Mr. Lyash invited input during the site's introduction at the Epicenter.

Thanks,
Clear Direction