What you're saying about Sunday's story

As you can imagine, there has been a lot of feedback to our story Sunday, "Do the Rays have a future in bay area?" There have been some common themes in reader responses, and I wanted to address a couple of the most common here.

Look at the Bucs and the Lightning. When they won, people showed up. Just give it time.

This is probably the comment I've gotten the most. And time, as we said, is the only way we're going to get an answer.

But comparing baseball to other pro sports just doesn't work. Let's do the math. The Bucs play eight regular-season home games and have about 530,000 tickets to sell. The Lightning play 41 regular-season home games and have about 841,000 tickets to sell. The Rays -- they play 81 home games -- and not including the tarped off seats, have 2.92-million seats to sell. I hope that sinks in. The Rays have more than five times as many tickets to sell as the Bucs.

Move the team to Hillsborough County, the demographics will be better there.

All of the data we reported Sunday (age, income, cost of living, etc.) included Hillsborough County. We set the boundaries of the Tampa Bay area the way the federal government does, which includes Pinellas, Pasco, Hillsborough, and Hernando counties.

Why not include Sarasota and Manatee? That would change the numbers.

We decided to stick with the boundaries set by the federal government. Yes, Manatee and Sarasota counties may have altered the numbers slightly. But the point here is that the vast majority of the Tampa Bay fan base comes from Pinellas and Hillsborough.

Numbers can say whatever you want them to.

We looked at every indicator we could think of that would make a major league market successful and then compared it to the 24 other MLB markets. Using comparisons negates the fuzzy math factor. Moreover, we included the best number for the Rays, which is the size of the television market. If there's something you think we should have checked but didn't, let me know.

*

Comments

[Fiscal responsiblity]

St. Pete residents sign two petitions to get the right to vote on whether the City will pony up any more money for a new stadium or to build in our waterfront parks. Go to www.stpetepoww.com, sign and mail the petitions back to POWW today! We cannot trust our elected officials. Look at how many City resources were wasted before the Rays pulled the plug when "their developer" Hines was not chosen. Enough already!!!

[Kathleen]

There is a stadium use agreement that is in effect until 2027 that makes this discussion prior to that time irrelevant.

[Aaron Sharockman]

It's not that simple. The Seattle Supersonics broke their lease just this year and are playing in Oklahoma City right now. That lease, just like the one between the Rays and the city, included a "specific performance" clause that was supposed to force the Sonics to remain in Seattle until 2010. In fact, I haven't found one team that hasn't been able to relocate based on terms of a use agreement or lease. Not saying this is a likely scenario. But there is no precedent for a lease or use agreement keeping the Rays here. It's simply how much would it cost the team to move.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Aaron,

I appreciate all the questions your reporting has raised as well as some of the resulting observations. Not only do the Rays have five times as many tickets to sell, but the reality is that the NFL is our National Pastime not MLB. On top of that Florida is a football community...so to further amplify your point Aaron, any comparision between the Bucs and the Rays is irrelevant and not pertinent to the discussion at hand. As for the Lightning, yes the Stanley Cup boosted attendance but perhaps what is even more appropriate is what is happening to their attendance NOW?
No team can be expected to win every year.

The NUMBER ONE QUESTION that has failed to be asked however is HOW COULD THE RAYS HAVE PUT OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH THE ORDEAL OF THE WATERFRONT STADIUM DEBATE WHEN THEY'RE NOT EVEN CERTAIN THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT THEIR PRODUCT. THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

The obvious answer to the question is to let the Rays play at the Trop to see how attendance and money plays out.
It simply BLOWS MY MIND that the Mayor...Councilmen Dudley and Newton...Jeff Lyash...the Chamber and other "so called" community leaders were SO WILLING to risk our city's financial future, our waterfront heritage on a project so fraught with questions. SERIOUSLY these folks are looking like imbeciles when the MLB Commissioner, President and Rays ownership and management question whether our market can support baseball and they were ready to risk over a half billion dollars and our waterfront. And please Bobby and others stop with the Kalt figures of a 450 million stadium with us footing 300 million. Check out Kalt's Yankee stadium success and the percentage of cost overrun for the city of New York on just infrastructure and if you use the same percentage of cost overruns for our "Waterfront Stadium" proposal you actually end up closer to a billion. These are HARD HISTORICAL FACTUAL numbers I'm talking about.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? WHERE ARE THE APOLOGIES FROM THE MAYOR...FROM THE RAYS...HOW COULD THEY PIT NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR...RED SIGN VERSUS BLUE SIGNS..VANDALISM OF SIGNS...ALL THE BITTER RECRIMINATIONS WHEN THEY AREN'T EVEN SURE IF BASEBALL WILL WORK HERE? COULDN'T WE PLAY AT THE TROP AND FIND OUT? DUH.....DUH....DUH!!!!!

[Thomas]

Mr. Sharockman,

Regarding the Supersonics, I think it's an important to note that the City of Seattle and the Sonics Ownership Group agreed to a lease buyout prior to a verdict from the court.

It is very likely that the Federal Judge in the case would have ruled that the Sonics did indeed need to honor the "specific performance" clause in the lease.

But rather than force the Sonics to play a few lame duck seasons (I think the lease expired after 2010 season, but I'm too lazy to go verify the actual date) the local Seattle politicians decided to take some money from the Sonics and let them void the lease. The Rays would have a significantly longer term remaining if they were to threaten to leave in the next year or two.

Anyway, it's a minor point, but I figured I'd mention it.

Have a good day.

[Clear Direction]

Aaron,

Let me begin by saying I beleive that most of the area's residents wish the Rays well and are proud of what the players accomplished in 2008!

Thank you for bringing this question back into the the public dialouge!

This is the first question that has to be answered before the ABC Coalition can even begin to address it's mission.

If I was Mr. Lyash and the other members of the Coalition Board I would be more than a little upset that my time and talent was being wasted in the effort to build public support and corporate support around the Bay region and to determine the best location for and the best method to finance a new baseball stadium, because the Ray's ownership had not yet determined that they want to stay in this area!

I am not at all sure that the Ray's can answer this question by looking at just next year's season ticket sales and attendance figures. I think it will take several seasons to get a true picture of what the average attendance will be and how the team will perform over time.

Until that is determined, all other questions regarding a new staduim are mute!

[bevo]

Why does your article and, presumably, your analysis rely on ordinal data instead of continuous data? Ordinal data hides the distant between two observations.

For example, John wins the race and Mary finishes second, after John. That's ordinal data.

Continuous data tells the distance between observations.

For example, John completed the race in 30 minutes. We know Mary finished second. Was she 30 seconds slower than John or 2 minutes slower? 30 seconds slower tells us something difference than 2 minutes slower.

Your article does a tremendous disservice to your readers by hiding data through the use of ordinal data.

How did you deduce what predicts attendance? Per capita income is a factor. Other factors exist.

While did you talk to a single economics professor for your story, did you review any of the attendance models published in peer-reviewed journals? Based on my knowledge of those models and, after reading your article, I would conclude your analysis neglected to include several items that predict attendance. Or, your story was incomplete.

If your piece had relied on those models as a basis for your analysis, then I suspect you would have ended up at a different conclusion.

[Thomas]

Thanks again for allowing us this space for diatribes like this:

Stop me when this sounds familiar:

Kevin McClatchy purchased the Pittsburgh Pirates in February 1996. He immediately asked for a new stadium, funded by a sales tax. The proposal was rejected in a referendum.

Shortly after that the "Forbes Field II Task Force" was created. It was a committee of 29 political and business leaders formed to study construction of a new stadium for the Pirates. The committee was not deterred by the public's opposition to tax funds for a stadium. Instead they developed "Plan B" allowing the Regional Asset District board to approve, without public vote, local funding for sports stadiums. McClatchy had this to say: "It's been a three-year odyssey for me in Pittsburgh," he said. "This is a huge relief. This will signal the resurgence of Pittsburgh, and the Pirates will be able to exist and thrive in the city. If we hadn't had a positive vote, it would've been tough." Prior to the approval of funds, McClatchy had warned: “We can’t be here long term if we can’t put a competitive team on the field. We need a new stadium to be competitive.”

Well, we have the benefit of hindsight on this deal. We know the Pirates have not won more than 75 games in any season since PNC was opened. They haven't been competitive. Further, we can see their attendance is almost identical to their old Three Rivers Stadium number of approx 21,000 per game. Also, the team has actually decreased payroll by almost $10M per year. The only conclusion you can draw is that the stadium had nothing to do with the competitiveness of the team or it's ability to attract fans. The only conclusion you can draw is that the stadium had absolutely nothing to do with the competitiveness of the team or it's attendance or the owners willingness to invest in his product.

Now we have to wonder: Why would a non-competitive Pirates team playing in front of 21,000 fans per game be "forced" to relocate if they play at Three Rivers Stadium; yet the same non-competitive MLB team playing in front of the same 21,000 fans per game at PNC Park does not need to relocate? Perhaps this might be an answer: McClatchy bought the team for $95M in 1996. The current value of the team (according to Forbes) is $292M. That's a difference of $197M. Ironically, the taxpayers of Pittsburgh gave the team approx $200M in public funding for PNC Park. Hmmmm. Interesting coincidence.

Maybe instead of asking "Do the Rays have a future in St. Pete?", the better question is: "Should St. Pete really want to hand over a few hundred million dollars to increase the value of the Rays?"
The history in Pittsburgh shows us that MLB doesn’t care about attendance, or county demographics, or market size, or anything else in your research. MLB only cares about getting their hands on a few hundred million of the public's money.

[Scaramouche]

(I know it's evil to re-post to another thread, but Thomas and all, who have it exactly right, got my back up all over again, so there!)

Do the Rays have a future here?

We now are learning that we don’t really live in a “rigorous free-market economy.” In our new “bailout mode,” even bubble businesses that generated our consumer fantasies are “too important to be allowed to fail.” They’ve all got their hands out for a big piece of the country’s future growth and tax revenues, which they call “government funds” to hide their moral bankruptcy. CEOs of failed entities take their spa retreats and 7 and 8 figure pay and “performance bonuses” and run, without consequences.

MLB franchises sell a consumer product, the entertainment and home-team potential good feelings of the Great Game of Baseball. Team owners increase ticket and concessions prices even as discretionary income dries up. Taxpayers, most of whom can’t afford tickets, are reeling, and our “leaders” are prepping them to be indentured for generations to “support” (read “give”) a new stadium.

The franchise owners, smart fellas, took their profits and fled the CDO bubble-space they helped blow up before it popped. They yak about “free markets,” but they want their national-socialist subsidy from Pinellas County (not even “Tampa Bay”), where our local teachers may soon be treated as “guest workers,” with their very own low-income housing, kind of like like the migrant farm workers mid-state. They want us to believe a “home team,” which they threaten regularly to move, is like food, with “inelastic demand,” for which we have to pay the demanded price – including a billion in public tax funds. “Be loyal to us,” they bray, “(while we pick you clean, and work on getting ANOTHER standard metropolitan statistical area to invite us on down with rose petal parades and taxpayer money).”

Want a stadium, Rays Boys? You have a real capitalist business model on the Left Coast, the San Fancisco Giants AT&T stadium, bought and paid for by the part of the capitalist structure that gets the profits from what fans and TV and MLB anti-trust-exempt cost-sharing and naming-rights and concession "partners" are willing to put down.

C'mon, you Capitalist Tools, how's about you Do The Right Thing that your hypocritical statements of faith in "American Free Markets" say you should? Or is the "Free" part just The New Kleptocracy's definition of what the "profit" they earn is supposed to be?

An MLB franchise might bump the area's esprit de corps a bit, as long as it is a winner. But the billion bucks might, you know, be more usefully put to work fixing roads and sewers (not just the ones leading to a new Bread, Circuses and Hot Dogs Coliseum) and sidewalks and traffic signals and parks, and paying for stuff like fire protection and teacher pay -- things that pay back an actual dividend and help keep the community actually alive.

What’s wrong with this Subsidy picture?

The language in your story tells it: The “great game of baseball” is simply another “product,” and the people of Pinellas County (and the Bay area, for ticket sales at least, since fans in Hillsborough and Bradenton and Manatee and Sarasota wouldn’t be paying at all toward the Great Subsidy) are reduced to nothing but “a market” to be exploited, and eventually discarded when it’s exhausted or a “better offer” comes along.

Big People and Wannabe's wannabe part of Big Projects, which "brand" an area the way the Hoggs down in Texas brand THEIR spreads and cattle. And Middle and even Little People for some reason want to be Part Of It.

What a surprise that the business model of these carpetbaggers looks so much like that of Blackwater and Lockheed-Northrop and the various contractors that are bleeding our treasury, wasting our resources, raising up new reasons for everyone else to hate America, and thumbing their noses at us taxpayers because they have access to The Man, via the Ed Strongarms of the world. Telling us we can't live [a. happily; b. securely -- choose one, or make up your own adverb) without their products and services. Right.

For creep's sake, folks (and here I leave out the the few snotty and condescending and freeloading "fans," out of our million soul community, who want all the rest of us to pay for their playpen, their "pleasant evening of baseball":

What's Important?

Guess what? The current Consumer Cannonball Run is OVER -- we've spent the Nest Egg, mortgaged the farm, sold our seed corn, and like the bumper sticker on the Class A motorhome says so snottily, "We're Spending Our Childrens' Inheritance! HA HA!"

We simply can't afford any more of this crap. It's go to stop.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Aaron,

I just noticed your story today 11/20 on Albert Whitted Airport under consideration as a stadium site.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/article910455.ece

PLEASE...PLEASE...PLEASE AARON...DO US ALL A FAVOR!!!!!!!!!

First you answer then please pose the question to Mayor Baker and then Jeff Lyash...Given your article and ALLLL THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE VIABILITY OF BASEBALL in Tampa....WHY are we putting the cart before the horse and dragging our community through the divisiveness of this stadium talk when NOBODY...not even the MLB..the Rays Owners...other sports authorities...can confirm that Tampa is even a suitable market for baseball!

The past World Series ratings were the WORST EVER!!! Philadelphia had huge ratings the Tampa market mediocre ratings. We are talking FREE TV here folks. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!
Until the Rays can prove they are a viable product by performing successfully in the Trop...it is beyond STUPID...ABSURD...IGRNORANT for a community in this economic climate to even be CONSIDERING a new stadium.

This is such basic logic that even Rick K couldn't argue with it. If the market has even't proven itself to be able to sustain baseball (in fact there are far more questions and doubts than positive affirmations to this question) WHY ARE WE EVEN CONSIDERING A NEW STADIUM. UNTIL YOU AARON AND MAYOR BAKER AND JEFF LYASH ANSWER THAT QUESTION YOU LOOK LIKE IRRESPONSIBLE BUFFOONS WHO COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH YOU RESIDE!!!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Aaron,

You are the journalist so you are not expected to answer that prior question(Why consider a new stadium before we're even sure baseball works in Tampa and in fact have lots of reasonable doubts that this is a sustainable MLB market).

However if you are a RESPONSIBLE journalist you should at least ASK it of Mayor Baker and Lyash as well as Silverman, Kalt, Sternberg!

[Larry]

The 2009 city elections are going to be very interesting. Do not forget where your councilmember stood on this issue. Same goes for every mayoral candidate.

We have a 45,000 seat ballpark that's not even paid for yet. Remamber that.

What happens to St. Pete when we build a new stadium with taxpayer money, and THEN, after the 1st year honeymoon period is over and attendence returns to Trop-levels (like it does in every other market with a new ballpark) the team comes to the conclusion that this market will not support 3 pro-sports teams, and they pick up and move to a bigger market?? What then? We'll be stuck with a billion dollar little league field? Heck, we won't even have SPRING TRAINING for it!!!!!!!!!!!!

IDIOTS!!!

[Clear Direction]

Aaron,

Nothing like throwing the stadium debate from the frying pan into the fire!

I notice that the source of this Albert whitted rumor is not mentioned, I cannot think that anyone who is familiar with the history of our downtown waterfront and the history of referenda pertaining to it would give this trail balloon serious attention!

I would, however suggest that it helps to illistrate the importance of the proposed charter ammendment petitions to strenghten the protections of our city owned waterfront and to require citizen approval through a referendum of any new sports facility that is built using public funds.

Let me know when someone from the City, ABC Coalition or the Ray's is willing to claim themselves as the source of this idea.

Then I'll weigh in!

[Paul]

I think Aaron is just trolling for some activity and readers... seeing as this whole stadium nonsense is going absolutely nowhere, he needs to make up something to stir the coals a bit. What next, a stadium on Mars? Its about as likely to happen as your article about a stadium at Albert Whitted.

[Cathy Wilson]

Seriously Aaron, whose trial balloon is this latest lunacy about using Albert Whitted as a site for Sternberg's monument to greed/wretched excess? It can't be the ABC Coalition, there are more canceled meetings on their web-site than actual ones in the past few months.

I just went to their site and (imagine my surprise!!) there appears to be a meeting tomorrow at 4:30pm that will actually occur. Why don't you go Aaron and let us know what they're talking about? Maybe THEY can let you in on who might be casting covetous eyes in the airport's direction...

Or is this whole thing just our favorite fish-wrapper's way of trying to sell some more papers?

[Clear Direction]

Aaron,

What ARE we saying about sunday's story?

While I appreciate the list of questions that you have so thoughfully provided above, I find it Curious that the Ed Board has chosen not to publish the public's reaction to this piece in the form of letters to the editor.

I am hopeful that Tim Nickens is saving them for publication in this weekend's Perspective section.

Looking forward to reading what folks are thinking about both of this weeks articles!

[Scaramouche]

The header for this blog promises that the content here will offer "the latest on the issue, focusing on the impact to taxpayers, the evolution of the Rays’ proposal and the politics unfolding behind the scenes."

If memory serves, and I did not keep a copy of the original, this is a little different from a broader statement when the spot was first offered up, back in the heady days of the "paired-development Sailaway Thing."

Info is getting pretty sparse here, from the journalism side. Is this another case where the real world happens underground, in the dark, out of sight, behind closed doors, over brandies and coffee and cigars, and then Surprise! The new residents of St. Pete Across The Water (formerly Northeast Tierra Verde) and the rest of us discover that we are on the hook for a billion or so to "keep our home team (owners) in the neighborhood?"

Just asking.

[Clear Direction]

Crickets! That's all I have heard about the 2 major articles published in the St. Petersburg Times last week.

I have to presume that either no one had any reaction to the pieces, or that the Times Editorial board has chosen for some reason not to share that reaction with the public.

Just one of those things that makes you wonder!

[John]

I wonder if the Rays will be disappointed going from sellout Spring Training games at Al Lang to a half empty or worse venue in...Port Charlotte?

I will never forgive the Rays for lying to their fans and the citizens of St. Pete that they "needed" to move Spring Training from St. Pete in order to "expand their fan base".

We all know now that was a lie.

The only reason they killed our 90+ year tradition in this city was to vacate Al Lang so they could pursue their poorly planned land/money grab to build a ridiculous looking, totally out of scale monstrosity on our waterfront (with our money, no less), which not only destroyed Spring Training but possibly also the Grand Prix.

Don't forget this in Nov '09 when you're voting for our next elite club of elected "officials" including a new mayor.

As for the Rays, I'll never spend another dime on them after what they've done to our city. TV is free.

[john]

I remember the dispute years ago for the trop. a 30 billion dollar mistake the city made. The building was put on an old landfill from many years ago. The soil was contaminated and the city had to fork out more to clean it up. Y'all remember that incident? and the proposal that if the city could not finance it then it would be turned over to the tax payers to support the bill in the form of higher real estate taxes. Now because of a mlb team that took 10 years to prove themselves, they want to spend more of the taxpayers money to build a waterfront park. Al Lang field is sitting there for years as a basball park not being used by anyone and who is paying for that property that is not being used? Albert Whitted is only losing money on it because of the city dragging it's feet to find someone to make the new terminal building work the way it should work. i have seen more traffic at the airport since the terminal has been put in. consider this, before the terminal was constructed, the only people using albert whitted were students wanting to learn how to fly. (education is the key to the future) Now Admiral Farragut Academy has opened up a flight program for their students at Albert Whitted Airport thru Bay Air Flying Services,Inc. NO to a new stadium to replace the airport which i really doubt they will be able to legally get done. If i had to vote on it, i would not vote to replace a part of city history that now has another portal for people to come here and enjoy the beauty of mayor baker's hard work. You want to build anything put up business that will provide jobs for the homeless and the good people of this city. Until this city can accomplish that then don't talk baseball. It's really not a good market for this city. If anything turn the bayfront center into a convention center large enough to handle a major convention. The city of sandiego was chosen because of it's capability to handle the amount of people that came for the Microsoft convention in 2004. Over 65,000 people atteneded for 3 days. Did it cost the city money, maybe but not as much as a new stadium would cost and all of the gaslamp district benefitted from it in revenue. The city needs to focus on increasing people traffic and not commodities that will only work when we have a winning team. Conventions are a 365 day a year business that pay for themselves and provide revenue to the existing downtown restaurants and store.

[Thomas]

Happy Holidays Aaron.

I have a suggestion for an article:

Instead of approaching this subject again from the "How is St. Pete going to help the Rays" - how about looking at it from the "How are the Rays going to help St. Pete" for a change.

We could establish the history of how the city has already helped the Rays. Post the amount the city paid for the Trop and take a look at the amazing lease terms the Rays got at the Trop.

We could foreshadow what the Rays are trying to do by detailing some of the horrific deals other cities have been con'd into as an example of what not to do.

And my personal favorite, let's treat the city of St. Pete as a "business" and start making some demands of the Rays:
- In order to stay "competitive" with other cities, St. Pete is going to have to ask the Rays to give us some subsidies. St. Pete is only asking for more from the Rays so the city can "build a winner" for it's citizens. If the Rays don't like it, St.Pete is going to have to "explore other options" or maybe "go to Plan B".

St.Pete could break the lease with the Rays and refuse to allow the team to play at the Trop next year. Sorry, the team will have to go play someplace else. We've already heard that they don't like the Trop anyway - plus we've heard the speculation that the lease can be broken. So, if the team has no problem moving forward with the concept of invalidating the lease, why should St.Pete feel the need to honor it?

I'd like to see a piece about the city and it's leverage instead of always reading about the "poor poor Rays" and how "St.Pete needs to support the team". Let's talk about what the city has already done. Let's look at other horrible deals to define what the Rays mean by "support" and most importantly, let's take a look at the leverage the city has.

[get-smart]

Thomas, it is about the politicians getting paid by the Rays. It is not an open discussion. The ABC is a "dog & pony" show. What do you honestly think the outcome will be?

The Rays can stay or the Rays can go. I would like to know the name of a city that will hand over one-half of a billion dollars + to further enrich multi-millionaires?

I say have the Rays and a consortium of developers pony up to the bar and redevelop central St Pete with their own money.

[Scaramouche]

"Development" and "Re-development" and "Renaissance" only work if there's discretionary income for people to spend. See today's St. Pete Times for the belated start of our pro-development media's maybe thinking about "needs" versus "wants." And how "we" maybe have come to the end of a long, dreamy ride.

Did I read right, that "Renaissance-Re-Development" BayWalk, home of empty storefronts and "soon re-opening under new management" restaurant spaces, is facing a foreclosure action? Is it likely that a "consortium of developers and the Rays owners" would at this point, or at any time for years to come, fund out of their own money any "redevelopment" of downtown St. Pete?

And let's not forget the first question, whether a stadium in "downtown St. Pete" makes any sense to the community as a whole -- traffic, parking, real-world pre- and post-game consumption choices, and what's that I hear about "fan behavior" after the games? And whether "we" are Big-League enough to "deserve" having an MLB team ride us like a donkey?

Do I remember right, that "we" taxpayers are still paying off the debt service and principal on the money borrowed to build the Trop, as well as millions every year for upkeep and insurance and public services and such?

Keep in mind that "the city" didn't "borrow the money" for the Trop, any more than some magical entity called "the city," with secret hoards of cash, would be doing anything (other than borrowing and collecting taxes) to give the Rays owners a billion dollar equity bump. "The city leaders" were able to "build excitement" in enough people with enough clout to push the Trop through and keep it going until the Rays owners hove into view. Having cadged money from a municipal bond market that existed in a now-defunct economy, on the promise that "we taxpayers" would pay it back. It's not "free money," it's dollars from each of us out of the money we pay in taxes for the civil niceties of community living -- schools, teachers, fire, police, sewer, garbage and even those code enforcers who make us all behave visually and such.

And "the city" has the power to force those tax dollars out of "us," under threat of losing our property if we don't pay. Something the MLB franchise owners have been able to get other municipalites to use their power to do, for the benefit of a few. Even if we are eating cat food and skipping trips to the dentist, let alone the mall, we gotta pay the taxes, or lose the farm.

Here's a thought experiment of sorts.

Imagine the Rays owners, the Mayor and the various boosters of the "paired developments" had actually inked contracts and undertakings and bond obligations a year and a half ago.

Would the "poor" rest of us, who "stay home and watch TV" and aren't really expected to join the few "rich who go to the games to be seen," be maybe even just a little angrier than we already are at how our high-finance scammers have put the entire nation and a good part of the rest of the world in a deep hole? Maybe except for Brazil and a very few other places who have been paying as they go?

And of course "we" would get to pay the taxes to underwrite and pay off the "bonds" that would be the gift of a rough billion to the Rays owners, and a 30-year legacy to our children.

We hear that the franchise owners aren't afraid of any specific-performance city lawsuit to make THEM keep their contractual promises. If WE were on the hook for "performance," any bets who'd be in court tomorrow, forcing "us" to keep paying up, even if economic conditions had changed to what we see today and "the city" was in deeper hock than it already is?

And for all that, what's to keep "our" home team, which belongs lock, stock and barrel to the Tampa Bay Rays MLB franchise entity, from picking up and flapping away if the owners decide the grass is a little greener in some other sucker spot?

It's not like the way-vast majority of us is going to have a lot of discretionary income, for a lot of years to come.

[Rick K]

Holy Smokes.

The very same closed minded arrogants sychophantically patting each other on the back about how this vision will fail, all the while Aaron continues to bring insight and intelligence and fairness to a debate that is not represented by the people who post here. They represent a tiny minority. Most who disagree with them ignore them.

Aaron's observations about legal issues is dead on. There isn't a single case of a court being able to stop a Major pro sports franchise from moving, and all those who pretend otherwise are simply lying fools.

The reality is, the Rays are an important contributor to the local economy of St. Pete, Pinellas County, and the Bay Area. Intelligent visionaries find it perfectly reasonable to ask ourselves how we can better leverage the advantages created by the Rays at the same time we take steps to keep the team here longer into the future.

Those who refuse to entertain the questions or who deny the premise are permitted to speak their mind, but they are unlikely to contribute anything of significance to this community.

There are always anti-change, anti-growth, anti progress people. The world is divided. Doers and "anti's."

It doesn't surprise me very much that the Doers don't have much time to invest in posting here. The Anti's have nothing but time.

[Thomas]

Hey Rick - Happy Holidays.

For our fireside chat, will you tell us all about the Indians and how their publicly funded stadium saved Cleveland and their local economy? Or if you'd prefer you can read from any "stadium helps the economy" fiction. Goodie Gum Drops Ricky.

Thanks, best regards,
T (Still your biggest fan!)

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Happy days are here again as Rick has return to post his usual nonsense. First as to who is in the minority Rick were you deaf, dumb, and blind during the last go around? The red signs dominated the blue ones dramatically!!! The St. Pete Times own poll showed clearly who was in the minority. If you want an additional feel Rick read the comments after Aaron runs one of these stories. These are not the hard core posters we have here but more inclusive and the public is overwhelmingly against this corporate welfare for the already wealthy owners and players.

And Rick please...use some logic next time in your post. If you must resort to name calling don't fall into the trap of using your perspective as having any meaning. All the absolute BS about anti-change..anti-progress presumes your position is correct. I know it's hard for an arrogant man like you to debate from an open minded position but really...these anti remarks are growing tired and have become non sequitors. I mean if we have to resort to such juvenile name calling how about what POWW has accomplished...they have been PRO Waterfront...Pro fiscal sanity...While you Rick are ANTI-environmental, ANTI-conservation, and ANTI-free enterprise...or pro socialism...all this anti-pro crap is simply a red herring you wish to toss out foolishly.

As for the value of ANY PRO SPORTS FRANCHISE we have posted myriad studies FROM INDEPENDENT SOURCES which you choose to discredit. But recently we have the spate of articles from Aaron in which the VERY OWNERS OF THE RAYS...THE LEADERS OF THE MLB..COMMISSIONER..PRESIDENT...OTHER OWNERS..question the viability of an MLB franchise here in Tampa. Alas MLB is not sacred...it's not a sure fire winner...in fact it tends to perform best in the largest markets where there have been decades of tradition as well as a huge population base able to support a team in the MLB's horrible eompetitive environment. The NFL is now the national pastime...not baseball!!! Please pay attention to Thomas's posts. They are very enlightening about what has happened outside New York and Boston.

I can't believe that you are dumb enough to lobby for a huge public subsidy, for a business that has already received a HUGE public subsidy (and continues to receive one in the form of no property taxes) a business that the owners themselves have expressed SERIOUS doubt about the viability in our market place. That's just terrific Rick that you willing to gamble OUR money for your pipe dream. Yes go ahead call me anti gambling now.

[get-smart]

NO FREE STADIUM FOR THESE CARPETBAGGIN' HYMIES!!!

[Rick K]

Dear Ignorant E-Friends . . .

Thomas: I will not go down a pointless tangent with you, because each time I have done so in the past you have refused to acknowledge that you were wrong, after I have thrashed your presentation.

A Truly Concerned: Ha!

I do not advocate, as you say, "a huge public subsidy, for a business that has already received a HUGE public subsidy."

My understanding of basic arithmetic informs me that your claim is bogus untrue hyperbole.

The public money I advocated INVESTING to help bring about the paired redevelopment proposals would have returned several multiples of the original investment to the people of St. Petersburg.

That isn't a public subsidy at all, by any definition I can reasonably offer.

A Subsidy is what is happening at Albert Whited, Demen's Landing and Straub Park.

Investing in a stadium to host a MLB team is not a subsidy. It is only called a subsidy by spin meisters, dishonest brokers, and a few confused, helpless idiots.

Keep pretending that untruths are true.

I'll be in the real world, if you need me.

[Paul]

Welcome back Ricktum. We all missed your babbling (not). Have you signed the petitions to get the two new items onto the ballot so you can say 'yes' if / when a baseball stadium idea comes up again? I'll obviously be saying 'no' but just checking to make sure you are doing your part seeing as you're a St Pete resident like the rest of us opinionated people. I bet Nov '09 has quite the turnout.

[atrulycluelessmoron]

I'm anti-gambling, anti-progress and anti-social

let the Rays go elsewhere and we'll have more money to put green benches all over the waterfront area

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

And may I add anti-intellectual to your list atrulycluessmoron..at least you have named yourself properly. Perhaps due to your own laziness you have not availed yourself of the Saturday morning market, or any of our museums...or if you took the time to eat at one of the several waterfront outdoor dining spots such as the Parkshore Grill or Moon Over the Water you will enjoy a dining experience similar to a very attractive European city. I have yet to see the green benches you allude to but I have seen a wonderfully diverse group of pleased residents and tourists enjoying our ALREADY fabulous downtown. Like we need MLB...PLUUUULEEEZEEE Get your head out your posterior moron.

Rick check the books and you will see that the city has far from made money on baseball..unless you're still trying to float those bogus multiplier effects from the people who drive over the bridge...spend ALLL their money in the Trop eating the convenient food, drinking their beverages in the suites and buying their souvenirs and Rays gears thereby sending even MORE money to New York...not St. Pete!!!!

[Thomas]

Wouldn't it be nice to look at the Sales Tax Receipts from Sep-Oct 08 vs Sep-Oct 07.

We might see exactly what "several multiples" the Rays were able to deliver. Surely we'll see a massive increase in total Sales Tax Receipts for St. Pete since the Rays provide such a huge economic impact.

How about some real, tangible numbers instead of RhetoRick.

Best Regards,
T

[Econ 101]

Thomas proposition is EXACTLY wrong. The correct way to measure the impact of the Rays' recent post season run would be to determine WHAT PORTION Of retail sales downtown was related to the Rays. Looking at TOTALS from one year to the next is not only bad economics, it is going to lead the lazy to false conclusions.

[atrulyconcernedcitizent]

Econ 101,

It would be very interesting but I suspect also very expensive to commission a TRUE/ UNBIASED economic study of those downtown sales receipts. But Thomas still has a VERY VALID point!

Unless the sales tax revenue has gone up dramtically downtown there is NO SIGNIFICANT multiplier from the Rays.
I suppose you could use even more conjecture and say what if the sales taxes would have been DOWN because of the economy if it weren't for the Rays. But honestly I don't understand what it is with you baseball fans. I love to go out to the ballpark and I understand the bragging rights after a World Series...but really Econ 101 there are SOOOOO MANY VALID INDEPENDENT UNBIASED studies already performed...including one in our state by Holy Cross University's Econ dept which DID MEASURE all the variables you discussed and came to the the conclusion that Thomas suggested. The Marlins/Dolphins/Bucs/Rays/Magic have no real major impact on our economy. Of course perhaps you are like Rick and have some paranoid cockamie charge that a Northeaster University with no dog in the fight was somehow biased!!!
Sports Franchises are not major industries in local markets. They do not generate employment multipliers like the type you would find in NAIC codes. They are NOT MAJOR INDUSTRIES like phosphate..farming...fishing..or TOURISM!!!!! As I believe it was again Thomas who first pointed out...check out the vistors to the Dali Museum. Check out how many of them are natives and how many are from out of state and how many are FOREIGNERS..people who really drop some multiplying money in our economy, not Tampa Bay residents who spend all of their money associated with baseball at the Trop...which like ALLL MLB venues is set up to get the food and beverage money as well as the tickets/ advertising / souvenirs...etc.

As for Rick again you fail to answer to germain points I made and instead choose to try anc split hairs over investment versus subsidy.
1.) You have yet to respond to the fact that by EVERY QUANTIFIABLE MEASURING STANDARD your position is in the MINORITY.

2.) What kind of buffoorn advocates INVESTMENT/SUBSIDY...call it what you want...in a business where the owners and others connected with that business express SERIOUS DOUBT ABOUT THE VIABILITY OF THAT BUSINESS. Rick you were just an idiot...but politicians and others who had the opportunity to protect our INVESTMENTS were derelict in their duty...even talking about the huge incredibly risky "paired proposals" you touted sooo emotionally.

The team is not even sure MLB will work in the Tampa market..and the selected developer was a subisidiary of the now failed Lehman Brothers a fact that was well known, and completley reported when the city made one of the most horrid decisions in it's history.

[atrulyconcernedcitizent]

Econ 101,

It would be very interesting but I suspect also very expensive to commission a TRUE/ UNBIASED economic study of those downtown sales receipts. But Thomas still has a VERY VALID point!

Unless the sales tax revenue has gone up dramtically downtown there is NO SIGNIFICANT multiplier from the Rays.
I suppose you could use even more conjecture and say what if the sales taxes would have been DOWN because of the economy if it weren't for the Rays. But honestly I don't understand what it is with you baseball fans. I love to go out to the ballpark and I understand the bragging rights after a World Series...but really Econ 101 there are SOOOOO MANY VALID INDEPENDENT UNBIASED studies already performed...including one in our state by Holy Cross University's Econ dept which DID MEASURE all the variables you discussed and came to the the conclusion that Thomas suggested. The Marlins/Dolphins/Bucs/Rays/Magic have no real major impact on our economy. Of course perhaps you are like Rick and have some paranoid cockamie charge that a Northeaster University with no dog in the fight was somehow biased!!!
Sports Franchises are not major industries in local markets. They do not generate employment multipliers like the type you would find in NAIC codes. They are NOT MAJOR INDUSTRIES like phosphate..farming...fishing..or TOURISM!!!!! As I believe it was again Thomas who first pointed out...check out the vistors to the Dali Museum. Check out how many of them are natives and how many are from out of state and how many are FOREIGNERS..people who really drop some multiplying money in our economy, not Tampa Bay residents who spend all of their money associated with baseball at the Trop...which like ALLL MLB venues is set up to get the food and beverage money as well as the tickets/ advertising / souvenirs...etc.

As for Rick again you fail to answer to germain points I made and instead choose to try anc split hairs over investment versus subsidy.
1.) You have yet to respond to the fact that by EVERY QUANTIFIABLE MEASURING STANDARD your position is in the MINORITY.

2.) What kind of buffoorn advocates INVESTMENT/SUBSIDY...call it what you want...in a business where the owners and others connected with that business express SERIOUS DOUBT ABOUT THE VIABILITY OF THAT BUSINESS. Rick you were just an idiot...but politicians and others who had the opportunity to protect our INVESTMENTS were derelict in their duty...even talking about the huge incredibly risky "paired proposals" you touted sooo emotionally.

The team is not even sure MLB will work in the Tampa market..and the selected developer was a subisidiary of the now failed Lehman Brothers a fact that was well known, and completley reported when the city made one of the most horrid decisions in it's history.

[Thomas]

Econ 101,

Actually my comparison is spot on. The Rays are, in Rick's exact words: "an important contributor to the local economy of St. Pete, Pinellas County, and the Bay Area."

If that's true we can't limit our portion to just downtown - because the Rays are advertised as a huge economic engine for the entire city, county, and region (see above quote).

Matt Silverman told Mr. Sharockman in his Oct 30 Season Wrap-Up "Through this postseason run, the community has been been able to recognize the economic impact of baseball firsthand."

Not downtown exclusively, but the entire community; and for the postseason period.

Let's go ahead and break open the books and have a look at this impact - or lack thereof. There should be a massive, exponential, easily detected increase according to Matt and Rick.

Well, show it to me - Shut me up with it. If it's there, I'll never oppose any Rays plan again.

[Rick K]

Thomas, you are an ignornat fool with no hope.

Here is one teeny tiny sliver to consider.

Each of the Rays post season home games created, among other things, a large uptick in demand for ground transportation, primarily taxicabs and limousine company vehicles. At a single playoff game, more than one hundred chauffeur-driven vehicles dropped off passengers at the Trop.

Not a single dime of that money (probably about $350 for a sedan and upwards of $500 per limousine) collected by the local limo companies was subject to sales tax collections.

Fools who are attempting to distort, rather than measure, true economic impact employ bad measurements like "change in total sales tax collections." No competent court anywhere would recognize that measurement as proving anything remotely related to the real impact of the Rays' post season run on the local economy.

That Thomas continues to advocate for using statistics that are gauranteed to NOT give us reliable information tells us everything we need to know about his participation in these discussions.

He wants the debate to be about distortions instead of real facts.