Jeff Lyash at Tiger Bay today

My hunch is he'll split his time talking about energy and the stadium. My hunch, also, is that most of it will be boring. I'll report back this afternoon.

UPDATE: Back from Tiger Bay. First, I'm sorry I said it would be boring. I didn't mean that as a slight. I should have said I don't think news will be made. And in that regard, I was right. Lyash spent his first 20 minutes talking about energy policy.

(This is a stadium blog, but the big controversy there is Progress Energy Florida wants to build a new $17 billion nuclear power plant and charge customers for some of the construction costs up front). I was going to try to punk the Times' business editor and say Lyash announced that the utility was abandoning the plan amid public outcry, but that seemed like too much work.

Anyway, on the stadium Lyash continued to hit all the talking points -- nothing is off the table, interim reports due out in June, etc.

He also offered up the best one-liner of the afternoon.

"It actually is easier to build a nuclear power plant than it is to build a baseball stadium."

Seen in the audience: Hal Freedman and Hamilton Hanson of POWW Hugh Tulloch and Ed McGrath (who are no a part of POWW, but opposed the waterfront stadium) and former Pinellas County commissioner and ABC member Bob Stewart.

-- Aaron Sharockman, Times Staff Writer

Comments

[Thomas]

Meetings like that must make Norwegian beer taste even better.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Thomas,

I always love your posts...but forgive my ignorance...Norwegian beer?

[Thomas]

Aaron took a vacation to a Scandinavia and posted a great picture of him enjoying a local Norwegian brew.

It wasn't that long ago, but it was def pre-Twitter mania. So mega-bonus for Ballpark Frankness being the first to blur the line between "Blog" and "Tweet".

Anyway, I was just clowning around trying to imply that if I had to sit through the Tiger Bay meeting, I'd def be ready for a cold one.

Come to think of it, sitting through today's 5-1 (so far) game... perhaps a brew is a good idea.

[Scaramouche]

Blog + Tweet = BLEET, the sound a sheeple makes.

Where do I send my "share" of the $17 billion that MIGHT get spent on nuke plants? and my "share" of maybe a billion for a new stadium for The Raypists?

[RJ]

Why does POWW have such a hard-on for the Rays? Shouldn't they be worried about the pier at this point?

They said they were worried about the waterfront and now they want to try to stop baseball from being a part of this community. Rays fans and those who understand the benefits of having a Major League team here need to voice their opinion and not let the retirees of POWW try to end baseball here. We need to be positive, and think of growth rather than be the angry cranks of POWW.

[Scaramouche]

RJ, RJ, time to tune in to Rush and have your thoughts readjusted. Baseball here is Great! The Rays have a proveably functional place to play, and their owners have enough CASH MONEY of their own to write a check for their very own field of dreams. They also have stated repeatedly in their earlier and less cautious materials released to the public officials that they plan to "monetize" and "securitize" their "interest" for all they're worth -- or something like that -- and as former Masters of the Universe, they surely know how to do that, so they can find PRIVATE CAPITAL to help them live even larger than they already do.

The other MLB "pump and dump" drills, where The Taxpayers (as opposed to "the fans" and "those who understand," who also want to freeload off those Taxpayers), have been great examples of what has happened on a bigger scale in the larger economy.

Oh, the "capitalist" hates "socialism," except the part where he gets to "socialize" all his costs and risks, and "privatize" all the profits of the deal. He calls it "leverage." Some of us call it "theft." "Legal," of course, because the legislators they pal around with write the laws that define what's "legal."

And we the taxpayers are paying a pretty good amount already, every year, to keep the Trop in operation, right? And part of the Great New stadium Deal is that we would still have to pay off the money and interest from the municipal bonds that financed the Trop, Right?

And the People of San Francisco, who got a chance to vote, told the MLB franchise owners there to build their own stadium, and they managed to do so just fine after every other place they tried to move to said democratically, "No Way!" to public-stadium funding. And how about the government and people of St. Louis, hey? Seems THAT new stadium went up in 2006 without the hands of Bud Selig getting into the pants of the public.

I'm not from POWW, but I am pretty sure they don't have a particular beef with the Rays, particularly the players. They just have the "wild" idea that they and the rest of us Pinellas residents have a right to have some say in how a huge piece of their community's assets and future income get "allocated." Especially since the betting is on there being a shortage of basic-need revenues for quite some time, and a billion-dollar stadium for "the rich people to go to be seen, and the poor people stay home and watch TV" is not a lay-down wonderful allocation of those scarce assets. Unless of course you are a carpetbagging New Yorker who happens to have bought an MLB franchise with the Funny Money you got from selling out at a good time from the "derivative" business, or a baseball fan from Tampa who wants the people of Pinellas to provide him with a "pleasant night out in the open air." And to which he contributes NOTHING, except the price of a ticket that goes to the MLB Franchise. The non-fans and ordinary taxpayers put in the hugest vast amount of the money, they ought have a say. If you are a Pinellas Rays fan, I guess it's okay with you to buy a $50 or $100 night at the ballpark, but does it bother you at all that EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN PINELLAS WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO THE TUNE OF A COUPLE OF THOUSAND BUCKS EACH TO PAY FOR THE GREAT NEW STADIUM?

What ever happened to those "Let Us Vote!" signs? I wish I'd gotten one from the Rays people who were passing them out, way back before that patently losing theme got changed by the owners' PR machinery.

[Betty]

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Betty

http://desktopmemory.info

[Ken]

RJ: You must be new here. This site is where all the cranky old ignorant b*stards talk to themselves and shout down anybody who disagrees with them. If you're actually seeking to add to the public dialogue in a constructive way -- you know, honest and informed debate about an important matter of public policy -- you'll have to find a different blog. So sorry.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Ken,

What do you call honest, informed debate?..Is this informing our debate?

" cranky old ignorant b*stards talk to themselves and shout down anybody who disagrees with them. If you're actually seeking to add to the public dialogue in a constructive way -- you know, honest and informed debate about an important matter of public policy --"

Ken I have yet to see one FACT in your post. Unlike Thomas, myself, Mouche and others who use historical data and research you've just spewed NOTHING but your opinion.
And you know what they say about opinions Ken :-)

How about some carefully reseached studies that show the benefits of the Rays to our fair city...not crap put out by the Rays who stand to make a half billion on the deal...but independent research from respected economists from Universities around the nation.

Or maybe Ken you go the route of Thomas and show the statistics of attendance and won loss records for small market teams that just built new stadiums. Those are FACTS Ken...not some crybaby opinion like you've just posted...And so I challenge you Ken...come to this blog just ONCE with a documented FACT to support your opinions.

[Thomas]

Hmmm, I think I might be leaning to Ken's side on this one.

"POWW has a hard-on for the Rays" does sound like informed and honest debate. You'd have to admit, RJ is adding "to the public dialogue in a constructive way" with that take.

But Ken one quick thing, I may be cranky and you can call me a b*stard if you'd like - but seriously - I just turned 30, so i'm not old or a retiree.

Can you and RJ update your next "educated/constructive/hard-on" post to reflect my demographic.

Thanks in advance.
T

[Paul]

I have to point out that I've been what Ken refers to as a 'cranky old ignorant b*stard' on here for well over a year... yet, I'm only 39 and certainly don't consider myself old. Can you be more specific Ken? When do opinions stop counting due to age? What is the age I have to be, to qualify for this elite b*stard group you speak of?

On the other hand, Ken's posting does reek of 'rick k' ... who still owes me an answer on whether or not he's signed the 2 petitions for a possible november referendum. That's the 12th time I've asked you Rickster.

Ahh these coming elections will be so much different than the last 'hide the billion dollar deal until the day after the elections' rouse ... seeing as how we know what the City, Council and Mayor are up to this time around. Or so we think.

I can't wait to see what Armstrong springs on us, 'cause you know there are back room deals brewing, its just too quiet lately. No one just lets a half billion dollar deal go quiet. Someone break the news. Aaron, Christina, doesn't 'getting the scoop' happen anymore?