Study on renovating the Trop should come this month

Meant to post this earlier, but I got caught up in other things. Rays VP Michael Kalt says the team's analysis of what it would take, and how much it would cost, to renovate Tropicana Field likely will be released this month.

The report was expected to come in May, but the group A Baseball Community canceled its monthly meeting. The Rays say they are using the extra time to produce a more thorough report.

The next ABC meeting is scheduled June 15. (Of course, that's when I'm on vacation. Sigh).

Aaron Sharockman, Times Staff Writer

Comments

[Bobby Fenton]

I was pleased to see the blurb in the paper yesterday that Toytown is probably a no go because deep pilings on that land are a much bigger problem than people first realized. I didn't like the idea of that site to begin with.

[John]

If you honestly think there are still serious discussions going on about a future site, you're kidding yourself. The site is already selected. The rest of what's going on is simply a dog & pony show.

Al Lang is off limits, as stated by the Rays themselves.

The current Trop location can't draw enough fans from the area.

Toytown is contaminated.

The owners of Derby Lane have ZERO interest in selling, as they are making money hand over fist, not to mention the traffic nightmare and noise issue relating to the Riviera Bay neighborhood right behind the track.

Both the St. Pete/Clearwater & Albert Whitted sites are protected by the FAA.

Tampa is about to cut 140 million from the budget and fire 900 employees, they can't afford a billion dollar investment with their degraded credit rating.

The sod farm site is in-accessible for the most part and offers zero nearby ammenities.

That leaves Carillon.

The Carillon site is big enough, with best access, and ammenities/parking/hotels already in place. Combine this with the opportunity of re-developing the Trop site, and you have your new stadium.

Now all the Rays have to do, is pay for it with their own damn money.

[Bobby Fenton]

It does seem like Carillon is just about made to order as far as Pinellas sites go. Tampa would be best, but Carillon is easily the best on the Pinellas side.

[Scaramouche]

Glad to see this blog is still a little active. I thought maybe it had gone the way of Troxblog, with Aaron having double-secret investigative duties, or maybe just all on about how the taxpayers will be funding the (unnecessary?) "new stadium" at a new location. His Times story said something about how these other sites are going to be "more expensive for taxpayers."

Does he know something about "foregone conclusions" and secret deals that he's keeping mum about, as to who's ponying up the bucks for this boondoggle? Hey? Or do we have to wait for the October Surprise enemah?

Bobby, you got an opinion, everybody has one of those. But you got no horse in this race, being from Tampa and all, and thus expempt from the burdens you wish so blithely on us Pinellans so you can have a "pleasant night at the (open-air, rolling-roof) ballpark" with the rest of the "rich, who will go there to be seen, while the [taxpayers and other ] poor people stay home and watch TV."

And just forget about how the franchise owners in San Fran and St. Pouis were able to use THEIR financial wizardry to build their own dam' stadium without bleeding the public nearer to death.

But what I suddenly wonder is why, now that land values are down, the City and/or County doesn't just do what the Supreme Court said is just peachy for them in this non-socialist, non-central-planning, pure-market-capitalism country to do: Declare that a billion dollar wealth transfer to a bunch of Noo Yawk money guys is a "public purpose," and CONDEMN Carillon or Derby Lane for the waning cloud of baseball "fans."

Nothing to it! Pay the present owners a pittance, kick them off their land, demolish their structures and pile up something that will in financial form as well as archtecturally resemble the Wonderful New Yankee Stadium, where they can't fill the seats by giving the tickets away. That would be pure and just and in accord with the best traditions of the American Way.

Ooh, I can hardly wait for the Rays' "study" of why the Trop is so totally inadequate for their greed expectations (though last year at least, demonstrably a successful place to play The Great Game of Baseball.) I am sure it will be a glossy monument to fiscal honesty and public probity.

[Nate]

Don't be too quick to congratulate Giants ownership for building their own stadium. Baseball Prospectus has an article about the costs behind stadium projects that people tend to gloss over. Here's the link (subscription required)
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4591

In the case of PacBell, the biggest costs to the public were the land given to the Giants to build on, and the property tax exemption. That is one enormous gift from the county, and a pretty big opportunity cost in the form of foregone tax revenue. The same myth is out there regarding Joe Robbie Stadium. Joe Robbie built the stadium, but the land was given to him by Dade County. He didn't buy it. There's no such thing as a 100% privately financed stadium. It's not possible.

[Scaramouche]

Yah sure ya betcha, Nate, and here's another site with a little research on at least the PacBell stadium:

Says the reporter,

"SBC Park cost $315 million. After selling the naming rights for $50 million and raising about $90 million through personal seat licenses and corporate sponsorships, the Giants borrowed $175 million for construction. The team pays about $17 million annually to service that debt, and will for another 15 years."

And says one local politician with some sense of what "governance" means,

"Quentin Kopp opposed public financing for a new Giants stadium as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and later as state senator. But he led the charge for a successful ballot initiative which promised the Giants would build a stadium on their own. He says the way the new park was built proves the value of private enterprise.

'From the standpoint of the integrity of taxpayer money, that simple notion of letting public monies be used for police, fire, the other regular services of local government, has been preserved -- not using those monies to pay for an enterprise that's able to generate its own profits,' Kopp said."

And the writer drones on:

"It's a mistake, agrees Stanford University economist Roger Noll, to think of SBC Park as purely private. Noll, who studies sports economics, says the Giants' $175 million investment is paying off for now because the park is bringing in more than enough money to cover debts. But Noll sees signs the new-park honeymoon may be coming to an end. The Giants are having an off year on the field, and for the first time some games are not being sold out. Noll says trouble looms.

"Most likely, as one gets out past 10 years, the interest costs will in fact exceed the revenue enhancement," said Noll. "The reason teams have in fact asked for public subsidies is that THESE STADIUMS AREN'T WORTH IT. (EMPHASIS ADDED) They actually cost more than the incremental revenues they generate over their lifetimes. And that's why they go for public subsidies. It's not really a good business investment over the long run."

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/05/14_gordonj_sanfranpark/

And there's this, there, too:

""From the standpoint of the integrity of taxpayer money, that simple notion of letting public monies be used for police, fire, the other regular services of local government, has been preserved -- not using those monies to pay for an enterprise that's able to generate its own profits," Kopp said.

While the team did pay for construction of SBC Park, it also benefited from significant public contributions. The park sits on city-owned property at the foot of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, near downtown. It's probably some of the most expensive real estate in the country, and the Giants get to use it for free. The city also kicked in $80 million in infrastructure improvements.

Joel Ventresca headed up a citizens group called "Committee to Stop the Giveaway," which opposed public financing of a baseball stadium in San Francisco. He says residents are paying indirect costs -- for city services to the park, and the loss of land that could be used for housing or industry that would generate more tax dollars than baseball.

"For PR purposes they claim it's privately financed," said Ventresca. "In reality when you look at the hard numbers, the stadium in San Francisco is heavily subsidized by the local taxpayers. And that means tax dollars are going to support this sports team and their sports palace instead of those tax dollars going for public education, public parks or other types of high-need services that exist here in San Francisco."

So I guess MLB is kind of like herpes -- once it infects the body politic, there's no getting rid of it short of death of the community.

And thus we come around again to the fundamental question of what kind of society we live in -- one where our "representatives" can skulk around and decide where to dump all those now vanishingly scarce taxpayer dollars for the benefit of an essentially freeloading fraction of the community and a bunch of carpetbaggers, without any plebiscite on the matter, or a place where "the poor people" get an actual voice in major decisions that may handcuff the community for decades to come.

Like the article said,

"If the political system refuses to provide a large subsidy, as happened in San Francisco when the Giants lost four consecutive ballot measures to get a subsidy, then it may be the case that the team will find alternative sources of financing to pay for most of the stadium," he said.

"The problem with that strategy, said Noll, is that more cities want baseball teams than there are baseball teams. Force a team to go private and you may lose it to another city -- if that city is willing to provide a big taxpayer subsidy. In the current market, though, there doesn't appear to be a surplus of cities willing to pay the price.

"In Missouri, the Legislature took the risk, rejecting a bid by the St. Louis Cardinals for a hefty subsidy for a new stadium. Like the Giants, the Cardinals are paying for a new stadium mostly on their own. St. Louis-based sports economist Patrick Rishe said St. Louis and San Francisco could spell the end of the massive public stadium subsidies of the 1990s."

Which city now has the will and the money to take the MLB's dangling bait, hook, line and sinker? The Trop, per the players' own unguarded statements, is a great venue. The owners already have their hooks into us for a bundle every year. Posters here seem to feel that the contract they inked to play through the next decade there is just a mere bagatelle, to be ignored for a little blood money, but that's up to the City Fathers and their will to enforce it. And tell me why, in the face of all the bare-faced "socialized-cost, privatized profit" ripoffs that via TARP and "stimulus," us taxpayers are and will be paying down for generations, "we" owe these people a new stadium that is simply a way to pad the "value" of their asset with public bucks?

[Bobby Fenton]

Sacramouche, you are truly a piece of work.Don't tell me I "got no horse in this race" because I live in Tampa. That's ridiculous and inane. You said that I, and I quote, "am exempt from the burdens you wish so blithely on us Pinellans". Where do you come up with this stuff? And whoever said I was all for all-out public funding and giving the team absolutely anything it wants straight from public money? I never said that. And I don't wish anything on Pinellas, trust me. Plus, I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination, not even close. I honestly don't know where the hell you get the small portion of your posts that I actually read (usually when I see my name in there).

Honestly, when you want to have a real discussion one day, and post accordingly, that'll be great. Until then, we will continue to ignore your interminable, maniacal rants and lectures to the rest of us about how crazy we are to actually foresee the possibility of maybe BOTH our area and the baseball team benefiting and about how evil the "carpetbaggers" from the Rays are.

[Nate]

Scaramouche, that article you posted did a nice job supporting my post. If a city or county is going to give land or money to a construction project doesn't it seem reasonable to give that municipality ownership in the partnership? Afterall they are contributing something, no? Thats not good business for a city though.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Bobby,

I take your point about "name calling" I believe "mouche's" point was simply that you are not a taxpayer in Pinellas and therefore are not "paying" for any publicly subsidized stadium in our fair county.

I will grant that you have been on the record as saying that you would be happy as a Hillsborough taxpayer to ante up should the team come to Tampa.

Since you were so ardently supportive of the original "paired proposals", which hindsight being 20-20 can obviously be viewed as a disaster had they succeeded, I think many of us assume you do support public financing.

Those of us who refer to "carpetbaggers" do so mainly to offset the Mayor of St. Pete's totally disingenuous editorial reply during the heat of this battle that framed the New York "INVESTORS" care for our community being the genisis of the ill fated waterfront proposal.

Now that we realize AFTER the fact that the Rays and MLB question whether MLB can flourish ANYWHERE in Tampa Bay..and that their OWN demographic studies reveal that the current Trop site is inappropriate and that downtown would have been even WORSE given that 180 degrees of that site is totally without population...I suspect in a perverse manner the Mayor may have been correct. The Rays ownership thought SOOOO much of St. Pete that it was willing to place an iconic stadium on our waterfront...KNOWING THAT IT WAS A HORRIBLE LOCATION...willing to gamble that they could flip the franchise for a quick quarter to a half billion profit (simply refer to historical patterns for that figure)..and so that "willingness to gamble" makes them "care" about St. Petersburg. After all once the stadium was built and our waterfront screwed for our lifetimes..MLB would presumbably be stuck....perhaps presumbably is the operative word here though Bobby since everyone is so certain MLB can break contracts whenever they choose.

In conclusion let's see where we all can agree. It is better to have a team than to not have one. That's about it! Now that the waterfront has been ruled off limits as a potential site we are down to how it is financed and the actual economic impact which are what is being debated. Those against public financing have presented ENDLESS INDEPENDENT studies that come from the economic departments of prestigious universities, numerous independent think tanks including some very pro business conservative ones like the CATO institute...those in favor have largely presented nothing except for Rick K's eminent economic expertise and perhaps a few studies performed under the auspices of MLB.

And so IMHO if it is simpy free land..the Toytown landfill..and NOTHING MORE that is given to the Rays..I'm cool...go ahead and build your stadium. Given that this business can pay athletes who happily would play for 50,000 to 100,000 dollars if that was all the market(free enterprise not public welfare for the rich playes and owners) would bear..multi millions every year then they obviously can "afford" to build their own stadia. The fact that the MLB business model is so totally screwed up because of a lack of a salary cap, or owners with the fortitude to stand up during the player's strike should not be seen as an excuse to dump the outrageous salaries and ownership profits on the backs of the taxpayers.

Lastly Bobby...I speak as a former sportscaster to a current one...as the late great Chris Thomas said repeatedly on his show...the "Golden" age of sports is over! The golden goose has finally been consumed by the greedy (you can pick a kinder gentler term if you wish) owners and players. I remember watching the Cincinnati Reds as a third grader at old Crosley Field...built by Powell Crosley not the Cincinnati taxpayers. Only a few of the Reds made enough money to live on their salaries while the majority of the team had to get offseason jobs. Everybody still enjoyed the product...in fact it was superior to today's product...the BEST players started...not simply those with the BEST contracts. I don't suggest we'll go all the way back to those days...but as Chris pointed out..the open spigot is being shut off...and I for one think it will benefit not just the taxpayers...but the sportsfans as well!

[Keith]

The one thing neither scaramouche nor atrulyconcerned ever seem to address is the fact that about 30 of the 32 MLB franchises are currently playing in ballparks built to a large extent with public subsidies of one kind or another (and it's debatable whether you can truly say that the other 2 were "privately" financed). If those "independent studies" from "presitigious universities" are to be believed, then an awful lot of rather large city governments have been acting rather stupidly. That is possible. Of course, it's also possible that those few studies (which, if you've read them as I have, are filled with a large amount of fallacious logic and nonsense that is obviously there to support a preconceived point of view --I mean really, the Cato Institute?) are absolutely wrong in light of the apparent consensus among uban civic leaders around the country that having an MLB franchise is a very valuable thing that is worth considerable public subsidy. Tax dollars subsidize private enterprise all the time -- airports, seaports, railyards and stations cost local, state, and federal governments trillions of dollars a year so that private airlines, cargo companies, shipping companies, and railroads can do business. Governments also spend billions on added infrastructure (highway interchanges and spurs, sewer/water/etc) to serve private manufacturers whose utility payments and taxes will never cover the costs of that added infrastructure. Governments also spend billions of tax dollars on marketing and advertising to encourage shopppers and tourists to visit their cities so that they can shop and eat at private for-profit businesses within the city. Is all of this done because the voters were foolish enough NOT to vote scaramouche and his overly simplistic no-taxes-for-private-enterprise attitude into office? Or is it more likely that smart, responsible people recognize that public tax subsidies are a good thing when they support a private enterprise that will bring things like jobs and commercial activity (and yes, tax revenue) to a city that, but for those subsidies, would not have them?

[Keith]

By the way, the CATO Institute is absolutely NOT pro-business, nor is it independent. It's a right-wing libertarian think tank whose mission is NOT academic study and research, but the support of a very particular political agenda. If you asked the CATO folks, they'd probably tell you that in their heart-of-hearts, they believe that no taxes should be collected or spent for any purpose, even for things like police and firefighters.

[Scaramouche]

Sounds like Rick has come back, maybe?

Yeah, we the people elected the clowns that brought us the unregulated derivatives game and the rest of the bubble-blowing machinery that makes it, like, totally unwise to spend a billion Pinnelas Bucks (that's One Hundred Billion Pinellas Pennies) on a "single-use" stadium. Like the experts in "regulatory and legislative capture" who via back-slapping and campaign contributions and lobbyist "participation" in the writing of budgets and legislation are "democratic" functions? Yep, tax dollars, extracted by the power of the state, DO fund all kinds of stuff from sewers to schools to public health to police to fire to streets and bridges and a lot of things like ports and airports (which also get some payback from the profit-makers who benefit from the public largesse.) And right at the moment, it would appear there is a dearth of public money for the kinds of services that keep people alive. Oh, they're just NEEDY people and kids needing socialization and education, not EXCITING people like the "rich, who will go to the ballpark to be seen, the poor can stay home and watch TV." So they are EXPENDABLE (after their tax dollars have been extracted.) Those roads 'n such work for pretty much EVERYBODY, not just a few contractors and baseball players and franchise owners and restauranteurs and bar owners. Who by putting in "their share" of taxes, get just an ENORMOUS return-on-investment. What does the relative pittance in taxes paid by even the widest net of "stadium beneficiaries" come to, compared to the million other taxpayers who get, I guess, the "prestige" of "having an MLB franchise" parasiting off the economy?

Whether or not you view the Cato Institute, that has pretty much spoken up for every predatory move of the guv'mint of the last 30 years, as being pro-business is a nice straw man schtick. Your mind-reading act of how that bunch supposedly feels about taxes is as phony as the mentalist routines in Vegas shows. The fact is that the "elected representatives" are buyable, and as in New York and every other place in recent memory where the MLB scam was "successfully" run, "the public" ends up holding the end of the stick that was used to deal with the dog doodoo.

The "Tax Pot" is, as you full well know, subject to raids by "special interests" like the Rays owners, down here from Noo Yawk to see if they can get away with boosting the "value" of their flippable franchise with an enormous infusion of taxpayer money.

Those 32 screw jobs (which included varying degrees of out-of-pocket from the franchise owners, depending on how successful they were in "working the system") pretty much way predate the time that SF and St. L stadiums went up. And almost every one of them incorporates an end-around, hidden-ball bit of legerdemain where the "powers that be" act pretty clearly against the net public interest in favor of the few. You can find (and sometimes not even have to buy) an "expert" opinion on any side of any issue, humans being the liars they are (and that includes, to varying degrees, you and me, "Keith"). But those who have done the research on the available concatenations and parsing of facts have pretty much come to the conclusion that sports franchises and stadiums might be a "nice to have," for civic pride and the profit of portions of the community, but do not pay their way. They are bubble investments, with the franchise owners looking to increase the apparent "value" of the franchise at public expense.

When the bubble economy was inflating, everyone assumed the good times would continue forever. And since all that financial paper wealth would just keep on growing, hey, "we" can afford a little corruption and waste and fraud, right? Things, believe it or not, have changed.

Some public money went into the SF and St. L mix, but it is a puny fraction compared to what the Rays owners have "offered," which was pretty much pre-payment of rent on a new facility. And we are STILL paying off the last "great ideas" like the Trop and other "developments" that were supposed to "vitalize" our fair city, which from the perspective of a person living downtown looks pretty vital already.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Keith,

These were not just a "few" studies but if I thought it would change your mnd I could come up with dozens in short order. The fact that YOU dispute the facts (tax receipts which are empircally measurable not theoretical) in studies like the one made here specifically in Florida by Holy Cross, a well respected Northeastern School with no dog in the fight..says more about your expertise than that of the myriad economists.
How do you respond to the idiots in Seattle who literally had to listen to the Sonics quoting your fairy tales about economic value on the way into town and then on the way to Oklahoma City said their franchise meant nothing economically to Seattle. Which is it?
Do you realize Keith that the vast majority of recent stadiums were voted against by the populace only to be slipped in through back channels by the vested interests "mouche" has pointed out. The most disgusting example of this was in Pittsburgh where the citizens rejected the idea numerous times before the pols could slip it through.

To compare an airport or highway infrastructure to baseball is absurd...81 dates for less than 50% of the population versus EVERYDAY use by ALL the citizens. As for subsizing industries that help the economy that is precisely my point.
The Rays have a payroll of over 50 million which is spread among 30 or so athletes who then invest it wherever the highest rate of return might be...perhaps offshore...the owners do the same thing with all the revenue they take in...which leaves some small benefit for the Vinoy which houses the tourists and visiting teams. Any BS about helping the restaurants is bogus...first of all there is tranferrence...that is money that would have been spent anyway..there is only sooo much disposable income...but worst of all is the fact that MLB has now concocted stadia with all of the food service self contained...the idea there is for MLB to consume every last dollar from the fan..not generate additional revenue for nearby business. That is certainly nice but nowhere near worth the quarter of a billion (a truly lowball estimate) the New Yorkers were seeking the first time around.

Now take Jabil or another industry that actually provides JOBS!!! Spread that same 50 million payroll around to 1000 workers who each make $50,000...then you'd have some real impact.
Keith you simply don't wish to view the facts!

And speaking of FACTS Keith...could you or Bobby or anyone reconcile these facts for me.
1.) Meeting in secret with our Mayor the New Yorkers float a proposal to change our historic waterfront without so much as even gauging public interest or environmental concerns.
2.) They plan to usurp over a quarter of a billion dollars of tax revenue..an INCREDIBLY conservative figure if you look at Kalt's New York projects..
3.) The deal fails and then Silverman and several MLB luminaries mention within WEEKS OF THAT failure that TAMPA BAY (not just St. Pete) might not be viable for MLB. And then within months of the announcement state that the Trop is a horrible site because of population location and demographics(meaning their original idea had to be EVEN WORSE..consider 180 degrees of NO population...BASED ON THEIR statements Al Lang is possibly the WORST site that could have been considered.
Keith PLEASE answer these two questions...1.) How is it that they complain about the population around the Trop yet originally wanted to locate in a far worse area (by THEIR defintion based on population. 2. If they had started sooner in their quest with the aid of Baker...who would have been stuck with the tab for the paired proposals..in others words if this had come out of the chute in say 06..ground was broken and then we find out the developers have gone bankrupt and the retail value of the Trop location is NOWHERE NEAR what the Rays tried to foist on our citizenry?

[Robert H]

Fenton's irrelevant; a Concerned Citizen has a "do - nothing" agenda which he will always deny...by comparison, Scaramouche makes some valid points...all these studies which talk of population within a 30 minute drive....out of curiosity, what is the figure within a 45 minute drive ???? Perhaps might just include a vast portion of the Tampans who remain so provincial that they'll only attend a game if its in their own back yard or at least nearby so long as its funded by someone else's money.

I'd love to have the Bucs play in Pinellas and Bern's down the street, but I somehow find my way over the bridge to enjoy both...

Speaking of public land, I still say blow up Albert Witted and put the stadium there on public (free to the Rays )land. There's plenty of land for the stadium and parking, the waterfront stadium would be a St Petersburg jewel and recognized worldwide and that steady sucking sound of public dollars which continue to subsidize a small airport for the rich few would cease..

[Scaramouche]

Wow, the Times front-pages the "study" by the Rays franchise owner's consultant that says $471 million spent on COMPLETELY RE-BUILDING, not 'renovating,' the Trop would produce a "B-" facility. And that was several days ago. And not even a link to, let alone a reprint of, the article. And not a word of discussion or review of the "study."

Hey, Times people -- Why not be honest and just take down this site altogether? You've already edited down the "mission statement," to claim only Mr. Sharockman "offers the latest on the issue, focusing on the impact to taxpayers, the evolution of the Rays’ proposal and the politics unfolding behind the scenes," a little short of the original. Anyone going back through the archives will see that the skepticism of Mr. Sharockman about this grab for the public purse has vanished. Any particular reason? What's that again? "Freedom of the press only exists for those that own the presses."

Why does it smell like once again, the fix is in, and us small fry will once again get to feed the greed of the SOBs at the top? They must be heartened by the way two administrations have now kept the world safe for derivatives traders and sub-primers and petroleum and currency speculators (crude is down, gasolline is way up -- I'm sure there's a logical explanation), and cleared the path for the kinds of scams that got us to where there is no money for actual needed public services, REAL money as opposed to that stuff that is "created" by betting on both sides of the future of an electronic basket of "securities" based distantly on the selling prices and abilities to actually pay the mortgages every month of real estate.

Remember, these folks get to trade the Funny Munny from TARP and bailouts and their own predations for actual real goods and services created or provided by people in the Real Economy. And then split for parts unknown before the paper turns back into worthless paper.

Anyone really think the Rays franchise owners are public benefactors? Anyone want to start sending their Real Money to their offices at the Trop or to City Hall to help jump the value of a flippable franchise by half a billion or more?

Anybody give a toot at all any more, or has our ship been taken by the Borg, and "resistance is futile"?

[raymond]

Let's go RAYS!!!!

[For Ethical disclosures, inquiring minds want to know]

So, please describe all of the Times/Rays contracts. How much does the Rays' organization pay the Times for:
advertising
promotion
fundraising cosponsorship, etc.?

What are the corporate sponsorship terms of the Times of the Rays, MLB eg. suite, advertising in the dome, on line promotion of the Rays? When did the Times last disclose any of this info?

[JVNootz]

Does it not bother everyone else that the Yankees, mets, Jets and Giants all got new stadiums and the Rays can't get a new deal done for theirs? While I have grown fond of the Trop, I would love to have a legit baseball park to visit and soak up the Rays (no pun intended).

[raymond]

RE...10:58 That is none of your concern, if you liked baseball you would not be asking such a silly question...nuff said.

[Scaramouche]

Hey Nootz -- were you engaging in IRONY there? Those franchise's owners did a great job of end-running and ball-hiding to skate right past the, oh, democratic process that has someething to do with taxation without representation. Remember the reason for the REAL Tea Party in old Boston Harbor? I'm guessing you and "Raymond" don't even live within the "tax footprint" that will have to find some way to borrow half a billion or more and eventually pay it back with some pretty steep interest to give you freeloaders a "baseball experience" and the rest of us the shaft.

None of our concern? "If you liked baseball"? I like baseball and have for decades. What I don't like is the notion that a bunch of freeloaders want the taxpayers, all of them, to put up $5,000 or $10,000 for every man, woman and child in Pinellas County to buy a playfield for a few rich guys who can afford to buy their own stadium if they want it so bad.

As you put it, so glibly and simplistically, 'nuff said.

[Rick K]

A few easily verifiable facts, which prove quite inconvenient to the NIMBY's about.

Very, very few of the public subsidies given to the many college and pro sports venues, were put in place without voter approval.

Secondly, despite the exalted reverence that the no-nos at this site have for these reputed "economists" who love to pontificate about the lack of substantial benefits to the public from public subsidies of sports venues, of the more than 59 cases in the Federal court system involving the legality of public subsidies (each case of which included testimony by these "anti-stadia economists"), to date, NO US Court has accepted the factless arguments of the anti-stadia nuts.

None.

Zero.

Zip.

Actually, a quick review of the facts shows that some of the principle contentions of the no-nos are exactly the opposite of the true facts. In overwhelming majorities of the cases where US taxpayers have been asked to vote on public subsidies for sports venues, the public has voted in favor of the subsidies (though not always on the first ballot). Every time the Federal courts have considered the question, they have found the Zimbalist's of the "sports economics" world to be fundamentally wrong in their contention that the public does not receive benefits from public subsidies of sports venues.

Thanks.

[Scaramouche]

Rick, you know that as usual, you are just repeating the same disinformation and made-up factoids and flat-out falsehoods that you've trotted out since your apparent infatuation with the non-starter "paired development proposals" the Rays owners and Mayor sprang on the citizens back on Day One.

I especially love the gabble-gabble loop citation to "Federal Courts" as ultimate authorities determining "economic facts" about pro sports. Last I checked, NOBODY elects federal judges at any level. And except in your warped reading of cases that if anything either do not address or simply do not rule on the phony "factual issues" you want to establish as "judicially true," there ain't no case that says what you say all those cases say.

As to all those subsidies handed out by politicians to private sports franchises, your claim that all these giveaways were done "with voter approval" may only be remotely judged short of "pants on fire" false in that again warped view you hold that once elected, politicians are ipso facto, Q.E.D., E Pluribus Unum, free to do as they dam' please until the next election. No referendums, no initiatives, no recalls I guess. We voted 'em in and we get what we deserve, right?

And anyone who actually cares about the kinds of real, meaningful questions that the voters and taxpayers have a right to have explored in the sunshine and to have a voice on, the ones that have in the past been decided on in back rooms by pols and "developers," how many examples of bad outcomes for the community does it take to establish that October Surprise "Big Deals" do not lead to that misty, watercolored unsustainable geometric growth that has so many times been promised, and never been delivered?

And anyone who wants to inform themselves about Rick's unusual take on the real world can just go back to the archives of this blog over the last what, going on two years?

Is gifting a half a billion or a billion dollars to a for-profit, entertainment-industry sports franchise a good idea for us here in the Bay Area, given the other claims on our tax dollars for NEEDED public services, keeping in mind all the various bits and pieces of what that gift would cost? You say pretty much that "by inspection," it is. A lot of others, thoughtful people who care about the community as a whole and who you dismiss as "antis" and NIMBYs and "no-nos," come to a pretty different conclusion.

Elsewhere you slipped and actually said you were in favor of "Let Us Vote!" What a great idea!

You're welcome.

[Rick K]

The truth is that I have always favored letting the citizens have a direct vote on these issues.

There is no post from me advocating any other method of resolving these questions. Your insistence, Sac, to the contrary, indicates that you are either mistaken or motivated to intentionally deceive.

Further, in addition to advocating a direct vote by the people on these matters, I stand oppossed to those who would try to hijack this issue without letting it come to a vote - which is precisely what happened, in a reasonable reading of the facts.

It was the "POWW" crowd who tried every sort of trick in the book to distort the size and scope of their support - with the primary objective of NOT letting the people of St. Pete vote on the issue. That many of the same people pretend to advocate for a direct vote on something entirely different does not change their myriad and tangled attempts, chronicled in these very blogs, to lie, distort, deceive and essentially steal the issue, without a full and complete consideration by the public of the facts, followed by a fair and widely attended election.

My position on this issue is very simple. Let people bring forth proposals, schedule a vote, have an open debate with as much information as possible, and let the people decide.

On that, I have never waivered.

[Rick K]

A few words about Sac's post at 9:30 pm.

It amuses me that the poster attempts to discredit my remarks with a false claim which more aptly describes those connected with the POWW movement who posted in this blog for months, producing more falsehoods, deceptions, red herrings, and distortions than most people can count. (However, I offered such a count in a very thorough analysis of the many false claims of POWW, in this very blog, for anyone interested).

I am not sure what "gabble-gabble" is. My point about the Federal Courts is this - the jurists are impartial. There are respected economists holding both views (that public investment in sports facilities benefit the public and that these investments do not benefit the public in any significant or important way), who testify in various federal court cases. Because these cases are heard in the Federal Courts, impartial, educated, smart judges make determinations about which testimony of "experts" is the more credible. I have chronicled several of these court cases in this space, as well. Importantly, the courts have always found that there are significant public benefits from public investment in sports facilities. In Florida, there is some great case law about Raymond James Stadium, the O Rena in Orlando, Daytona's race track, and various ballparks in Miami. Anyone can google it and read what the courts had to say. Then everyone is free to make up their own minds.

Similarly, anyone with interest is encouraged to read the material found at any of the numerous links provided by the anti's to the "studies" which suggest or claim that public investment in sports facilities is a losing proposition for local communities. Everyone can read the info of these "experts" and see if they believe the work. I have always advocated this sort of original research, in favor of that advocated by the POWW crowd (i.e, believe their dubious "studies" without question - including the preposterous claim that there is near universal agreement among economists on this issue). 15 minutes surfing the web easily disproves the claim (often cited in the "expert" studies the anti crowd so love).

But for all Sac's claims about dishonesty - notice what he does. He takes his opinion, and puts it out as fact. What some reasonable people would call public investment in improvements to the public infrastructure, Sac calls "subsidies handed out by politicians to private sports franchises."

While it could be argued that ALL public expenditures constitute a sort of subsidy to private parties - it isn't necessarily accurate to label all public investment in sports facilities as subsidies handed out to sports franchises.

If the public decides that the community is better off with well groomed beaches, clean streets, nice parks, free libraries, and public venues which host professional and college sporting events, it is being disengenous to try to lavel these investments as being purely subsidies handed out to private parties. Sure there are public benefits from these investments, and surely some individuals and businesses will receive monies, but just as the Federal Courts have found, and just as many reasonable people find, the businesses which tend to locate in publicly subsidized facilities tend to ADD to our enjoyment of the commmunity.

I am one of the many people who believe that the Airport is a much better place because of the coffee shops and news stands who peddle wares there. Ditto the Pier, the museums, beaches, libraries and public sports facilities.

And anyone who actually cares about
And anyone who wants to inform themselves about Rick's unusual take on the real world can just go back to the archives of this blog over the last what, going on two years?

Sac seeks to deceive by talking of "gifting a half a billion or a billion dollars to a for-profit, entertainment-industry sports franchise."

Because while the new stadium would add to the Rays revenue and probably increase the value of the team - that particular outcome is seen by many of us as an obvious by product of public investment designed to keep MLB in town.

When we were advocating thirty years ago for expanded food courts and shopping opportunities in Airports, our objective was to increase the convenience and comfort of those who used and worked in the Airport. That some people would make money in the deal was an obvious fact - but not our principle motivation, then or now.

[Paul]

I believe there is already something designed to keep the Rays in town, Rick.. its called a contract.

But then again, what do I know, you're the genius economist in the bunch.

Never did answer my question from back in December did you?