Rays answer your questions

We'd like to thank Rays president Matt Silverman and senior VP Michael Kalt for joining us here today and taking your questions. We received more than 50 questions in advance, with the most common topics concerning weather and parking. Some were on issues that have been covered, such as whether the Grand Prix race can continue if the new stadium is built (The Rays say it can). We also got several inquiries about what's wrong with Tropicana Field. And more than a few fans wanted to know about plans for making the team better. We also received queries about our methods, and wanted to make it clear that the Times chose the questions and did not provide them ahead of time to the Rays officials. That said, here are the ones we considered the most interesting, relevant and with the broadest appeal. Feel free to leave questions or comments in the 'Comments' area below. -- Marc Topkin, Times staff writer
(Pictured: Michael Kalt, left, and Matt Silverman. Times photo - John Pendygraft. Click to enlarge.)

Is this a done deal, secretly hashed out with the city, mayor, governor, and other assorted representatives of private business ... er, I mean, the people? ... Is all this Q/A just a window dressing to placate the citizens who will, once again, be duped into paying for the gains and profits of private enterprise? Will any of these questions be answered truthfully? -- Jess

MK:  This is far from a done deal.  There is a tremendous amount of public process still ahead of us, including a public RFP on the Trop site and, of course, a public referendum that will  hopefully take place next November.  So there will be plenty of opportunity for public input and it will ultimately be the public who will decide the fate of the project.

Why was most of this done behind closed doors up until this point? What do the Rays feel they need to hide? -- Rays fan

MS:  We want to engage the public in this process.  That's why it was important for the Rays to announce these projects last month.  We worked with the City to determine if the project merited an announcement. We also needed to be prepared to answer preliminary questions about the projects.  With the announcement, we can now fully engage the public in the process.  We expect the public will help craft the ultimate form of both development projects.

If you could get out of your lease today, would you move the team? Why do you think you should share in the sale of an asset (Tropicana Field) you don't own? When you sell the Rays, can the City of St. Petersburg share in the money that is made?  -- Chris Allen

MK:  If we could get out of our lease today, we would be proposing the exact same projects that we're currently putting forward.  This is not about sharing in an asset we don't own.  It's about trying to create something greater than what currently exists for everyone.

Those cables extending from the stands to that giant mast beyond centerfield seem like they will be pretty ugly. Instead of odd catwalks to look at, we will have a giant mast with ugly cables. How will the cables be made attractive-looking, or how will they become 'invisible' and will that giant pole/mast be decorated in some way? It seems really ugly and weird in the current images of the new stadium. -- David Gross

MS:  The cables will vary in size but most will be only a couple inches wide.  We expect that they will be barely visible.  The mast is a design element that will continue to be refined as the project moves forward--it also serves a practical purpose as the primary support for the roof that will cover the entire playing field. 

At the new stadium, the Rays are losing approximately 9,000 seats and a lot of parking revenue, which I'm sure will result in extremely higher ticket prices. How are you possibly going to keep tickets affordable (and ticket plans) for the average fan, who were able to buy tickets at the Trop for $9-14 and have a decent view of the game?  -- Danny DiNicolantonio, St. Petersburg
(In a related question, James Parese asked whether prices and seat location will remain the same for "inaugural" original season ticket holders?)

MK:  Ticket prices are and will continue to be amongst the most affordable in all of professional sports.  There are a number of elements that we're considering to maintain a price point that is as low or lower than the lowest price seat at the Trop, including a general admission ticket that would allow families an inexpensive way to come to the game and sit on a berm or in the area behind RF.

There has been a lot of talk about rainouts with the new stadium, especially during the summer months. We have all seen diagrams of the proposed new stadium and have been told by ownership that a tent-like covering can be rolled out to cover the seating. In all of the diagrams I have seen, not all of the seating is covered. What percentage of the total seating would be covered in the event of rain? My hope is that we are not just covering the expensive seats, but those seats (i.e., outfield or upper deck) that most families can afford. -- Tim Capps

MK:  There will not be rain outs or rain delays, except in the most extreme of circumstances.  The vast majority of seats (at least 90%, if not all) will be covered.  The roof will not only cover the expensive seats.

If the Rays are interested in an open-air stadium, why not remove the roof from Tropicana Field? The stability of the building is not dependent on its roof. You can still install this miraculous fabric that will keep the fans cool during July afternoons. The cost of demolition, and the installation of a 300-foot water tower, will be far less than a new stadium that will not have parking. -- Salvatore Reale, Seminole
(In a related question, Frank of St. Petersburg asked about putting a retractable roof on the Trop such as in Milwaukee, Arizona, Houston or even Montreal?)

MS: We investigated that option.  In addition to it not being financially practical, Tropicana Field wasn't weatherproofed when constructed.  For example, the seating bowl lacks drainage and the electrical systems were not made to withstand weather.  The design for the waterfront park provides the same benefits of a retractable roof stadium like the ones mentioned while fitting into the beautiful waterfront. 

The organization claims to be building the most environmentally friendly stadium in all of major league sports. How are you going to get approval to dredge and fill a small part of Tampa Bay that is covered in sea grass? -- Matthew McCoy, U.S. Naval Academy student

(Pictured: Michael Kalt, left, and Matt Silverman. Times photo - John Pendygraft. Click to enlarge.)

MK:  We've already done extensive surveys of the area and there are only spotty patches of sea grass.  That said, we clearly will need to mitigate for any adverse environmental impacts caused by the relocation of Bayshore Drive.  And we are carrying a substantial number in our project budget to do just that.

If you are so confident that a new downtown ballpark will be successful, then why are you not willing to finance the ENTIRE cost? -- George

MS:  It is not viable for our business to finance an entire ballpark.  We would not be able to adequately operate our business and compete on the field.  Our proposal makes use of the development potential of Tropicana Field and some of the benefits of adding the property back onto the tax rolls.  Without our ability to contribute this asset to the projects, we would not have put forth this proposal, and the Trop and its land would remain undeveloped for the next 20 years.

How confident are you that a redevelopment of the current Trop site can be a viable economic success? (Is Mr. Sternberg) willing to put your proverbial money where your mouth is and invest in that project as well? -- Franki T, The Freaki Tiki Bar, Clearwater


MK:  Based on our initial outreach, we are very confident that the development on the Trop site can and will be successful, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in new property and sales tax revenue to the City and County that would otherwise not materialize if we simply played out the duration of our lease at the Trop.  That is why a firm with the history and reputation of Hines is interested in it.  We anticipate being a part of the investor group at the Trop site, but that is somewhat dependent upon the outcome of the public RFP process.

It is nice that the SPT is lobbing you only softball questions. We're almost halfway through this and there is no mention of the financing.

1) Why should the city float bonds against future rent payments? This essentially means the team has no up-front, out of pocket expenses.

2) Why is there no discussion on how to pay off the existing financing on the Trop?

3) Why should the money from the sale and redevelopment of the Trop site benefit the team, not the owners of the property?

4) Who is going to be responsible for either cost overruns or shortfalls in the projected revenue from the sale and redevelopment of the Trop? -- Ron

MS:  The three major issues we'll be addressing over the next eleven months are parking, fan comfort and financing.  The first step in determining a financing plan for the new ballpark is for the City to issue the RFP for the Trop site.  The details for the financing plan will follow from the results of the RFP.  We are committed to the principal that no new tax dollars will be used to finance the ballpark and existing funds that are being used for other City and County services will not be adversely impacted.  We expect that the development of the Trop site will not only allow us to finance a large chunk of the ballpark, but that it will also generate tens of millions of dollars that will go towards schools (which otherwise would not be generated).

In your last post you mentioned not being able to compete on the field financially if you accepted the entire financing of the stadium. Do you seriously consider the triple a garbage that has been on the field for the last 10 years competing????? -- kh

MK:  This is exactly the point.  We want to be in a financial situation where we can afford to put the best possible product on the field for our fans.  And while it's unfair to characterize the product on the field as you do, the simple fact is that the new ballpark will greatly improve our ability to retain the great young talent we continue to amass.

What specific actions will the Rays take to minimize the discomfort to fans watching games outside in the summer heat and weather? I have heard that some seats will be air-conditioned. Where will those seating areas be located?

MS:  We will employ a number of measures to improve fan comfort.  It is imperative that the fan experience be a pleasant one.  While it won't be a stable 72 degrees in the new park, we expect it will be comfortable.  Certainly there will be air conditioned areas including the concourse.  The roof not only works to shield from the rain but also from the sun, minimizing it's impact during daylight hours.  We expect the combination of these measures will result in the THI (temperature humidity index) being less than other baseball cities like Atlanta and Arlington, TX and being similar to places like Kansas City and Baltimore.

The current Tropicana Field is supposed to be turned into affordable housing. I was wondering if you had a rough idea of what 'affordable' meant. Also, I was wondering if you had thought of making the current Trop, without demolishing it, into an indoor facility similar to Chennelside. If you could fill it with shopping and nightlife, you would still be able to keep plenty of parking available. With some sort of trolley system, I thought this could work. -- Jason, St. Petersburg

MK:  There is still a lot of work to be done to define the affordable housing component of the project, but at a high level, affordable means housing for people who earn less than the average median income in the area.  As for the current Trop, we've looked at various options for repurposing the building.  Unfortunately, it's unlikely that any of them would work.  The building has a number of structural issues and was not constructed with the idea of housing retail amenities inside.  Although it would obviously be preferable if this were not the case, the value of the property is likely much greater without the Trop on it.

Though your plan requires 'no new taxes,' it does ask for a tax subsity that will take money out of our local economy. What do you say to fans who are wondering why they should support the subsidy when the chief financial beneficiaries are a group of New York multimillionaires? -- Paul D. Schulz

(Pictured: Michael Kalt, left, and Matt Silverman. Times photo - John Pendygraft. Click to enlarge.)

MS:  It will not take money out of the local economy.  It should add to it, and we'll be able to demonstrate that more fully once the financing plan is developed.  We are talking about a development that would not otherwise exist, an amenity that will not only draw visitors from throughout Tampa Bay but also provide a new economic driver for the City and County.  Our ownership is committed to running the Rays as a breakeven business.  All revenues generated by the business are reinvested in the business whether it's in Major League Payroll, International Operations or Tropicana Field upkeep.

Instead of investing so much money, time and effort into changing the bay near the new ballpark, how about a high fence similar to Fenway? -- Rich Perry, St. Pete

MK:  A high fence won't solve the issue.  Without relocating Bayshore, we'd be looking at a seriously compromised dimension down the RF line (probably something shorter than 270 feet).  Moreover, we tried to design the ballpark with an eye towards preserving views of the waterfront, not blocking them off with a huge wall.

Has Mr. Silverman ever walked 15 blocks in the August afternoon humidity in St. Pete, as he wants Rays patrons to do? -- Dave Butcher Towzey

MS:  The distances we're talking about are much shorter than 15 blocks.  Many fans currently walk long distances to Tropicana Field today, either from our parking lots or from private ones.  The walks to the new park would be of similar distance.  Growing up in Texas, I frequently attended games in Arlington where we'd park at the Six Flags remote lots and walk in the 100 degree heat to the ballpark.  What we have in St. Pete is significantly more tolerable than that. 

We will continue to make ourselves available to answer your questions about these projects.  Please check www.majorleaguedowntown.com for updated information on these projects including dates and times of public outreach meetings. Thanks for the questions and for your interest in these projects.

That's all we have time for today, as we tried to mix in some of the live questions and those that were sent in ahead of time. About 20 questions were answered and we received more than 80 comments, as Michael Kalt and Matt Silverman stuck around for an additional half-hour. We'll try to get a few more answered in the near future and post those as well.  Additional comments are welcome and we will try to do this again sometime. Thanks for taking a look - Marc Topkin, Times staff writer.

Comments

[joey acquaviva]

trade brignac bring up price and get us a right handed bat please that would be nice

[Kathleen Ford]

You nailed it Matthew.

[Matthew]

It's all about the money. The Rays are expecting the city to sell publicly owned land, give them that money plus the taxes the new homes and stores will generate to them so that they can have a new stadium on publicly owned land. Then, when they sell, the extra value the new stadium has given the franchise goes right into their pockets. Happens all the time.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft paid $172 million for the team in 1994. Today, with th a new suburban stadium the franchise is valued by Forbes magazine at $1.2 billion.

Thanks to a new $1 billion stadium set to open in ’09, the Dallas Cowboy’s value increased by 28 percent. By the way, the originally estimate for the stadium was $650 million – guess who made up the over runs? Taxpayers, of course.

Two years ago, Financial World magazine valued the Seattle Mariners at a meager $107 million now Forbes magazine says, with the new stadium, the franchise is worth 236 million.

The Rays know all about this, of course. That’s why they are willing to spend hundreds of thousands in misleading flyers, a fake “fan site,” slick presentation to
Associations to dupe the poor taxpayer into thinking their idea is great.The value of their current stadium only contributes 17% towards their worth. You’d better believe that the only reason they bought the Rays was to extort a stadium from gullible politicians and confused citizens and then, voila, have millions added to the value of their franchise and sell. Sure they’ve said the Rays would not leave town – but they will – with OUR money in their pockets.

[bax (?)]

dad? is that you?

[one true bax]

Does anyone have a schizo med?

[jim]

just build the damn thing or loose the team

[bax (?)]

now i am confused, and i'm going home too. i thought i was the original bax.

[the original bax]

How did my name get hijacked multiple times? This is nutz. I'm going home.

[Thomas]

Thanks for the reply JTB.

I think the overwhelming evidence that stadiums do not help economy/neighborhoods lends itself to a sound defeat of this proposal.

I'd like to see growth and redevelopment, but this plan is not going to do that.

Happy holidays-
Regards,
t

[bax]

I am not bax #2. Nice try, you impersonator. You are the pseudo bax.

[bax]

uh, why is "bax" #2 of the "rainbows and ice cream" post using my name? have some class and don't post as other people, buddy.

[JTB]

Thomas,

I could support it because (and I know that this is where you and I part ways) I don't think that it would ONLY benefit the Rays. I think that it could anchor a revitalized downtown that would benefit the city as a whole. You think it is Trop part II...I disagree. I hate with the Trop does to its neighborhood. I hate its Sahara-like parking deserts. I hate how we have a beautiful waterfront stadium location that goes unused except for 15 days a year. Yes, it is SUBJECTIVE, but I think that downtown could be so much more than it is. And if the Rays benefit as well (so long as they put the money into the team), then all the better.

And, no, I don't think that the stadium would solve all the city's problems. But in terms of what the city gives up and what it has the POTENTIAL to gain, I think the proposal deserves serious consideration.

[bax]

If this was such a rainbows and ice cream mortal lock, the Rays would get a loan and finance this pipe dream with out feeding at the public trough like the pigs they are.

[Thomas]

JTB,

I dont understand how you can support that.

Public land under the Trop being sold to a private developer and using that money to build a public stadium on other public land that will mostly benefit a private corporation (the Rays) ?

[JTB]

Miller,

I don't want public funds used either. But I think we part ways in that I am not opposed to see the public land under the Trop being sold to a private developer and using that money to build a public stadium on other public land that will mostly benefit a private corporation (the Rays). I understand the problems associated with this...and that's why I am not completely "sold" on the financing. Just to be clear...you would require the Rays to purchase the land at the Al Lang site from the city, then fund the stadium construction, before you supported the proposal? I really think that that would result in nothing happening at all. And, yes, it's subjective, but I think the status quo downtown is a bit disappointing.

[bax]

I think that the decisions that are to be made about this project will have a huge effect on downtown for decades to come. If anyone wants to talk about these issues further in an INDEPENDENT, CIVILIZED, THOUGHTFUL setting, go to downtownrays.wordpress.com. I've posted a list of questions that I hope to discuss with other open-minded people before making a decision about this. Feel free to post more in the comments section. (If you've already made up your mind, feel free to post as well, but BE CIVIL.)

And, no, I'm not associated with the city, the Rays, the development group, anti-tax groups, albert whitted or anything else. I am just interested in exploring this issue. The only comments that will be edited or deleted are those that are hostile or obscene. All other opinions will be heard.

I will give my biases: I am a huge fan of baseball and cities, and I would like to see baseball succeed in st. pete (it is my hometown), and am initially (and quite indecisively) leaning towards supporting the new stadium.

http://downtownrays.wordpress.com/

[Miller]

To: Jim Dietrich

From: Reality

Re: Your freaking delusional mind… fix it before you hurt yourself or someone else. By the way, your horse is drunk.

-----------------------

JTB,

Not bad… not bad at all. Good points, very subjective – desperately lacking in supportive reality… but good job on the connectors and overall “sell-it” factor.

But here the thing, and you simply won’t be able to spin it to a successful conclusion… Unless you folks have been lying for years about how “It’s a Great Day in St. Pete”… things in St. Pete are going… well… “Great”. Trying to liken the stadium concept to the second coming of Jesus… or “the fix all”… just ain’t gonna work.

No disrespect, but your mass transit argument is weak… Pinellas is the most densely populated county in Florida. Unless your argument is that only people who live near the stadium will go to the games, there’s a good chance that other Pinellas residents have heard of baseball, and might want to catch a game or two… and that involves parking or mass transit.

“Lower vacancy rates come from”… a strong economic structure that is commensurate with the price of housing. Like I’ve posted before, hotdog vendors – and underpaid sports reporters for that matter – don’t buy 300k condos.

And here’s the kicker – and it’s all over this issue… this isn’t “ALL ABOUT ST. PETE”. If so, the boys from NY could just hook up with your “reverse Napoleon complex” mayor, a few St. Pete developers, and a few banks… and be done with it.

NO PUBLIC MONEY!

[Wade]

Sternberg and his minions working the blogs..if you throw enough BS at a wall, some of it will stick.

[JTB]

Good afternoon Miller,

You want:

"Lower crime rates, kept promises, better mass transit, less empty condo’s, less corporate welfare, real solutions to address he homeless issues (not just move them away while we slip this boondoggle past the public), more jobs (career jobs, not Sweetbay baggers and hotdog vendors)…"

how do we go about achieving these things? any suggestions? a few things to consider:

- Lower crime rates in urban areas are a direct result of having lively, peopled streets. We get people on the streets of a neighborhood by giving them reasons to be there...such as walking from their car past restaurants, bars, and shops on their way to the downtown museum (or stadium!) that is accessible by walking through such a neighborhood. In St. Pete, this would initially have to be from people parking and walking, with an eventual shift (hopefully) toward usable mass transit.

- I would love adequate mass transit. I would fight for it. Oil prices aren't going to go down. However, mass transit only functions at a certain level of density, which requires people to actually BE in a neighborhood, whether for live, work, play, whatever. Mass transit does not function in areas such as Tropicana Field. It does function in denser areas like downtown could potentially become.

- Lower vacancy rates come from people actually wanting to live in an area (such as lower crime rates, better transit, and primary attractions such as museums and sports - it all goes together). Simply put people will buy condos downtown when downtown becomes a place where people want to buy condos.

None of these things are possible within the framework of the current BUILT ENVIRONMENT of downtown St. Petersburg. None of them will happen without MIXED-USE, WALKABLE infill development! It also needs "primary attractions" such as museums, theaters, and sports....

[Bob R.]

Imagine the temerity to compare The Hermitage to whatever monstrosity Sternstein and Co. can devise.

[Thomas]

"Oh, and Thomas, you're grasping for straws on all your points, but I'm only going to respond to one, because I have no more time for this today"

Actually Jim, you're going to run away, because I just swiftly and completely documented why your support for this plan is baseless.

So now you have no choice but to cut bait and leave.

You wont respond because you CANT.

It's an easy choice. NO on this plan. Supports of the plan cannot stand up to the real facts.

[JTB]

Thomas,

You're completely right...the Trop was marketed as a boon to the economy, just as similar proposals are around the nation. And they fail, and they waste taxpayer money, and they only lead to more urban decay. That's why if this was a proposal for another Trop, whether downtown, at Gateway, Derby Lane, wherever, I WOULD NOT support it. I would be against it, 100%.

However, the few (VERY few) examples of cities that have integrated their ballparks into their neighborhoods have, in general, been quite successful. There is a HUGE difference between stadiums such as the Trop or Miller Park in Milwaukee (which do NOTHING for their cities), and places like Camden Yards in Baltimore and PNC in Pittsburgh. There is a difference -- and the difference is thoughtful urban design.

[Jim Dietrich]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Some people are so close-minded, they can't see what's right in front of them. Live in your "everyone's-out-go-get-me" world, Miller, Thomas, and my split-personality, the "real" me. Not every person in a suit with a good idea is the Antichrist. I've done my research and unless something drastically changes and ticks me off, I'm all for this project. Now's our chance to show the world there's more than one St. Petersburg in this world, and while the other may have Catherine's Winter Palace the Hermitage, we can soon have our own architectural masterpiece, as well as develop a rich heritage by rebuilding such communities like Campbell Park. There's no reason for know-nothings to mislead people to fulfill their own wishes.

Oh, and Thomas, you're grasping for straws on all your points, but I'm only going to respond to one, because I have no more time for this today; here's one stadium that HAS improved the economy greatly: Camden Yards. Need I really say more?

[Thomas]

You've missed the point on why the projects are the same.

"the Trop never could be a boon to downtown because it was separated and defended by oceans of parking lots"

However, it was marketed as a boon to the economy.

Should this plan somehow go forward, in 20 years the reasons will be different but we'll be right back here talking about why the new stadium was NOT a boon for the economy.

It's easy to predict that it won't benefit the economy, because NO stadium, anywhere, ever has.

[Thomas]

Jim D.

INCORRECT
"would allow the Trop site to be taxed, and the city would get direct benefits of a deluge of new tax revenue."

ALL of those new and wonderful tax dollars are diverted to the stadium costs. The city gets NO DIRECT BENEFIT.

=======
INCORRECT
"which is about how long it would take, in sales tax revenue from the stadium concessions, to raise that much money"

Unless the new stadium has a lease that is unlike any other put in place over the last decade, then all sales taxes generated at the new stadium will be captured in a Cap X account for stadium operations/maintenance.
So, there will be NO NET GAIN from taxes generated at the new stadium.

==========
NOT ACCURATE

"the only smoke and mirrors people will experience will be from the naysayers that don't want change"

Actually, change would be great, but this particular plan does NOTHING for us, the people of St. Pete.
I'm all for downtown redevelopment, but let's get a plan that actually benefits us -- not the Rays.

====
LASTLY

"This new waterfront jewel could easily be the icon for the 21st."

Wouldn't you rather look at ways that actually benefit the city?

There is no logical way to support this plan. The city would be so much better off to look at spending $450M in ways that revitalize the area, provide multiple new structures, and increase the culture of the area.
This plan does none of that. It takes $450M in public assets and hands it to the Rays. They build a stadium with it and keep all the profits.

[Miller]

Sorry, I can’t resist… Ummm, Jim: as to your…

(1) The Trop costs the city “nadda”… talk to you boy Rick about that scam he pulled on the County… and “deluge of new tax revenue”… well, that’s just the puppet master pulling your strings.

(2) “Stu & Co. pay for it out of pocket with the state reimbursing them.” Spin it any way you want, that’s corporate welfare and the taxpayers’ expense.

(3) The biggest “functionality” issue to be faced, and “just walk, it’s easy” will not cut it.

(4) “affordable housing” you haven’t got a clue what it means.

(5) Yes, I always find myself in a quandary as to whether to go grocery shopping, or buy crack?… moron. Te rest is just weak-a*ss psychobabble… and I do mean, weak-a*s.

Oh… and “It's helping reunite communities as well as provide the icon this city needs.”… dude, just sell Amway and be done with it already… geeeezzzz.

[JTB]

Jim,

Your response to Tom was right on. Comparing this project to the Trop in terms of its potential for downtown is way off base. There are huge differences between the two, most significantly in that the Trop never could be a boon to downtown because it was separated and defended by oceans of parking lots.

And, Mr. 1:58, infill of parking lots does not equal gentrification.

[the real Jim Dietrich]

Nice try, you phony.

Obviously you are an employee of the Rays. You cannot possibly be a taxpayer. I doubt if you're a resident otherwise you wouldn't be unaware of the near halt in in-migration and the fact that the housing market won't snap back for at least five years. Your figures are bogus and who you say is actually paying is bogus. Are you Stu's unemplyable nephew (or niece)?

The St Pete Times has too much at stake to tell the truth but other news entities willo. Just follow the money....the trail already stinks.

[Miller]

Hey JTB, what’s happening!

“what would you like to see happen downtown in the coming years?”

Lower crime rates, kept promises, better mass transit, less empty condo’s, less corporate welfare, real solutions to address he homeless issues (not just move them away while we slip this boondoggle past the public), more jobs (career jobs, not Sweetbay baggers and hotdog vendors)…

“what have the trop parking lots done for you lately?”

Allowed people who go to the Trop to watch the Rays, ummm… now pay close attention… PARK THEIR CARS! I read somewhere that this is what “parking lots” do.

Like I posted before. I’m, ok with it under one condition… NO PUBLIC MONIES!… and publicly-owned land IS public monies!

[Jim Dietrich]

Fred,

1.) The public property of the Trop right now makes $0 for the city right now, since it's county property that's nontaxable due to the stadium on it. Selling the property with the proceeds going to another public facility (the new stadium will be owned by the city, with the land going to the county, same as now) would allow the Trop site to be taxed, and the city would get direct benefits of a deluge of new tax revenue.

2.) If you think $60M over the course of 20 years (which is about how long it would take, in sales tax revenue from the stadium concessions, to raise that much money) works out to $3M/yr (and that's being generous), definitely not the windfall the state needs to end the budget crunch. Like I said, Stu & Co. pay for it out of pocket with the state reimbursing them. Research before you throw numbers out.

3.) I'm not walking from home, esp. since it's 60 blocks from the new stadium; I'll park downtown like I always do for events, like the Grand Prix, First Friday, and the parades. How do all those people park downtown, esp. when all those events are BIGGER than a Rays game? Must be unfathomable how that can be done. Oh wait, it has been! So, you have to walk a few blocks. It's not the end of the world, and as I've said before, it's at night, when the heat isn't much of a factor. The plan calls for 1000 extra spaces to be built near the Mahaffey, on top of the 5000 to be left at the Trop site, with shuttles (if you choose to take them) to the stadium. So, while there's still some small issues to figure out, parking's another non-issue.

4.) Right now, the housing market sucks for two reasons: people not being able to afford the outrageous prices homeowners are trying to push on them (2005 prices are long gone and won't work today) and the flood of said homes on the market. People are still moving here (just not as many), they still grow up, and they still need a place to live. Renters love this market because no one can afford to buy. With affordable housing, people will buy that up in a heart beat. It's not that no one wants to buy in this market, it's that no one CAN buy.

5.) With everyone going to Tampa's malls, we need to do something to attract them here. With it's convenience (Tyrone's surrounded by side roads while the Trop site has 2 interstates) and ability to be both high-end and middle-income (to compete with IP and WestShore), it can easily be a driving economic engine for the city.

So, the only smoke and mirrors people will experience will be from the naysayers that don't want change. Change is inevitable, so the more you fight it, the harder it becomes to stop. While it may or may not pass the voters in November, it's important to vote for or against it for the right reasons.

Tom,

Seriously? That's your argument? I didn't live here at the time, but any sane person knows a canyon of parking does not attract businesses and revitalize anything. I would have been against the Trop as it is today if I had a say. We have a chance to right past wrongs, and while I think the Trop is a unique and great stadium, I think the whole concept was poorly executed and in need of rethinking for the continuation of the rebirth of St. Pete.

That why this plan is different; it's not removing vast swaths of land and relocating hundreds of family, basically ripping a community apart. It's helping reunite communities as well as provide the icon this city needs. The Pier is the icon of the 20th Century. This new waterfront jewel could easily be the icon for the 21st.

(And before anyone suggests it, I'm a taxpayer and not an employee of the Rays, so don't even go there....)

Oh, and 1:58...cute. I like it. It's a shame you're too scared to give your name....

[Jim Dietrich]

Fred,

1.) The public property of the Trop right now makes $0 for the city right now, since it's county property that's nontaxable due to the stadium on it. Selling the property with the proceeds going to another public facility (the new stadium will be owned by the city, with the land going to the county, same as now) would allow the Trop site to be taxed, and the city would get direct benefits of a deluge of new tax revenue.

2.) If you think $60M over the course of 20 years (which is about how long it would take, in sales tax revenue from the stadium concessions, to raise that much money) works out to $3M/yr (and that's being generous), definitely not the windfall the state needs to end the budget crunch. Like I said, Stu & Co. pay for it out of pocket with the state reimbursing them. Research before you throw numbers out.

3.) I'm not walking from home, esp. since it's 60 blocks from the new stadium; I'll park downtown like I always do for events, like the Grand Prix, First Friday, and the parades. How do all those people park downtown, esp. when all those events are BIGGER than a Rays game? Must be unfathomable how that can be done. Oh wait, it has been! So, you have to walk a few blocks. It's not the end of the world, and as I've said before, it's at night, when the heat isn't much of a factor. The plan calls for 1000 extra spaces to be built near the Mahaffey, on top of the 5000 to be left at the Trop site, with shuttles (if you choose to take them) to the stadium. So, while there's still some small issues to figure out, parking's another non-issue.

4.) Right now, the housing market sucks for two reasons: people not being able to afford the outrageous prices homeowners are trying to push on them (2005 prices are long gone and won't work today) and the flood of said homes on the market. People are still moving here (just not as many), they still grow up, and they still need a place to live. Renters love this market because no one can afford to buy. With affordable housing, people will snatch that up in a heart beat. It's not that no one wants to buy in this market, it's that no one CAN buy.

5.) With everyone going to Tampa's malls, we need to do something to attract them here. With it's convenience (Tyrone's surrounded by side roads while the Trop site has 2 interstates) and ability to be both high-end and middle-income (to compete with IP and WestShore), it can easily be a driving economic engine for the city.

So, the only smoke and mirrors people will experience will be from the naysayers that don't want change. Change is inevitable, so the more you fight it, the harder it becomes to stop. While it may or may not pass the voters in November, it's important to vote for or against it for the right reasons.

Tom,

Seriously? That's your argument? I didn't live here at the time, but any sane person knows a canyon of parking does not attract businesses and revitalize anything. I would have been against the Trop as it is today if I had a say. We have a chance to right past wrongs, and while I think the Trop is a unique and great stadium, I think the whole concept was poorly executed and in need of rethinking for the continuation of the rebirth of St. Pete.

That why this plan is different; it's not removing vast swaths of land and relocating hundreds of family, basically ripping a community apart. It's helping reunite communities as well as provide the icon this city needs. The Pier is the icon of the 20th Century. This new waterfront jewel could easily be the icon for the 21st.

(And before anyone suggests it, I'm a taxpayer and not an employee of the Rays, so don't even go there....)

Oh, and 1:58...cute. I like it. It's a shame you're too scared to give your name....

[Thomas]

"anybody who can't see the difference between the Trop plan and the new stadium is dumb"

Really, well let's go to the scoreboard:

Trop: Public financed
New Stadium: Public financed

Ruling: SAME
=====
Trop: Promises to be economic boon for city (didn't happen)
New Stadium: Promises to be economic boon for city

Ruling: SAME
=====
Trop: Rays get undermarket lease agreement
New Stadium: Rays get undermarket lease agreement

Ruling: SAME
=====

So exactly where is the difference. Would you care to enlighten us?

[Jim D.]

I forgot to mention that the proceeds from the redevelopment of Tropicana Field, $350 million--will be gotten from the sale of what now belongs to the public...but since that represents only $300 per person in St. Petersburg for the great white el, er, great waterfront stadium we care going to get, it will be worth it to have the NY bunch of thieves rob us blind.

I also forgot the $200 million to $300 million in cost overruns for design, development, and construction of the new stadium but local government can easily get that by raiding the budgets of infrastructure, social services, and education.

I also forgot that because of the parking hassle and long walk to the stadium, that the very few suck, er, fans now attending games will dwindle even more.

I also forgot that the attorneys, lobbyists, contractors, bond salespeople, insurance and other financing entities stand to make a mint on this phoiny deal. Many of them contributed to the campaigns of officeholders who will try and ram this sca, er, beautification project down the public's throat.

I also forgot that most of the public doesn't care or is too naive to see this boondog, er, gentrification of downtown, for what it really is.

[Thomas]

Let's play a game.
Let's spot the flaws in logic:

A: "We are very confident that the development on the Trop site can and will be successful, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in new property and sales tax revenue to the city and county that would otherwise not materialize"

B: The Rays plan calls for diverting the proceeds from the sale of the land as well as city and county taxes generated from its redevelopment to stadium construction costs.

LOGIC: If you claim the redevelopment will generate new tax revenue for the city/county -BUT THEN- you divert the taxes generated to the stadium, how is that helping the city?

CONCLUSION: It doesn't. It helps the Rays only.

=========
A: The team already has pledged up to one-third of the stadium construction cost.

B: The teams contribution to construction is $10-million annual rent payments to the city.

LOGIC: "rent" payments are counted as "contributions" to construction.

CONCLUSION: Then we should expect the same public/private ratios on profits generated at the stadium. The city gets 66% of the gate, concessions, etc.

[Thomas is Dumb]

Thomas, anybody who can't see the difference between the Trop plan and the new stadium is dumb. Plus, I'm sure the Trop has had positive effect from national baseball attention and other events (Final Four).

[Tim]

Fred, I guess you would rather the city see no money from the 80 acre Trop land over the next 20 years.

[Thomas]

Hey JIM D:

Did you copy and paste your "stadium be a boon to the economy" myth straight from the original Trop plan?

Or how about this gem:
"...the redevelopment of the Trop would help revitalize long forgotten parts of the city "
Um, wasn't that what the Trop was supposed to do? "revitalize" the area.

The definition of insane is repeating the same action while expecting a diffent result.

How about if we "redevelop" the land that Jim D's home is on and give the profits to the Rays.

The financing of this plan is a joke. The public pays the bill and the Rays get the revenues.

NO THANKS.

PS - I am glad we have an iron-clad lease that keeps the Rays in the Trop until 2027. We won't be bothered with any "we're going to move the team if you dont build it" threats.

[Fred]

The financial aspects have been covered "a million times" but some people still don't get it. (1) Selling a public asset (the Trop) with the net proceeds being diverted to a for-profit organization is the same as a government hand-out to a millionaires club; (2) a state sales tax subsidy is "nothing" [yeah, right] compared with the $1.5 BILLION deficit - I said deficit - the state will face in the next year and a half; (3) parking, parking, parking? Jim D. can walk from home; most fans will not; (4) 900 new units, while the housing market is down the toilet? (5) one million square feet of retail at the Trop location? This deal is smoke and mirrors and it ain't gonna fly.

[RayRay]

Thanks Jim D. for chiming in with logical & sensible thoughts. I totally agree with you & couldn't have said better. Folk like you help permeate the southern charm & good hospitality amongst neighbors and to all for that matter, visitors alike.

We need more unity in the community.

Stu & Co are smarter than a 5th grader much too many's disbelief and I think they have the long term best interest of St. Pete in their vision. So at least hear them out & give this proposal a chance at fruition.

My only bark about the DRO is that they spend more on team payroll, which I'm willing to wait on, while the organization continue to mature & grow in all aspects, thus having a more stable foundation that will hopefully translate to increased payroll & more wins, & enable us to sustain success over longer periods. The more we win, the more the Trop rocks and life will be good in paradise.

Hip Hip Hoo Rays!!!

[Jim D.]

Something else I've noticed. Most of the critics are people who haven't visited downtown in 10 years. Talk of carjackings, muggings, nothing to do, and conspiracies to move the team are nothing but smoke and mirrors from people who feel like if they scream loud enough, people will take it as truth. I live in NE St. Pete, work downtown, and have no problem parking my car at night and taking int he nightlife. I feel more safe downtown than I did at my last house in Shore Acres, in fact.

The heat and humidity is another myth they want to push on you. Yeah, it's hot here in the summer (and last time I checked, the only place 72° in the summer is south of the Equator or north of the Arctic Circle), but there are places that pack open-air stadiums that are MUCH hotter than us: Arlington gets about 105°, Phoenix gets about 110° (and they only close the roof when it's over that, or raining), and even Atlanta gets 98°. We get 95ish in the daytime, and since all but about 5 games a year take place after 7:30PM, what's the big deal? So, you can't walk 10 blocks in 80° "heat". Move to Nunavut then, cause even Alaska gets hot in the summer. And every stadium in the country has a problem with mosquitoes...deal!

The money issue has been covered a million times, but here's a brief overview of what has been told to us time and time again:
- The total project is projected to be $450M
- Stu & Co. covers $150M
- The sale of the Trop will generate $250-300M, with which $100M will pay off the bonds on the Trop
- $35-50M will come from naming rights to the new stadium
- The remaining $60M MAY (not will) come from the state, but considering there's 10M taxpayers in Florida, $6/person one time is nothing (and also, if you think $60M is big and can be used for something else, the road project out by the airport is $205M, the state school budget runs about $900M-1B each year, and that STATE money doesn't pay for local services, like fire, police, etc., it just helps, so $60M is nothing compared to the overall budget.). Also, it wouldn't be a lump sum. It would taken out of the sales tax for items bought at the new stadium. Stu & Co. would pay for that $60M upfront, and through those sales tax rebates, they would be reimbursed.
- Anything leftover that's needed would come from a city tax fund that's specifically for public entertainment venues in the downtown district only; that money would just sit there regardless since it's not allowed to go for any other purpose.
-Anything over the budget of $450M, Stu & Co. have agreed to pay for out-of-pocket.
So, the financing arguement doesn't work for me at all. It's all been discussed a dozen times, and it's not rocket science.

We, the (no-longer) silent majority, believe that everyone who opposes the stadium is misinformed about the city, the climate, and the money. Not only would this stadium be a boon to the economy of St. Pete as a whole (with events like the All-Star Game and (according to one of the articles I've read) a field built to accommodate a football field (Bowl Game?) and concerts (bigger than the Amp?)), the redevelopment of the Trop would help revitalize long forgotten parts of the city like Campbell Park, Midtown, and Grand Central. It would connect them to the less-than-two-miles away Downtown, and make St. Pete the crown city of the Bay Area. The only reason Tampons hate this idea is out of fear of losing their status of the "dominant city," but little do they know, St. Pete has been quietly gaining in popularity for quite some time.

We will have our day in the spotlight, and I'm glad Stu & Co. want to keep the team around for that time to come. All I ask is not to be persuaded by people misinformed about the facts, and the fact is, if we don't do something soon, we'll be right back to the days of "Cocoon."

[JTB]

miller,

what you call my '“i’m not sold yet… but i’m all for it” dichotomy' actually isn't that complicated -- I'm not ALL for it. like i said, i haven't heard enough about the financing to be "sold", but i'm not worried about parking/mosquitoes/humidity/AC/tampa access. however, i have heard enough about the financing to think that it deserves a more serious discussion than most of the commenters on here were willing to give it.

just out of curiosity - what would you like to see happen downtown in the coming years? nothing at all? what have the trop parking lots done for you lately?

[Tommy Boy]

The trouble is, most of the cynicism comes from a citizenry that has been lied to over and over again by the local politicians who have turned wasting tax dollars into an art form.

The Rays organization is just taking the heat for it. The biggest hurdle isn’t getting “baseball”… it’s politics. To start anew with baseball, they’ll need some new political faces pushing it.

[Wade]

They just built a brand new "terminal" for the airport douche'. Visit St. Pete first before posting your obtuse comments...

[Clark]

Well, if nothing else these guys deserve credit for sitting through this because I wouldn't have. The way the majority of these questions are phrased is just downright rude. Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's possible to present skepticism (and even cynicism) and still maintain a basic level of courtesy and civility.

[HomeSqueezedOrangeJuiceIsSweet]

Jen, we are spending $ on arts, you're just typing with out thinking about you're trying to say. The Dali's getting a state-of-the arts building next to the Mahaffey(don't know how to spell it), the Center for Arts is breaking ground on central ave for a new Arts building and two 30 story residntial towers as well as renovating a landmark bank as part of their project, not to mention the many other wonderful Arts projects going on or planned in the our beautiful city.

If its in the best interest of St. Pete then I'm all for it, and I think this new stadium & Trop redevelopment proposal is will inject the city with more civic pride along with the many other benefits and this is without looking at the cons, but the pros heavily outweigh them. Think outside the box, and let the narrow mind expand. We need things to do for all people and the more diversity / options the the better.

So, St. Pete residents step up to the plate, unite, and do what's best for the entire area and not just remain staus quo concerned with just our own personal interest. This is not to say every citizens must go to games or support the team the same, just don't deny baseball lovers something that (has the history in this city that it does)& would add to our qualities of life, because I wouldn't oppose something others loved, if it meant an emblishment to the city, county, or entire area.. We have a gem of a city and I would like to see us reach higher for the sky, then others con continue to envy our qualities of life. In the mean time, enjoy the SUN in paradise, Happy Holidays and go GO RAYS!

[Al]

My nasty cynical suspicious mind has finally seen the light: The reason for the Times' pushing this deal is to help kill Albert Whitted airport, which the Times has long sought to eliminate. Turn those landing strips into a parking lot, and that solves the parking issue for the Rays Folly.

[Tommy Boy]

Actually, 9:43… the main reason the Times is in full support of this plan, is that they intend to dump the Forum and claim naming rights on the new baseball stadium in St. Pete.

Oh, and lay off the crack and Kool Aid… you write like an idiot.

[Come Sail Away & catch some sun Rays]

Ben you're just a jealous Tampon, go put on your Pampa, crybaby. Raj Jay is named after a St. Pete headquarted Company not a Pampa one & The St. Pete Times Forum's name(I know u hate saying it, but it is what it is)speaks volume for itself, notice it's not called the Trib, the Times is king in this area. Finally, Legends' is a little want-a-be, knock-off of the real thing in the bogey down Bronx.

In couple years, St. Pete's downtown will put the in-land Pampa's to shame, so roll that up in your cigar and smoke it.

St. Pete & the Rays together for life, so deal with, get used to it, learn to live with, because we're not going anywhere; only getting better by the day.

Another great day in St. Petersburg!

[Ed]

A few predictions. (1) Premium seats in the new stadium will be air conditioned -- only the cheap seats will be exposed to the elements. The top premium packages will include onsite or nearby parking. (2) The Rays will not pay any more out of pocket for the new stadium than they pay now -- they will get the money from payments from the other teams, naming rights, reduced costs from not having to air condition the cheap seats and selling seat licenses. The $10 million per year is still far below a "market" rent for a facility of that cost (3) Selling the Trop site for development in a down market will produce much less revenue than waiting until the market is better. (4) Ticket prices will increase by an average of 30% -- the average increase for other teams with new taxpayer-funded stadiums. (5) The final cost of the stadium when all infrastructure is included will be closer to $650 million than $450 million and St. Petersburg taxpayers will be on the hook for the additional money.

[chris]

if we can truly use the parking at the trop, then all we need is a transit system like the TECO trolleys in Tampa, just larger and more of them. I just want to know what plans there are to prevent car burglaries. I'm an honest person, but just the thought of knowing a nice car sitting there for atleast 2 1/2 hours without supervision makes me want to play thief.
Also, quit being weak on here. Actually talking about the article and questions would make more since then trying to start a winless argument on here.