Rays: 14,000 spaces available for most games

UPDATE (7:55 p.m.) -- Here, again, is the link to Tampa Bay Rays' parking and traffic analysis. And here is the link to the additional details on the stadium design. Both documents also are available at the Rays' web site, www.majorleaguedowntown.com. Click on the tab "Press."

UPDATE (4:10 p.m.) -- On the question of the Rays kicking people out of parking spaces, I asked that question to the traffic consultant, and they said their estimates only include unused or available spaces during the times when baseball games would be played. How'd they do that? They actually observed the lots and garages during February (a busier time of year, they say) to see what spaces are and are not being used. Enjoy the debate.

UPDATE (4:05 p.m.) -- The study includes an interesting graphic that, for the most part, is unrelated to either parking or traffic. It details where Rays' season ticket holders live. Forty-six percent of season ticket holders, almost half, live outside Pinellas County, and less than 30 percent live in St. Petersburg.

UPDATE (3:50 p.m.) -- The critical assumption of the parking analysis is that 19 private lots open their doors for baseball (The analysis does not include smaller lots or church lots that may want to get in the baseball parking business). The consultant suggests they'll have a financial incentive to do so. The lots are: St. Petersburg College Center; Wachovia Bank parking lot; Progress Energy building garage; Christ United Methodist Church lot; Muncipal Services Center garage; BB&T Building garage; SunTrust Building garage; St. Mary's Church lot; St. Petersburg Times lots; Synovus Bank lot; Municpal Lot 68; State Office Building lot, Mirror Lake; Pinellas County Courthouse garage; 501 Building garage; Courthouse Square lots; A.G. Edwards & Sons lots; Bayfront Medical West garage and Heart Center garage; All Children's Hospital South garages; USF-St. Petersburg lots. The Rays have or will have letters of interest from three of the largest parking providers, USF-St. Pete, Bayfront and All Children's.

UPDATE (3:25 p.m.) -- Aside from where people will park, much of the study discusses the traffic the extra cars will bring downtown. The highly technical analysis can be hard to understand, but the consultant in charge of the study, David Wallace, just said in an interview with the Times that St. Petersburg's grid and insterstate system makes the Rays' proposal possible.

UPDATE (2:40 p.m.) -- So, here'e what we're talking about. You can see the orange rings coming out from the proposed stadiun. Inside the first ring is a 5-10 minute walk, according to the consultant. Inside ring 2 is 10-15 minutes, and inside the third ring is up to a 25-minute walk. When all added up, the Rays say there will be 10,700 spaces within the third ring available for baseball fans on weekday nights. The number increases slightly for weekend games.

UPDATE: (2:30 p.m.) -- The study presents a science that is, at times, difficult to follow. The consultant, at one point, starts with a total of 17,000 off-street parking spaces within 3/4 a mile of Al Lang Field (5,000 within 1/4 mile, another 6,000 between 1/4 and 1/2 mile, and 6,000 between 1/2 and 3/4 miles). But the study eliminates 20 percent of the farthest away spaces because they would be less desirable. It also factors in a retail tenant occupying space, and therefore parking spaces, in the city's Southcore Garage. It makes assumptions that smaller parking lots will be less used, and bigger lots will be completely full. There's a great image that we're working to post that will detail what spaces the consultant's talking about.

UPDATE (2:15 p.m.) -- Because they're relying on the parking spaces of private businesses to make their numbers work, the Rays' consultants say only 6,800 spaces may be available when the Rays play a weekday afternoon game (Rays estimate 4-6 times a year). The Rays already run "camp" days for student groups on weekday, day games and could continue to do so in the new ballpark.

UPDATE (2 p.m.) -- Part of the parking plan calls for "pre-selling" up to 4,000 spaces to fans, based on zip codes. Fans coming from the south would park in southern spaces. Fans from the north would park in the north. The consultant suggests this strategy has worked in urban ballparks in Pittsburgh and San Diego. It's unclear if this would be for each individual game or only season ticket holders.

UPDATE (1:45 p.m.) -- We're just starting through these documents, but a couple of points stand out based on what we've seen so far. The Rays are assuming, using 2005 parking and tickets sales, a rate of 2.9 people per car. In that scenario, the team believes it only needs around 12,000 spots. The "available" spaces are within 3/4 a mile of the proposed new stadium and inlcude 2,000 spaces at Tropicana Field. The analysis assumes those spaces will only be used for near-sellout games and ticket holders would use a shuttle to reach the field.

ST. PETERSBURG -- The Tampa Bay Rays are releasing today  details of a parking and traffic management study that suggest there are nearly 14,000 parking spaces available for baseball games if a new stadium was built at Al Lang Field.

The number of spaces available does not include another 7,000 on-street parking spaces that would be available to downtown businesses and residents.

The study, performed by national consultant Rumme, Klepper & Kahl, found several companies willing to work with the Rays to find parking solutions -- including All Children's Hospital, Bayfront Medical Center and the University of South Florida St. Petersburg.

"Ensuring convenient access and adequate parking for the ballpark and other downtown attractions is critical to the success of downtown St. Petersburg and the Rays," Rays senior vice president Michael Kalt said in a release issued around noon Tuesday. "The Rays are committed to on-going coordination with the City of St. Petersburg, downtown residents, and institutions to minimize the traffic and parking impacts of the new ballpark and to attract new visitors to the downtown, its businesses, and its waterfront amenities."

We're starting to analyze the results of the study in more detail. You can see it for yourself here. But the release also says that of 32 "key intersections analyzed in the downtown area, only one minor physical intersection improvement would be needed to accommodate the flow of inbound and outbound traffic before and after baseball games."

The Rays also Tuesday submitted preliminary design details for the proposed 34,000 seat stadium to the city. Concepts highlighted include:

* Ballpark roof and façade design;
* The relationship of the proposed ballpark to the surrounding community;
* Potential public amenities;
* Streetscape improvement ideas;
* And sustainability goals.

You can review that document here. 

-- Aaron Sharockman, Times Staff Writer

Comments

[Rational]

"This is akin to saying that if I come steal your car, sell it and keep the money for myself it's ok with you because I didn't steal directly from your wallet..."

That's NOT what this is about at all.

This is more like selling a Ford Pinto and then using that money to buy a Lamborghini--with the lessee paying for the difference, if any, between the sale price of the Pinto and the purchase price of the Lamborghini.

I think we'd all have an open mind about doing that . . .

[Jimbo]

Changed the subject? Really? Unless it says "Jimbo" at some point, it's not me., and I don't remember changing any subject, since I'm still waiting for an answer to this one. If you're referring to when I got tired of your double-talk, then yes, I changed the subject to do other, more productive things with my day.

You still haven't proved that anything will come from the taxpayers. You just keep coming up with arbitrary numbers and clichés about how gov't and sports teams always gang up on the little guy and how big business is out to get us all? Where's your concrete evidence that someone living at 4211 Des Moines St NE or 1542 45th St S, or even 7056 34th Ave N, will pay 1¢ toward the construction? Until anyone, not just you, can prove to me that taxpayers are on the hook for a cent, then it's a faulty statement to suggest that, and it's nothing more than a scare-tactic to try and strike fear into the hearts of the citizens. It's worked for politicians and companies for years, so why not try it here, right?

It appears it is you that avoids the question, not me.

[jasonhouse]

And I answered such a question posed by your alter ego account yesterday, and you quickly changed the subject.

If you refuse to admit that this plan results in a few hundred million dollars in assets and future tax receipts coming out of taxpayers' bank accounts, then it isn't everyone else who has the problem with comprehension of the issue, it is you.

You continue to assert the Ray's fraudelent sales pitch that if a new tax isn't being imposed explicitly to fund a stadium, then this plan must be cost free... That is a ridiculously naive and ignorant assertion on your part man... This is akin to saying that if I come steal your car, sell it and keep the money for myself it's ok with you because I didn't steal directly from your wallet...

As I said, the Rays and their govt pals are doing a bang up job of confusing people like you with the needless complexity of this deal.

[Jimbo]

Then, you go back to my question posed yesterday at 11:45AM:

"You know, I'd like someone to cite one LEGITIMATE source where it shows that the taxpayers of this city will be paying for the stadium with new taxes. Then, I will stop supporting this stadium, no questions asked."

Until someone can bring me a source showing any taxpayer outside the area between 16th St S and 9th St S from 1st Ave S to 4th Ave S (who would choose to live there, not be forced to) paying a single cent for this project, the "handout to a corporation" argument doesn't fly.

No new taxes will be used on this project, and they never will!

[jasonhouse]

^Nice talk man...

But none of it's really relevant to the issue at hand.... Really is anyone basing their voting decision on interference with sailing classes? Environmental concerns? Parking at USF? Nooooo...

The vast majority of people I've heard talk about the issue are much more concerned with knowing exactly how much money the taxpayers would be giving the Rays over the life of the deal, and exactly how much we would be getting in return. (this is especially so since the Rays and their surrogates in govt have done a masterful job of avoiding discussing this aspect of the issue)

Ultimately, it boils down to whether each voter believes that for-profit corporations deserve Welfare too... If people are generally against Welfare for poor people who actually need it, then you can guess what they think of giving a handout to a corporation with no need, only greed.

So, for all of the stadium proponents out there, I wouldn't get too worked up over this one way or the other, because we all know full well that this deal's chances of happening are somewhere between slim and none.

[Jimbo]

Where do you get your facts, Al? First off, we're talking 3 years from now, minimum, and outside the Great Depression, the longest recession this country has ever has was two years in the early 80's. The fact is, having more stores and more downtown living spaces that are affordable (for people like me who can't afford $300K+ condos but love what downtown has to offer) will stimulate, not hinder, the economy. People aren't buying right now because no one wants to lower their selling prices from 2005's record rates. You can't get $200K for a 2/1 anymore; once people are willing to concede that fact and lower to reasonable prices, things will change, and quickly.

As for the parking study, if you actually read the article in the paper, it never said anywhere that the privately owned ones were "not available." In fact, some of the managers of those parking lots were actually open to the idea of opening them up:

(all on p. 4B)

- Calvin Samuel, a principal in The ARC Group: (about their 1st St S and 7th Ave S lots) "Shared parking usually makes complete sense, especially in a downtown environment."

- Andy Wallace, garage operator for the SunTrust's garage at 2nd Ave S and 3rd St S, said he would be open to the idea.

- Even Andrew Corty, a VP for the Times: "To the extent there are empty spaces, we would be open to discussion about leasing those out for game day parking."

As for "going to see a hockey game", good luck doing that in July. You do realize that baseball and hockey only coincide for 2 months, right? Baseball's the only game in town for 4 months, so chances are, people will go back, but they'll learn not to park on the street. It's Pavlov's law; if you train someone that punishment will happen should they do something, after enough times, they'll get it.

And for anyone who even knows what's going on downtown, there hasn't been a CART race here in 5 years...it's IRL, and CART hasn't existed in 4 years, it was Champ Car until it merged last month with IRL.

I spoke with Rays management, and they assure me that there shouldn't be a lapse in the races between groundbreaking in April and the 2010 race, meaning they'll have Bayshore rerouted and paved in time for the next race. Also, they said they've studied the geometry requirements of IRL and found that a rerouted Bayshore is more desirable than the dogleg at Al Lang that currently is in place. From what I understand, IRL hasn't commented on their thoughts, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear from them race weekend since their contract is up for renewal next year.

As for the sailing classes, after looking at some preliminary sketches, someone would have to hit a 600' homer to make it within reach of the sailing basin. The argument that "kids might get injured" is preposterous and another ploy by fear-mongers to get people to vote against it.

But, as with everything else I've said here, I'm just a paid drone that works for the Rays and have never been to St. Pete in my life, so I'm just "feeding the lies." The Rays pay me BIG to sit on blogs all day and spread their "propaganda." Quite Stalin-esque mentality, don't you think?

It doesn't matter that I've lived in St. Pete for 5 years, no one will believe me since I can't name my neighborhoods...oh, wait, I can: Shore Acres for 3.5 years, Gateway for one, and now Edgemoor for almost one. I've worked downtown for 2 years, and played downtown since I've moved here. I've seen the renaissance first-hand, and I enjoy what St. Pete has become in this short 5 years. I want to see the best for my city, and this will help move it into a whole new level. Gone are the days of "Cocoon" and "God's Waiting Room." If you want to live in a place like that, move to downtown Tampa, because it's a ghost town after 5PM. Me? I prefer to be on Central Ave all night long!

[Al]

Anybody who needs a few factoids to understand why redeveloping the Trop is not gonna happen anytime soon should take a look at this morning's S.P. Times' Business section. The writer had to stretch his vocabulary to describe real estate in the Tampa Bay area: "Clink, clank, clunk." "Malaise to critical." Retail stores have overbuilt. Shopping center vacancies, 7 to 10 percent. Office? Not likely to expand soon. Condo-hotel projects? Not realistic in the tighter credit market. Residential? Lenders outside Florida view Florida as the F-word. Tell me again how redeveloping the Trop is going to happen without taxpayers picking up the tab. Tell me again why the Trop has problems that a winning season by the Rays won't cure.

About that parking study: The Times reports that half the proposed spaces are privately owned and not available. Half the others are back at the Trop site. The reality is that people are going to park where they see a space, they will get tickets or get towed, and they will decide next time to go watch a hockey game. But, the promoters say, few people go to Rays games anyway. That's called planning for failure, folks.

[Sean Healy]

Doran Im a student at USF downtown and I have no idea what you're talking about with the parking. There's always plenty of space. Plus theres garages and street spaces all around campus at the mahaffey etc. that are ALWAYS EMPTY when im down there. My fellow students joke about the ghost town -- alot of us came here because we liked the idea of going to school in a city. Now we think that's funny because there was more going on at my parent's farm on a Saturday night than the area around the yacht basin, etc. on weekends (most of the time).

[Ken Smith]

Doran Cushing: Youth sailing classes at NIGHT (that's when they play baseball)? Sounds scary. Fleet of drinking boaters chasing baseballs? Didn't the quote from the proposal just say the Rays and the City would monitor that to prevent that type of thing (plus, it's not like our area doesn't already have a problem with DWI both on the water and on the roads -- and none of it due to the Rays)? Dredge and fill .6 acres in a 1000 sq/km Bay which, at the marina is filled with foul pollution anyway? Gimme a break. Species and seagrass? If the enviro agencies approve it, and the Rays take all the mitigation measures (e.g. re-plant 10 times as much seagrass after the fill and construction), what's the big deal?

Oh, and the drawings of the stadium DO show Bayshore running between the right/center field wall -- the support structure of the stadium passes over it, but does not obstruct it. The Grand Prix will be fine (by the way, for all of you who are so worried about traffic and parking impacts -- does anybody care that the CART people shut down/obstruct several downtown streets for up to a month in the run-up to the Grand Prix every year, with no apparent ill effects?) And another thing: even if the stadium did interfere with the Grand Prix (which it won't), what choice would you make between the two -- CART comes to town for one week a year, and then leaves us with nothing but the clean up; the Rays play 82 games a year here, keep their offices here, practice here, live here, permanently employ 100's of people here, give millions to charity every year here, etc., etc., etc. Don't get me wrong -- I love the Grand Prix. But if I had to choose between it and the Rays, it's not even close (and not because I like one sport better than the other, but because of what they can do for our community). CART -- 100,000 fans over one week spending their cash at downtown businesses; Rays -- 1,300,000 (and growing) fans spending their money downtown (if the stadium is approved) on 82 different occasions over the course of 6 months every year. It's not even close in my mind.

[Jasonhouse]

Jeff Gilbert

The obvious lack of respect for the opinions of others evident in your rants tells us all everything we need to know about you, and your worth to the discussion here.

[Doran Cushing]

There are so many factual errors on the "details" of the revised plan I don't know where to begin.

"...and serves as an important jewel in the waterfront park system, accented by Demen’s Landing, which will be in full view just beyond the left field power alley."

Wrong. Demens Landing will not be in full view beyond left field. It may be visible in the direction of right field. Just a minor error on the part of the architects, right?

"Bayshore Drive will be closed on game-day and open as an outfield
concourse for in-the-park pedestrian traffic..."

I don't see any Bayshore Drive behind the proposed stadium. Their own architectural drawings don't show Bayshore Blvd. behind right field or center field...only a walkway. How will CART feel about moving their race? The same drawings show the stadium itself covering what is now Bayshore Drive.

"The Rays anticipate working closely with the City and the Sailing Center to make sure that the traffic of small crafts on game days into the municipal marina is closely monitored. The Rays do not expect the operations of the Sailing Center to be impacted by the new ballpark."

Okay, so they have to move the youth sailing classes out of the basin during the summer. No impact. So they have a fleet of drinking boaters chasing baseballs like they are God's gift. That certainly won't impact the sailing center that has constant activity throughout the day, summer and winter. No impact. So they have to dredge and fill some of the bay. No impact. So they have to relocate some species. No impact. So they destroy seagrass beds that by their own research has proven to be struggling to survive. No impact.

It just never ends. One bad idea and one lie after another. And the city can't make a decision yet? I guess the checks aren't in the mail yet.

[Doran Cushing]

I guess no one from the parking "consultants" has ever been on the USF/St. Pete campus in the early evening hours...say 6 to 7 pm. It's a dogfight for the students. There is inadequate parking for the campus already. Remember that most of the students are commuters, driving cars, to the campus, from elsewhere.DUH!

Is the USF/St. Pete administration going sell off a majority of the student parking for ballgames during the week at night?

Lier, lier, the city council and mayor's pants are on fire. Re-elect none of them. They are wasting our money and their time on a boondoggle. Remember Bayfront Plaza? Remember the Russian sub? Remember the gambling ship? Remember the street racing promoter who left town owing the city a bundle (as did all of the earlier boondoggles). They must think we're dumb as a rock.

[Doran Cushing]

I guess no one from the parking "consultants" has ever been on the USF/St. Pete campus in the early evening hours...say 6 to 7 pm. It's a dogfight for the students. There is inadequate parking for the campus already. Remember that most of the students are commuters, driving cars, to the campus, from elsewhere.DUH!

Is the USF/St. Pete administration going sell off a majority of the student parking for ballgames during the week at night?

Lier, lier, the city council and mayor's pants are on fire. Re-elect none of them. They are wasting our money and their time on a boondoggle. Remember Bayfront Plaza? Remember the Russian sub? Remember the gambling ship? Remember the street racing promoter who left town owing the city a bundle (as did all of the earlier boondoggles). They must think we're dumb as a rock.

[Jeff Gilbert]

As for JASONHOUSE: dude, get over yourself. Ken made the points against your tired argument just fine, but your bloviating is everything thats wrong with politics these days! What makes me cringe is we're probably going to vote for the same candidate (unless you're a silly Naderite). PEOPLE: please quit skipping the facts in the newspaper and forming your judgment based on ideologies! EWWW corporate welfare. Give me an fffn break, worry about the real thing. This type of thinking is just as bad as loving every tax cut in the thick of a war. Somewhere in the middle, real Americans are living and working and would love to watch some outdoor baseball in the shade.

[Jeff Gilbert]

With all due respect to our socialist friends up North, Peter should shut his yap and take his long-winded AHHSS back to Canada (thanks for the tax revenue Pete). Again, read the thread:

Our Canuck friend makes my point without realizing it. Government should not be in the business of business! The reason Skydome, Olympic stadium, and the TROP were boondoggles is that they were built by the government! Read the history people. A for profit business doesn't rely on architect estimates it talks to the guy who's actually going to build the thing.

The great thing about the new stadium is when its built it will be by some very smart private owners. Good thing Stu isn't Canadian- he would have bought the STUDOME err Skydome. Sounds like you need to get up there and worry about your own politics Peter. Vote no on having a stick up your bum.

[Peter Nazwaski]

Hello Folks:

As a visitor seeking to temporarily escape the frigid conditions of the Canadian winterscape (and northern U.S.), I have been attempting to follow the discussion re the proposed new stadium in Tampa for the baseball "Rays".

I know that many jurisdictions in the U.S. have been conned into these boondoogles whereby private enterprise is only private when it comes to keeping profits which might accrue but, taxpayers are often left on the hook for costly unfulfilled promises.

In Canada, we have also had our share of boondoggles supported by politicians to advance the causes of their friends and to fatten the wallets of those friends.

Some of you might remember the 1976 Montreal Olympics. A unique and other-worldly state-of-the-art Olympic Stadium, with a roof that was supposed to retract, was built. The memory fades somewhat with time, but, as I recall, the taxpayers were supposed to be on the hook for about $200-million for that stadium. Well, given the (corrupt and feckless) system of government in Montreal at the time, the eventual cost was about $1-billion (and, that's spelled with a "B",folks).

And, here is the icing on the cake. The space-age roof, designed to retract, has never worked. Further, that roof has gone through several reincarnations since it keeps tearing and collapsing. So,now, Montreal has an Olympic Stadium with a permanent roof that does not retract. And, Montrealers keep hoping (they stopped "praying" in Montreal and Quebec several decades ago) that the snowload often seen in that City will not cause the roof to fall in again. With the resultant necessary repairs to the tune of several millions of dollars each time repairs are undertaken.

Montrealers, Quebecers and Canadians (yes, through Canadian government transfer payments we all were on the hook), finally got that Olympic elephant paid off about a year or two ago. And, again, the final cost was
$1-billion.

While the Montreal "Expos" of the National Baseball League played in the Stadium for several decades before they left for Washington and changed their name, the Stadium now is mostly unused except for the odd auto show or sporting event. There has even been some agitation to tear the Stadium down.

And then, there is the "Skydome" in Toronto. In the 1980s, the politicians and their friends in high places laid on the propaganda for the citizens of Toronto and Ontario regarding the need for a domed stadium which, again, was supposed to cost in the neighbourhood of, if memory serves me, $200-million.

Well, as you anticipated, that "Skydome" cost ballooned and the final cost was about $650-million (seeing that there is marginally less fecklessness in Toronto/Ontario politics compared with politics in Quebec).

Anyway, even with the Toronto "Blue Jays" of the American Baseball League playing there, it was a losing proposition according to the politicians and a drag on the public purse. So, the deep political thinkers of the time that ran the Province of Ontario decided to sell the "Skydome" to a member of the tightly-knit business community in Toronto. That is, Ted Rogers, who owns almost everything that conveys electronic voice or visual signals in Canada. So, the "Skydome" became the "Rogers Centre" and, along the way, Ted Rogers became the owner of the "Blue Jays" who continue to play their games in what is now known as the "Rogers Centre".

You wanna take a guess at what price the Province of Ontario sold its $650-million "Skydome" to Ted Rogers so that he could re-name it the "Rogers Centre"?

Well, the selling price was
$25-million. I kid you not.

And, the taxpayers of Ontario? There was hardly a peep out of them. And, those who did raise their voices in protest were so few in number, that they were ignored by the politicians of the day so that, what was supposedly a white elephant to the taxpayers of Ontario, would now become a handsome profit centre for Ted Rogers and his communications and sports empire.

There is a lesson there, Floridians. But, like taxpayers everywhere, I doubt that that lesson will be taken to heart.

Best wishes in attempting to bring accountability to your politicians in this matter of a new baseball stadium with a roof that retracts (maybe) so that the Tampa Bay "Rays" have a new playpen in which they can pursue new and better ways to milk the taxpayers and those fans who pay to buy tickets to attend their games.

******

[Peter Nazwaski]

Hello Folks:

As a visitor seeking to temporarily escape the frigid conditions of the Canadian winterscape (and northern U.S.), I have been attempting to follow the discussion re the proposed new stadium in Tampa for the baseball "Rays".

I know that many jurisdictions in the U.S. have been conned into these boondoogles whereby private enterprise is only private when it comes to keeping profits which might accrue but, taxpayers are often left on the hook for costly unfulfilled promises.

In Canada, we have also had our share of boondoggles supported by politicians to advance the causes of their friends and to fatten the wallets of those friends.

Some of you might remember the 1976 Montreal Olympics. A unique and other-worldly state-of-the-art Olympic Stadium, with a roof that was supposed to retract, was built. The memory fades somewhat with time, but, as I recall, the taxpayers were supposed to be on the hook for about $200-million for that stadium. Well, given the (corrupt and feckless) system of government in Montreal at the time, the eventual cost was about $1-billion (and, that's spelled with a "B",folks).

And, here is the icing on the cake. The space-age roof, designed to retract, has never worked. Further, that roof has gone through several reincarnations since it keeps tearing and collapsing. So,now, Montreal has an Olympic Stadium with a permanent roof that does not retract. And, Montrealers keep hoping (they stopped "praying" in Montreal and Quebec several decades ago) that the snowload often seen in that City will not cause the roof to fall in again. With the resultant necessary repairs to the tune of several millions of dollars each time repairs are undertaken.

Montrealers, Quebecers and Canadians (yes, through Canadian government transfer payments we all were on the hook), finally got that Olympic elephant paid off about a year or two ago. And, again, the final cost was
$1-billion.

While the Montreal "Expos" of the National Baseball League played in the Stadium for several decades before they left for Washington and changed their name, the Stadium now is mostly unused except for the odd auto show or sporting event. There has even been some agitation to tear the Stadium down.

And then, there is the "Skydome" in Toronto. In the 1980s, the politicians and their friends in high places laid on the propaganda for the citizens of Toronto and Ontario regarding the need for a domed stadium which, again, was supposed to cost in the neighbourhood of, if memory serves me, $200-million.

Well, as you anticipated, that "Skydome" cost ballooned and the final cost was about $650-million (seeing that there is marginally less fecklessness in Toronto/Ontario politics compared with politics in Quebec).

Anyway, even with the Toronto "Blue Jays" of the American Baseball League playing there, it was a losing proposition according to the politicians and a drag on the public purse. So, the deep political thinkers of the time that ran the Province of Ontario decided to sell the "Skydome" to a member of the tightly-knit business community in Toronto. That is, Ted Rogers, who owns almost everything that conveys electronic voice or visual signals in Canada. So, the "Skydome" became the "Rogers Centre" and, along the way, Ted Rogers became the owner of the "Blue Jays" who continue to play their games in what is now known as the "Rogers Centre".

You wanna take a guess at what price the Province of Ontario sold its $650-million "Skydome" to Ted Rogers so that he could re-name it the "Rogers Centre"?

Well, the selling price was
$25-million. I kid you not.

And, the taxpayers of Ontario? There was hardly a peep out of them. And, those who did raise their voices in protest were so few in number, that they were ignored by the politicians of the day so that, what was supposedly a white elephant to the taxpayers of Ontario, would now become a handsome profit centre for Ted Rogers and his communications and sports empire.

There is a lesson there, Floridians. But, like taxpayers everywhere, I doubt that that lesson will be taken to heart.

Best wishes in attempting to bring accountability to your politicians in this matter of a new baseball stadium with a roof that retracts (maybe) so that the Tampa Bay "Rays" have a new playpen in which they can pursue new and better ways to milk the taxpayers and those fans who pay to buy tickets to attend their games.

******

[Al]

Yes, "geo," it rains in Florida. Everybody plays in the rain except baseball players and tennis players, who are smart enough to come in out of the rain. I don't buy the argument that there's something so wrong with the Dome that it must be replaced. The main thing wrong with the Dome is the Rays, who were 66-96 in 2007, 61-101 in 2006, 67-95 in 2005, and so on. Fenway Park is not sold out because it is such a wonderful facility, but because Boston has a team to be proud of. During the last World Series, every time a ball was hit to left field at Fenway, the Rays' miserable 2007 finish was painted on the Green Monster for all the world to see. The promoters of this boondoggle are selling the sizzle. There is no steak to be sold.

[Ken]

By the way Jasonhouse, I ignored the numbers in your post about MLB's $6 billion in revenues, etc. Do I really need to explain the economics of pro baseball to you? Do you really not understand the difference between (1) gross revenues and profits, (2) the billion-dollar franchises like NYY and BoSox vs. small-market teams like TB and Pittsburgh, (3) the cost of skyrocketing player salaries, (4) the fact that MLB does not run the individual teams, contribute to their costs, or opertate their facilities, etc. Heck, even the Yanks and Mets had their brand spanking new stadiums built with public money, and those 2 teams annually bring in many times the amount of money that the Rays bring in. And by the way, this market is no "gold mine." Frankly, I can't believe the Rays want to stay here (though I'm glad they do). Despite being the 12th-largest tv market, spectator draws, tv ratings/revenues, and merchandising for area sports teams (Bucs, Lightning, and Rays) rank in the lowest third among cities/counties with pro sports franchises. If I were an investor in the Rays, I'd be counting the days until I could get the he11 out of here. For whatever reason, they aren't.

[Ken]

Jasonhouse: the first half of your post at 4:48 pm makes my point for me -- pro sports are NOT like any other business: every single sports team's stadium (as far as I know) has been paid for in whole or in part by the city/county where it is located, just like the Bucs and the Lightning. Whether you believe the owners have the money for it or not (and by the way, the Rays' owners are operating the team as a break-even operation, meaning whatever money they make is going back into player salaries and operations), the fact is that teams simply don't pay for it themselves. If St. Pete won't build one for them, some other city will.

As for the second part of your post, it's just more of the same utterly false nonsense about robbing an unsuspecting populace or "sneaking" some "shell game" past the voters. Is the project complicated? Yes; it's a sophisticated deal. Does that mean the voters need to work a little harder to understand how it would work? Yes. Does that make it a trick, or a "shell game?" NO. It's all right out there in the open to be examined, debated, discussed, even changed if necessary, and in the end, it'll be put to an up-or-down vote. How much more open can the process be? Oh yeah, I forgot: the Rays did their research and discussed it with city planners before going public with it -- how else should they have proceeded? Should they have sprung it on city officials in a press conference? Should the Rays have announced a plan that they hadn't done the research for, or hadn't at least done some preliminary ground work for? I don't think so -- that would have been unprofessional and irresponsible, and they would have been rightfully criticized by the same people who are now falsely criticizing them for not having gone public sooner. Ridiculous.

[Jasonhouse]

quote:"teams do not have the funds to pay for their own stadiums and remain financially afloat, nor can they afford to stay in outdated facilities."

I'm sorry man, but this statement is flat out factually incorrect.

MLB had revenues last year of over $6 BILLION dollars.

MLB can EASILY afford to get its own financing and pay for the facilities it operates its franchises in.

But why pay for something that somebody is willing to give you for free, if you simply ask for it?

It's no mystery that the Rays magically found $150 mil to put down on a new stadium, and golly gee won't need that $60 mil from the state afterall... Something tells me that a little prodding will magically shake loose untold millions more. The Rays know this market is a gold mine, and that having a shmancy place like this will allow them to rake it in hand over fist, at a high margin. Yet the Rays clearly have no interest sharing that wealth with their financiers. They just want the handout, and then it's "thanks for the free money, but we'll keep the profits for ourselves thank you."... Sorry but that's not how business deals work, and that's exactly what this is. A business deal between taxpayers and the people running this team.

The Glazers successfully mooched $200 mil off of Hillsborough voters, and since then have made so much money that the Bucs are now worth nearly a BILLION dollars. Do you see taxpayers getting one red cent of their money back, now that the Bucs are making so much money that they can hardly spend it all? Hell no. We bailed them out when they were purportedly in need, and now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's an icy f-u to taxpayers.

And make no mistake, the only reason this complex shell game has been proposed int he first place is because the Rays and their surrogates in city govt know full well that a direct referendum asking taxpayers to pay for part of this scheme wouldn't even make it to the ballot, the uproad would be so loud. So, they're trying to sneak this complicated land/tax deal past a general public who as one would expect, know next to nothing about commercial real estate, tax policy or urban planning.

Sorry to the rich fat cats looking to rob an unsuspecting populace, but this generation has learned their lesson the hard way. You're gonna have to wait for the next batch of voters who don't know any better. As the polls have made clear, this stadium is a non-starter with voters.

[What in Sam hill is going on]

Kitty: c'mon, enough already. Some fly-by-night operation or flipper didn't follow through on one little construction project, so no more development? There's a world of difference between those types of operators and Hines or the other big national and international firms who would qualify to redevelop the Trop (did you read the RFP? Qualified respondents are limited to the big boys). And the city can get financial guarantees or a reverter in writing from whatever developer purchased the Trop development rights. Cities get such guarantees/reverters all the time, and I suspect you'd find that in the cases you're referring to, the seller was either some private owner who didn't care what happened to the property after it sold, or somebody with the city screwed up and didn't protect against what you're talking about. I'm confident the Rays folks would be smart enough business people to not let that happen with the Trop -- it would be in the Rays' interests to make sure it didn't. It's just a matter of having people who know what they're doing put the deal documents together.

[kitty]

Thank you Rational for responding without flaming, but you only answered part of the question. The City can send out all the RFPs it wants, and developers can submit proposals all day, but at the end of the day, there's still no money to develop the land. Banks have no money to lend and investors are pulling out of or scaling back projects all over the country. The 600 block of Central Ave. is a good example. A developer purchased the entire block with the intent to build a residential/retail highrise, then couldn't even get a loan to demolish what's already there, much less put up a new building. My fear is that the plan will be approved, someone will purchase the property, tear down the trop and leave acres of wasteland in the middle of downtown.

I just want to know where the money for demo/development is going to come from.

[Ken]

Jasonhouse: I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the city and its voters don't have a choice here. Of course we could all decide that the cost of doing what is necessary to support a pro sports franchise is too high for a city this size. I don't think that is the case, but a fair argument can certainly be made on both sides of that fundamental argument.

I for one think having an MLB franchise is an asset to the city. But it's important to understand that that is the basic choice we have to make: do we agree to invest public resources to make the Rays a long-term part of our community, or do we do nothing and then watch them leave in a few years? If you don't like baseball or don't think public resources should be used to subsidize pro sports teams under any circumstances, then you're entitled to that opinion. Just understand that there is not a single pro sports franchise in this country that isn't subsidized by its host city (usually in the form of assistance with building a stadium). It's not about padding the pockets of a for-profit; it's about reality -- teams do not have the funds to pay for their own stadiums and remain financially afloat, nor can they afford to stay in outdated facilities. The Rays will not stay WITHOUT a new stadium somewhere on the horizon in the not-too-distant future because it's not economically feasible for them to do so, and because there are half a dozen cities just waiting out there to lure a MLB franchise away with better offers. Maybe your response to that choice is "So be it, let them leave." In that case, you should vote against the proposal. Just don't fool yourself that you can vote this down and expect them to stay. And before you make that decision, stop and think for a second what it will be like with NOTHING on the Trop site, and NOTHING on Al Lang. No new tax revenues, one less reason for out-of-towners to bring their cash into our businesses, one less reason for anyone to know where St. Pete is on a map. That's not a situaton I want to see. I think the Rays are worth keeping, so I'll be voting yes.

[jasonhouse]

ken... typos happen. Unlike some of the other people here, I'm not petty enough to obfuscate the discussion by pretending you said something you didn't mean. :-)

But the problem with your reasoning is that the lease is up on the Trop site in just a few years anyways, and then the taxpayers would be free to do whatever they please with the Trop and the land under it. Taxpayers are under no obligation to renew with the Rays. The assumption that the city is obligated to provide the Rays with a free facility to conduct their business in perpetuity is another fallacy foisted upon an unwitting public by people with a vested interest in seeing taxpayers continue to pad the bottom line of a for-profit corporation.

[Jim Dietrich (aka Jimbo)]

Good call, Ken. As someone said earlier toward the top, you can lead a person to water, but you can't drown him in it without going to jail. I'll go talk to intelligent people, such as yourself, and open-minded opponents (which, I still have no problem with) who are willing to listen. These sheeple (BAAAAAAA!) refuse to hear anything but the sound of their own voices; as they say, misery loves company!

[Al Lang]

Do I need to come back from my grave and slap around a few City Council people? When that stadium was named after me, it wasn't meant to make rich people richer. Its a ball field. Let some kids play on it if these spoiled rich team owners aren't feeling like their houses are big enough or their cars are fancy enough... and stop making me roll around in my grave. Give a dead guy a break.

Sincerely,

Al

p.s. I really like the 320 foot structure. What a great contribution, bet the cell phone companies are already asking to put their antennas on top of it. Can someone tell a dead guy what a cell phone is please?

[Ken]

Jim Dietrich (aka Jimbo): Is it just me or does it seem like we have to explain the same rather simple concepts over and over again? I'm done here -- the Rays DON'T pay me to blog, and reading some of the nitwits who post here just isn't worth my time.

[Jim Dietrich (aka Jimbo)]

Thanks, Jason, for finally admitting that there will be no new taxes. Seeing as that argument has been killed, it's time to address other issues.

Can anyone at all explain his point of how the city can redevelop the Trop w/out the Rays input? Since the City and the Rays have a contract, the City, while they get the final say, has to have some agreement w/the Rays, since they City can't break the lease w/out massive penalties (approaching the price of the new stadium, perhaps), and that would be all out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The Rays won't disappear, as much as I know some people would like them to, but that's a good thing. If the current management were anything like Naimoli and his motley crew, we'd be in some serious doo-doo, but thank God Stu and Co have proven (so far) that they're honest-to-goodness people looking out for a community.

[Ken]

Jasonhouse: In my prior post, I meant ". . . the Rays control the site pursuant to their long-term LEASE." Typos happen when you try to work and blog at once.

[Ken]

Jasonhouse: You're wrong. The city cannot choose to develop the Trop site because the Rays control the site pursuant to their long-term site. The city won't be able to move the Rays off the site unless there is a new stadium built -- either elsewhere in St. Pete or far far away in a different city or state. Also the Al Lang site is only worth alot of money if the city is willing to sell or lease it to someone to build a huge office building or another luxury condo. Is that what you propose to do with Al Lang if the Rays don't build there? Finally, and this is the part of your post that seems to be deliberately misleading -- the cost of the new stadium proposed by the Rays would NOT be paid by the taxpayers. It would be paid for by (1) the Rays' payment of $150 million in cash up front (as opposed to the $2 million a year they pay in rent now at the Trop), and (2) the TIF funds generated by the Trop site redevelopment. And by the way, the Trop redevelopment would generate $millions in tax revenues in addition to the TIF funds, and those tax revenues could be used for schools, etc. As it stands right now, the Trop site generates ZERO tax revenues.

[Ken]

Kitty at 11:44: I think I already told you on this message board yesterday, but here it is again -- you're an idiot. Sorry for the harsh language, but you just refuse to (1) read, or (2) listen. Developers DO in fact use their own cash. The developer the Rays consulted with -- Hines -- is already interested in the site, and Hines has got $billions sitting in the bank. Yes, that is the kind of cash true international developers have access to, and if they think the site will be a profitable development, they'll go for it, and YES, they will pay for it. If they don't think it's a profitable development opportunity, they'll pass on it and we'll know that long before ground is broken for a new stadium. The Rays and the city have already said publicly that if the responses to the RFP's come in and developers don't think the site is worth very much, then this proposed project (the stadium and the Trop redevelopment) simply will not happen.

[Ken]

Lisa-magical-elf: Is that you, Justin Elza? If not, you must be his love child because you keep using his catch phrases, which aren't all that catchy anyway. Stick that in your 5-pound sack.

Winford: I'm from St. Pete. My name is Ken. Now you know me. I support this idea. So now you can't claim "I certainly know ALOT of people in St Pete, been here for 15 years now and I don't even know anyone who know's anyone who supports this mess of an idea."

[Marc]

I would think that the geezers at Bayfront Towers would appreciate the phallic imagery of that 300 foot pole on the waterfront given the amount of Viagra that is no doubt passed around there and in the vicintiy each evening.

[jasonhouse]

quote:"Which reminds me, I'm still waiting for someone to cite me a legit source showing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that everyone who lives in St. Pete will have their taxes raised to pay for this stadium. Anyone...?"

Hi Jim... You're right, they aren't asking for an explicit 'tax increase', whereby a St Pete resident has to open up their wallet on next year's property tax bill and shell out X anmount of dollars exclusively because this stadium was built.

No. What is occurring is the gifting of huge sums of currently owned taxpayer assets (90+ acres of prime downtown land), and literally hundreds of millions of dollars in future property tax receipts on the redevelopment of the Trop land.

The fallacy in all of this is the false assumption being made by stadium proponents that this land is 'just sitting there' and is thus worthless. But what's even more offensive to reality is the notion that said future tax payments would never occur, were it not for this scheme. That's utter hogwash. As I explained above, the city can easily sell this land themselves, zone it for whatever they want to be built there, offer some incentives if needed to lure the first tenants (using land sale proceeds) and voila!... Taxpayers get the money from their land assets, and get the money from future property tax proceeds once that land is developed.

So, maybe you're taxes won't necessarily go up with this plan, but there is no chance of them over going down either, and there is no oportunity for the city to capitalize on these assets and use them to fund the govt's budget or bolster the local economy. Instead, all sale and property tax proceeds would go to padding the Rays' bottom line.

Now, it's within everyone's rights to decide that they would rather give their money to a for profit corporation, and not to things like education, transit, public safety and so on. I for one, am not willing to make that sacrifice. I'm a huuuge sports fan, but I also have kids, and I refuse to leave them with a city even worse off than what the last generation left us.

[jasonhouse]

quote:"Jason, you didn't answer the question:

Specifically, which "taxpayer owned assets" would we "hand over" to the Rays?"

The three point plan to clue in:

1) learn how to read.

2) read most any news article about this topic.

3) pay attention to the parts discussing the ~80 acre Tropicana Field site, and the ~10 acre Al Lang site... these are real pieces of property, with real value. Anyone who knows anything about commercial real estate, knows that these parcels have quite a lot of value in fact...

Yes, the Rays want the city to 'lease' them the Al Lang parcel for the new stadium. That lease will pay the city FAR less than what the property tax collection on a redeveloped Al Lang could be... And it of course doesn't account for the $15-30mil the Al lang parcel is worth on the open market.

Oh, and the Rays also won't be paying property taxes on the Al Lang parcel, even though it will have a $450mil building sitting on it. That alone will cost taxpayers a few hundred million over the life of the stadium. (Ray Jay is worth about half as much as this proposed stadium and is assessed with a property tax bill each year of about $4mil)

Then we move to the ~80 acre Tropicana parcel, where the Rays fully expect to receive all proceeds from the land sale. The taxpayers don't get one red cent for their asset... The Rays also expect proceeds from the sale of taxpayers lands to pay for all infrastructure improvements to the site and surrounding neighborhood, including improvements within the site which will be on privately owned property... And most importantly, tax proceeds from the Tropicana parcel will go to pay down the cost of the new stadium itself, which will be owned by the Rays, not the taxpayers.

The key part ommitted by city leaders in all of this is, the taxpayers don't need the Rays or a new stadium to successfully redevelop these parcels. The city could easily sell parts or all of these parcels off and receive tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars for the land itself. Once redeveloped, taxpayers would then receive several million, and likely over $10mil a year in property tax collections on the redeveloped properties. And NONE of the proceeds would be paid to the Rays, but would instead go towards the cost of running our governemnt... And instead of plopping down a stadium and retail on these parcels, both of which will provide little more than minimum wage jobs to the community, the land can actually be used as a REAL economic development tool for the community. Use some of the land sale proceeds to fund an incentive program to lure corporations to bring real jobs to town.

The Rays' plan gives the taxpayers nothing for the land, nothing towards the outstanding debt on the Trop, provides relatively little economic development, bills taxpayers for much of the cost of the new stadium, and provides next to nothing in the form of property tax receipts on the subject parcels after redevelopment occurs. It's a lose, lose, lose proposition for everyone but the Rays's owners and fanboys.

Government does not exist to pad the bottom line of corporations with political connections, nor does it exist to fulfill the fantasies of myopic fanboys eager to sell out their community for personal benefit.

[Rational]

"who is going to pay to redevelop the trop site?"

Thank you. A legitimate question that seeks facts and isn't grounded in irrational hyperbole.

The City has sent out to developers a request for proposals for the sale and redevelopment of the Trop site. Presumably, interested developers will propose what they would pay for the job and/or the details of the financing they have secured for the job.

The developers' proposals haven't come in yet.

Obviously, if no one is able to buy the Trop site and pay to redevelop it, that would be a deal breaker because that money would fund the new stadium.

The fact is that hasn't happened.

And if the Rays and City don't find a developer for the Trop site, then certainly we have a rational reason, grounded in fact, to vote against a long-term lease for the Rays on the Al Lang site.

But the important point is this: The City and the Rays have already addressed your concern and will hear from developers soon.

[kitty]

One question if the moderator can stand it - I posted it but it disappeared:

If the rays abandon the trop for the al lang site, who is going to pay to redevelop the trop site? Developers don't use their own money. Banks have none to lend, especially for projects in the Bay Area, and investors aren't interested in risking their $$$. In fact, developers have scaled back on several high-profile projects in the area, or refuned investors' money (if they're lucky!)

[Jim Dietrich (aka Jimbo)]

Winford, I'm from the Edgemoor neighborhood in St. Pete. Lived there for about 5 months, but lived in Gateway for a year before that, and lived in Shore Acres before that. So, I'm from St. Pete. I wish the Rays paid me; that way, I wouldn't need a 2nd job. However, I support it because I see facts and not scare tactics.

Which reminds me, I'm still waiting for someone to cite me a legit source showing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that everyone who lives in St. Pete will have their taxes raised to pay for this stadium. Anyone...?

[Winford]

Where are you people from who support this? I certainly know ALOT of people in St Pete, been here for 15 years now and I don't even know anyone who know's anyone who supports this mess of an idea. I really do tend to think that you are being paid by the Rays to write these supporting statements and create uncertainty and doubt. I mean just look at that website in support of this mess. They hide who they are, they used a designer and writer from Tampa and the person who owns the domain name is so hidden and buried (some shady business out of California) that is smacks and reeks of paid for by the Rays PR machine. Heck if this is such a great idea, why do the Rays need to hire an all powerful lobbyist team? All the more reason to not be brainwashed by powerful lobbyists and multi mega millionaires. Don't even put this on a ballot, its clearly a rip off of our City.

[Rational]

"You know, I'd like someone to cite one LEGITIMATE source where it shows that the taxpayers of this city will be paying for the stadium with new taxes. Then, I will stop supporting this stadium, no questions asked."

There is no legitimate source showing that because no one is proposing that.

That's what opponents to the plan don't want to understand.

[Rational]

Lisa,

"These are good jobs being proposed but low level meaningless service and retail level jobs. That is not job creation... "

So by your calculation, the only viable alternative for the Al Lang site would be to construct an office building whose tenants hire only graduate-degree applicants.

Also, you're not considering that the redevelopment and operation of the Trop site will create both temporary and permanent jobs.

"its quite insulting seeing as how a billion dollars is being proposed for a budget"

What? No one is proposing a billion dollar budget!! And even if that were true, WE WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN THE FORM OF NEW TAXES.

[Jim Dietrich (aka Jimbo)]

You know, I'd like someone to cite one LEGITIMATE source where it shows that the taxpayers of this city will be paying for the stadium with new taxes. Then, I will stop supporting this stadium, no questions asked.

[kitty]

To all of the new stadium supporters, one question that nobody seems willing to answer: If the rays abondon the trop for a stadium at the al lang site, who is going to pay to redevelop the trop site? Developers don't spend their own money - they get loans from banks, and there's no money to lend. evelopers have been scaling back projects or outright cancelling them and refunding investors' money. Having the trop on that site is better than looking across a 30+ acre wasteland to an interstate off-ramp.

[Lisa-magical-Elf]

Believe it or not, I am a registered voter in St Pete. I really hope this garbage isn't approved for a vote, or I'll personally have to go down and vote no on this nonsense. I really can't imagine who you people are that are for this. Literally everyone I know in St Pete is just baffled that such a crazy idea is even being considered. And for the hotdog vending job comment I made, yes, exactly my point. These are good jobs being proposed but low level meaningless service and retail level jobs. That is not job creation... its quite insulting seeing as how a billion dollars is being proposed for a budget. You'd think with that kind of price tag, we'd get something more than 'uhh you want mustard on that'.

[Rational]

Lisa,

When you make your graduate degree an issue in your argument, you're asking people to scrutinize your writing.

You brought it up. Don't take the criticism personally.

[Rational]

Jason, you didn't answer the question:

Specifically, which "taxpayer owned assets" would we "hand over" to the Rays?

[jasonhouse]

quote:"Are you even paying attention? Specifically, which "taxpayer owned assets" would the taxpayers hand over to the Rays?

NO ONE is suggesting that we're going to hand over Al Lang to the Rays. The City will LEASE the land to the Rays. Thus, the Rays will PAY RENT to the City."

Oh my bad, nevermind... it's free! It's utopia come to life, right here in St Pete! Rejoice all, the Great Rational has given this scam his stamp of approval, we can all rest well tonight!

You should run for public office, cuz you know how to spin lies with the best of them.
_______________________________________

rayray... The opponents of this scam, which happen to outnumber people like you by about 60-40 right now, clearly have a better idea... Sadly for fanboys like you, the alternate solution doesn't involve gifting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer assets to a profitable corporation owned by carpetbaggers from NYC.

So, keep beating that dead horse if it makes you feel better. That's what debate is all about... Just know that this plan started out as a loser, it's still a loser and it's going to be a loser if it makes it to November.

[Lisa-magical-Elf]

Unreal how the Rays have people supporting this. So I mistyped a word. ooops. My opinion is forever discounted. I don't matter and have to give in and support your desires to build a stadium because I typed incorrectly. Damm, I should ask for a refund on my degree. I surrender, you win, you have convinced me that you are better than me because you pointed out a flaw in my post... darn, I'm so dumb so now I fully support this. I have my shovel in hand to help dig the hole to put the 320 ft 'thing' in the ground to hold up the sails. I called the bank, they are giving me a 2nd mortgage so I can personally loan the money directly to the Rays. Where do I mail my check to.. heck, I'm in, I can't believe it, but you have convinced me. Give me your phone number so I can call you now and drink some kool aid. Lets get this alien spaceship started! I can't wait! Kids will be smarter, dogs won't doo doo on my lawn and the world will be a brighter, shinier place. Wow, I'm stoked.

[jasonhouse]

Rational,

Again, feel free to sink your hard earned money into whatever hobby you enjoy... You like baseball. Good for you.

However, considering the Rays' attendance and TV ratings, it seems to me that non-Rays fans VASTLY outnumber the fans. Thus, this isn't at all an issue about the 'public good'. The Rays are a for-profit corporation, which serves a niche hobby for a select few local residents.

Again, watch baseball all you want. Enjoy yourself. Just don't expect non-baseball fans subsidize your hobby.