The Friday stadium discussion

The discussion to Thursday's post on the Tampa Bay Rays' stadium-financing proposal has been vigorous and lengthy and I thought I would pick it up in a new post today. Naturally, this will be the subject of my Sunday print column as well.

In my own mind, I divide the debate into two categories: Stadium Finance and Everything Else. Even this might be objectionable to folks either for and against the stadium who care most about a particular topic. I am certainly leaving out some arguments (feel free to add!) but for a quick summary of the "Everything Else" debate:

FOR THE STADIUM: Economic impact of construction and permanent jobs. Positive effect of pedestrian traffic downtown. Renewal and redevelopment (to whatever extent) of a new "west downtown" on the Tropicana Field site, with new property tax generation that will not only help pay for the new stadium, but create new revenues for schools and other services. Exciting new use for a site (AL Lang) that now only gets 15-20 uses a year. Creating a first-rate "signature'' on the waterfront, with the likely prospect of hosting an All-Star Game every bit as good or better for St. Pete than the Grand Prix. The argument that small-minded "green-benchers" are risking a unique opportunity that, once lost, may drive away the team eventually and doom the city to mediocrity.

AGAINST THE STADIUM: Misuse of the city's precious and irreplaceable waterfront that should be preserved for open greenspace or passive public use. Infeasibility of parking, ruinous traffic, heat & weather, degrading of downtown quality of life. Environmental impact of dredging and construction. "Hidden" future costs to taxpayers for law enforcement, public services, infrastructure, etc. The general argument that public support of sports facilities is unwise when we're cutting Medicaid, education and other services. The fact that there is still "shelf life" for Tropicana Field, which is not even paid off yet.

Okay, those are what I can think of in the "Everything Else" category. Now, as to the financing itself...

(1) The Rays say they will put up $150-million, a third of the cost, and guarantee any cost overruns. I do not think this is coming out of their pockets -- one earlier scenario was they would artificially inflate their rent payments to the city, and use that "revenue stream" to borrow the money. One way or the other I figure they will borrow it -- maybe against improved concession deals at the new park -- but I am not sure I care, as long as the public is not at risk. In engineering or software terms, their contribution is a "black box" -- i don't care about what's inside it, as long as it spits out $150-million and there is no public risk or detriment.

(2) Without question in my mind, the extension of the county and city payments represent "new" tax dollars -- otherwise the existing debt would be paid off by 2017. The question is whether the whole shebang "pays for itself" through all the new taxes we are supposed to collect on the new development at the Trop site. To me this is the critical question. Rays finance guru Michael Kalt says there is no question we will get that money -- which makes me ask, in that case, why isn't there some way to guarantee it, either in the contract with the developers, or the Rays? If it is such a slam-dunk, and Hines is such a world-class outfit, then I am just a little bib-overall-wearing, small-town rube, but I still think the deal should guarantee St. Petersburg that the revenues will be there, or else we shouldn't take the deal.

By the way, the math is tricky and can be worked in any way you want, rhetorically. The $100-million (county) and $75-million (city) contribution as estimated by the Rays simply represents the tax payments AFTER the existing debt period on the Trop runs out. In reality, we are talking about selling off one public asset (the Trop), leasing away another (Al Lang), dedicating the proceeds of the Trop sale to the new stadium, AND continuing to make the existing payments through 2017 even after we retire the existing debt. This is how I get to the calculation of $150m owners, $245m taxpayers, $55m parking and other deals, which is not quite the way the Rays frame it.

(3) Having said that, I can see the argument that this is a good deal anyway. The county and city taxpayers keep making their same "car payment" that they're making now, and they get a new "car". Plus they get whatever benefit arises from the Tropicana site redevelopment, and all the corollary benefits of new business downtown, job creation, economic impact, etc.

The devil is in the details. The city has to negotiate a Development Agreement for the Tropicana site, and a stadium lease and construction agreement with the Rays. In both these deals I want every possible protection for the taxpayers, and I do not know that I have 100% confidence in the city's ability to negotiate it. Just for starters, the city has to be protected from any environmental clean-up liability at the Trop site. There's the question of who pays for the Tropicana demolition. We need to be able to hold the developer's feet to the fire with a construction schedule, penalties and guarantees, and I don't mean just the ultimate "nuclear weapon" of reversion to city ownership, since that doesn't solve the basic problem of paying for the stadium. Then there's a whole separate body of issues concerning the new stadium. As one commenter noted wisely, what's a "cost overrun" and what's a "change order" that the taxpayers WOULD have to pay for? How do we deal with unforeseen costs and expenses? What happens if the thing is half-built and somebody files Chapter 11?

So my own thinking has not really changed much since the beginning. I am the guy sitting in the car dealer's office, being offered a deal that "pays for itself," and all I am saying is: If it pays for itself, then why won't you put that in the contract?

Looks nice. where's the warranty?

Okay, now we've seen the sales pitch on how to pay for a new stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays. The overall deal looks interesting and possible, but for me, the key question is still not... quite... locked down.

The key question is:

Are the taxpayers guaranteed to cover their share of the cost of a new stadium by selling off Tropicana Field to developers, and then taxing what gets built there?

What the Rays want in this deal is for county and city taxpayers to keep right on making annual payments, even after Tropicana Field is paid off.

We'd be making the same "car payments," and the pitch is that we'd be getting a new and better "car."

Here is the other half of the deal that is supposed to make it all work. In theory, if we sell off the 85-acre site of Tropicana Field to developers, and get it back on the tax rolls, we'll end up collecting more money than we're paying.

In fact, on Thursday, team officials predicted that even if developers built only HALF of what they have proposed for the Tropicana Field site, the public would already be collecting enough in property taxes.

This is music to my ears. Well, actually, it WOULD be music to my ears, if it were language actually in a contract somewhere. Right now, it's just a little hum.

See, everybody keeps saying that the developer can't and won't guarantee a certain level of property taxes. And the Rays certainly can't guarantee it either. The only "guaranteed" part of this deal is that the taxpayers would be on the hook.

So we're just going to have to proceed on faith, according to these folks. After all, I keep hearing, no developer would simply buy a big piece of land like this and just do NOTHING, would they? (Insert a long, sarcastic pause here.)

No guarantee, no stadium. Just one guy's opinion.

* * * * * *

There's a lot of spin and rhetoric and different yardsticks being used, but it seems to me the hard dollars work out this way, again using present-day totals:

* Team owners: $150-million

* Taxpayers: $245-million ($70-million Trop sale, and $175-million in  annual payments).

* Parking and other side deals: the remaining $55-million.

For the Rays to keep their original promise that no "new" tax dollars will be involved, the Tropicana redevelopment has to work, so that the taxpayers more than get their money back. Otherwise, we're simply talking about extending the taxpayers' annual payments for 25 or 30 years beyond the time they would have been finished -- and that's certainly a "new" tax.

Times photo of Rays executives Matt Silverman and Michael Kalt | Edmund D. Fountain

Poll: Rays stadium financing plan

Paying for a new stadium
Putting aside your other questions, how would you rate the Rays' financing plan?
Swing-and-a-miss (No chance)
Single (Problems apparent)
Double (Not quite convinced)
Triple (Almost there)
Home run (Build the ballpark)

A program note

Happy Thursday. I hope to post something at mid-afternoon, once the Tampa Bay Rays make public their proposed plan for financing a new waterfront baseball stadium in downtown St. Petersburg. To quote a variety of guys down through human history: This had better be good.

Thursday column: Heckuva job on that toxic plume, y'all

Here's Thursday's print column. I was going to start out with a little scene-setting description and an interview I did from the Azalea area of St. Petersburg. But the more I thought about it, the more urgent it seemed for the column to make the point as vigorously and quickly as possible -- it just can't be enough for the government just to sit around and wait for the next report, as it's been doing for 15+ years.

Hence the slapstick, visual image of the governor literally kicking the DEP secretary in the seat of the pants until he fixes it. Would that government worked that way at times...

* * *

Here is what I would do if I were the governor. I would march down to the office of my secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection and start kicking him square in the butt.

"Ow, governor!" DEP Secretary Michael W. Sole would exclaim, trying to protect the region in question from my gubernatorial brogans. "Why are you kicking me in the butt? Please stop!"

But I would just kick him in the pants again and say, "Not until you fix this toxic chemical plume in my hometown of St. Petersburg! Your department has been dillydallying about it like a bunch of $#%$%s forever!"

Then I would hand DEP Secretary Michael W. Sole a bucket and a shovel and tell him to get down to St. Petersburg, and not to bother coming back until it was fixed. And by "fixed," I would not mean, "Scheduled to receive another report."

Okay, my little fantasy is finished now. This is not going to happen.

Here, instead, is what is going to happen with the toxic chemical plume that we now know to be on the move, making its way through underground western St. Petersburg, migrating toward Boca Ciega Bay:

Nothing.

How about them Rays?

Hello and happy Wednesday. Check out Aaron Sharockman's story this morning about the Tampa Bay Rays' relatively poor attendance, despite their unprecedented success in the season so far.

My own thinking is that this will improve with time; you can't have an unbroken team history of 10 losing seasons in a row and expect fan support to turn on a dime. I certainly think it's too early to make any kind of declaration that the Tampa Bay area "isn't a baseball town."

I say this as somebody who spent my share of time sitting in a partially filled Tampa Stadium watching the old Bucs under an indifferent ownership, before they became a regular playoff contender (with a new stadium!) in the 1990s. And even the Bucs, at least, had reached the playoffs early in their history, before sliding into a 15-year slump of mediocrity.

The still-new Rays ownership has done everything right when it comes to building fan enthusiasm and community support -- including the most important ingredient, putting a competitive team on the field. I gotta tell you, this is the most exciting and promising Rays team ever. Even so, it wouldn't be surprising to see attendance stay below hoped-for figures for a while longer; the full effect of the team's surge might not even be felt until 2009. But it is hard to imagine the team remaining in the hunt after the All-Star break without seeing some improvement in the attendance numbers.

Now, does anybody besides me feel an emotional tug-of-war between supporting the team and being excited about it, and being skeptical of the Rays' proposed waterfront baseball stadium? I did get one e-mail this morning that made me laugh. It said, in its entirety: "Save the Trop. Go Rays." I am eager to see the team's financing proposal that is supposed to be made public Thursday, but I am worried about whether it will "work," in terms of not requiring tax revenues, or guaranteeing that the sale and redevelopment of the existing Tropicana Field will cover the taxpayers' share of the cost.

Here's the transcript of the May 13 chat

Hello, happy Tuesday, and welcome to the transcript of the weekly live chat here on TroxBlog. Today's chat started out with comments about the Rachel Hoffman story, the state Legislature and the presidential race, and ended up mostly focused on the proposed baseball stadium in St. Petersburg.

To read the transcript of today's chat: Just click on the "Comments" link of this announcement, a few lines below. You'll see a page with everything that's been said so far -- and at the end, a space for you to add your own question or comment.

Thanks to everyone who stopped by or took part in today's chat -- I hope to see you at the next chat on Tuesday, May 20!

Psst! Live chat Tuesday, noon - 1 p.m.

[Tuesday morning update: There's still time to "pre-file" topics or comments for today's live chat. A couple of folks have made interesting observations about the Rachel Hoffman case, for example. File a comment to this post, or come join the live chat at noon today!]

I hope you can stop by TroxBlog from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday for our regular weekly live chat. I'll be here live and (more or less) in person, taking questions and comments about current events in the Tampa Bay area and beyond.

To observe or take part in the chat, come back to TroxBlog at or just after noon and look for a new announcement with the headline, "The May 13 chat is OPEN." Click on the "Comments" link of that item, and you'll be taken to a page with everything that's been said in the chat so far, and a form for you to add your own questions or comments.

As always, if you can't be here live, you can "pre-file" a question or suggested topic in the comments link of THIS post, just a few lines below. And you can come back after the chat to read a transcript of what was said. Otherwise, I hope to see you at the chat!

Tuesday's column on Monday! Lawyers in space and other matters

Tuesday topics:

(1) While sifting through the bills passed by the Legislature this year I ran across this one: “An act relating to informed consent for spaceflight.”

Yep. From now on, if you’re a space tourist launching from Florida, you’ll first have to sign a statement acknowledging the danger involved.

And if you get hurt or killed because of the “inherent risks of spaceflight,” under Senate Bill 2438 you and your family won’t be able to sue. It’s sort of like the deal you sign when taking a bungee jump.

You might be thinking, “Wait a minute. There’s no such thing as a space tourist.”

Not yet. But everybody figures there will be one day, and Florida wants to be a space-industry-friendly state. After all, nine other states also have “spaceports” and are our potential competitors.

As for you space lawyers out there, don’t despair. There are still grounds for action if someone acts negligently, knowingly or with intent to hurt someone. You’ll always be able to sue the Klingons.

Best letter of the day so far (snail-mail category), although admittedly, it's early yet

This one comes in an anonymous envelope addressed to "Potty Mouth Troxler." Inside is a clipping of Thursday's column with a heavy underline beneath the word "podunk," which the author apparently considers an obscenity. The message, scrawled across the clipping in pen, verbatim except for my hyphens:

To bad you did not a good English class at the University of Tampa. Youre sh---y paper got my last 25 cents today

Best e-mail of the day so far, although, admittedly, it's early yet

A dissatisfied customer comments on Sunday's column:

* * *

SPT Libertarian:

"Civil marriage is nothing but a state-approved legal contract." That is quite a statement on Mother's Day, it isn't saying much for your mother, your wife if you have one!

If these same sex marriages are so great why ban bigamy among heteros. Why not let sisters have open, no holds barred sex, same for brothers, there won't be any procreation. Why not bestiality, both hetero and homo? Why not openly indulge in public places?

I remember several years ago seeing an editorial letter suggesting that those so pleased with homosexuality read a book called And The Band Played On authored by a homosexual

I did read it and it is sickening, I suggest you read it. With your attitude it would probably be more enjoyable for you than It Takes a Village. 

For normal people 'The Band' is abysmally rotten, describing the depths of filth and physical injury that those 'loving' people insist on. -- Laura R.

Sunday column: Aiming at Adam & Steve, or a lot more?

I had a hard time writing this column -- not on the underlying gay-marriage issue, but on the question of whether the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment might threaten health benefits or other existing legal arrangements among consenting parties.

I really do not want the supporters of the amendment to think I am just parroting the opponents' arguments. I would LIKE to hope that the supporters are right, and that the phrase "substantial equivalent" means only civil unions, or something close to the full panoply of martial rights and legalities.

On the other hand, I can see how a court could have the room -- as the Michigan court did -- to strike down existing arrangements as being "equivalent" to recognizing marriage. Such a ruling might be WRONG, but it's still possible. So I am afraid the opponents might have a valid concern. But I hope not.

* * *

Floridians have to decide this November whether to put a ban on same-sex marriage in our state Constitution.

Maybe you're thinking: "Huh? Didn't we already ban this in Florida?"

Yep. You bet. Our Legislature passed a law.

But the backers say the ban ought to be in our Constitution too. So they got enough petition signatures to put it on the ballot.

There are two levels of debate here, the first being simply whether you like this idea.

But the second question is whether the Marriage Protection Amendment — by accident or design — also might outlaw all sorts of other things, such as domestic partner benefits or legal arrangements made among long-time companions.

Come on and let me know: Should she stay or should she go?

Okay, this is sheer opinion on my part, not backed up with any actual journalism, but it's Friday so let's shoot the breeze about the Democrats.

(1) I still think Hillary Clinton would be a stronger Democratic candidate against John McCain in the fall than Barack Obama would.

Go ahead, call me an idiot; I'm used to it. But she's been around the block and all her negatives are known. Forty-two percent of the nation hates her and would never vote for her. But that is not 50 percent, is it? Besides, I have a standing bet that Hillary wins the White House IF she's the party nominee, so I'd like to see it play out.

Obama, even now, is still a relative blank slate to mainstream America. I also think he's a sitting duck for a brutal, full-scale attack, the kind that transformed John Kerry in 2004 from a Vietnam medal-winner to a French-speaking wimp. I can see it in the man -- the impatient feeling that "Look, I've already dealt with this childish nonsense," when the bulk of the nation has not even turned its attention to it. I still regularly get those "pass it on" e-mails about how he's a Muslim who took the oath of office on the Koran. Like all idealistic Democrats, Obama will not be able to fight back, will resent that he needs to, and he will complain about how unfair it all is. The question comes down to which candidate would be better in a knife fight.

(2) Regardless, Obama has won and it is time for her to quit and unify the party.

Despite point (1), Obama has almost surely won the party's nomination, barring a miracle/disaster or a rebellion -- even if you give Florida to Clinton. The "rebellion" would be the party insiders giving her the nomination no matter what, which seems unlikely. The miracle/disaster would be if Obama somehow blew up before the convention -- if they caught him on tape burning a flag, or he turns out to be a member of Al-Qaida, or some figure close to him even more explosive than Rev. Wright turns up. Maybe Clinton is hanging around waiting for this, but it's too slim a chance. She ought to quit -- and spend the rest of the year repairing the Clinton family image by being as gracious and supportive and happy a party warrior as she can be. Same goes for that guy she hangs out with, who really needs to do something gracious about now. If President McCain serves one term; the Dems get a fresh chance against Vice President Cri -- I mean, whoever the nominee is in 2012.

Like I said, sheer opinion on my part. The floor is open; I am all ears to hear what you think.

Thursday, May 8

Good morning and good Thursday to you. My print column today is about specialty license tags. I propose that before we create a new plate from now on, enough people have to pay in advance. I also propose that we set a fairly high requirement for minimum sales before plates are discontinued. Somehow I do not think the Legislature will rush to take these suggestions. This is hardly the most important topic in Florida but I do try to keep a mix and this seemed like something a lot of people would relate to. I have been thinking a lot lately about "mix" and resolve not to just keep writing columns that say, "Here's yet ANOTHER public issue we should be mad about."

The main story in the newspaper today was the shooter who got shot at the courthouse in downtown St. Petersburg. Congratulations to the bailiffs who reacted quickly and protected the public. It sounds as though the guy had simply gone south, mentally speaking -- not even, necessarily, a rage-filled spouse in a divorce case, which is sort of the stereotypical courthouse risk.

The guy's mother said she didn't think he intended to shoot anybody, but that is not very convincing since the man showed up at the courthouse with a gun in a knapsack, produced it and started firing. She also blamed his downturn on reading conspiracy-oriented web sites. But if web sites could make otherwise "normal" people nutty, we would have more nuts than we already do. It's a modern twist on blaming bad music for bad behavior, etc... or Socrates for rebellious kids in Athens, for that matter.

I did check out the web site the mother mentioned, www.freedomforceinternational.org. I did not see any open advocacy of violence, just the general accusation that much of the world is falling under "collectivist" power and that a minority of informed individuals in the world need to resist it. The group's Latin motto is, Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt, which translates more or less as, "The powerless cannot defend liberty." (Hey, that degree is paying off already.)

Elsewhere: my Sunday column was about St. Petersburg's attempt to annex part of Tierra Verde; the latest news is that the city has delayed today's hearing in response to the county's objections. But the article doesn't reflect much concern on the part of the city officials to reports of voter intimidation -- instead, it's portrayed as a routine delay in an otherwise apple-pie annexation that the city intends to pursue. I'd like to see a little more acknowledgment of these problems from the city, along with SOME expression of concern on the impact on Tierra Verde, instead of just, "Hey, the property owner wants in and we want to grab some land, so what's wrong with it?"

The Rays lost last night but are still above .500 this late in the season, and in second place in the AL East. The Orlando Magic aren't done yet. My puppy Louie, now almost four months old, is briefly wearing that medical device known in my house as "The Cone of Shame" to protect a couple of stitches in his belly where we had an umbilical hernia fixed. It's getting hotter and more humid around here, in other words more like a "normal" May.

Lastly, either you know what I mean, or you don't care in the slightest, when I say that I wonder if tonight we will meet Jacob. Does this mean I am hypnotized by the mass culture? Probably. Please forgive this stream-of-consciousness blog post. I am off to try to learn something new in the world, if that's possible, despite the claim of Ecclesiastes that there is no such thing. Maybe not, but maybe it will be new to me.

Thursday's column on Wednesday: God goes 1-for-2 in specialty license tags

God went only 1-for-2 in the Florida Legislature this year.

He did get a new state license tag bearing the slogan, “In God We Trust.”

But the Legislature did not approve a more Christian-themed tag featuring a cross, stained glass, and the slogan, “I Believe.”

“In God We Trust” now joins the game of tennis, the preservation of lighthouses, and the declaration that this is “Horse Country” as the subjects of Florida’s 110th, 111th, 112th and 113th specialty license tags.

In a way, I wish the Legislature had gone right ahead and given the cross its own tag too, which might help us get this business cleared up in court once and for all.

Either that or it also should go ahead and create tags for Judaism, for Islam, for Buddhism, and even for atheists (I am thinking of the slogan, “I Do NOT Believe,” and the rest of the design a blank.)

Or maybe — and I am just talkin’ kooky here — maybe a government-created tag for the purpose of displaying a valid registration is not the place for expressions of religious or political beliefs.

(If only there were some other place on the back of a car for expressing beliefs...)

Three letters

First, on the evolution debate:

Back in the 50s as a young teenager I asked Mom (Dad, the minister, wasn’t home at the time) how they felt about “evolution” vs. the Genesis story. Her answer has stuck with me all these years. “We believe the Bible tells us why we’re here, not how we got here or how long we’ve been here.” Another dear friend, a pretty conservative retired pastor, said he thinks it’s a waste of time for us to worry about how long we’ve been here – instead we should worry about we’re doing while we’re here. Hear hear! -- Paul Cooper, St. Petersburg

Dear Paul Cooper: Good words to live by. I always add the comment that God Almighty, creator of all things, maker of the Universe, etc., etc., certainly could have had dinosaurs if he wanted to, and if anybody claims to know what a "day" is to God, they know more than I do, and ought to set up shop.

Next, a question about conservation land and taxes:

I was wondering if you had heard any news about "A Sembler Bill.   I heard about it on NPR. In case you have not it is a land conservation bill our Florida legislature has passed or is in process of passing to preserve land or partial land (partial being the operative word) to save from development. When I heard the name of the bill I almost choked on my coffee!  I have been trying to find more information about it on the web but find nothing. Have you heard anything? Why would a big developer want to conserve land? Maybe it would make for good reading in the Sunday times? Thank you for listening! -- Julie Goode, St. Petersburg

Dear Julie Goode: I haven't heard it called "the Sembler bill," but there IS one thing going on that might be what you're talking about. We have to vote on it in November. It's a "conservation" tax break for land owners -- if they promise to set aside their land for conservation, they can be taxed less on it. Some people think this idea, which was passed by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, was meant to benefit big land owners like the St. Joe Co. If you think this is not what you were talking about, or if there's something else I don't know about (which would not surprise me), let me know.

Lastly, yet another question that reveals the extent of my personal ignorance:

THIS WEEK'S SWEETBAY HAS A BIG AD FOR GREEN PEPPERS--$1.49 PER POUND, REGULARLY $1.99 PER PD.  THE REGULAR PRICE MAKES A  HEALTHY PEPPER $I.OO EA. WHILE AT MY ME VEGGIE STORE, THEY ARE 2 FOR $1.00---WHY????? -- ROSE W.

Here's the transcript of the May 6 live chat

In this week's live web chat held earlier today on TroxBlog, we talked mostly about the just-concluded session of the Legislature. Our conversation ranged from evolution to truck uh, "decorations." Check out the transcript by clicking on the "Comments" link at the end of this post, just a few lines below.

Thanks to everyone who stopped by or took part in today's chat. I hope to see you at the next live chat here on TroxBlog! Stay tuned for  announcements.

Psst! Want to talk about the Legislature? Live chat Tuesday, 11:30 a.m. - 1 p.m.

I hope you'll join me from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Tuesday for the latest edition of our weekly live chat here on TroxBlog. I'll be live and more or less in person, taking comments and questions about current events in the Tampa Bay area and beyond. I figured a good Topic A would be the just-concluded session of the Florida Legislature, which debated everything from budget cuts to.... uh.... truck decorations.

To observe or take part in Tuesday's chat, come back to TroxBlog at or after noon and look for a new post with the headline, "The May 6 chat is OPEN." Click on the "comments" link of that announcement and you'll see a page with everything that's been said in the chat so far, and a space for you to jump in with your own question or comment.b

As always, if you can't be here live, feel free to "pre-file" a question or comment to THIS announcement by clicking the "Comments" link a few lines below. Also, remember you can always stop by TroxBlog afterward to read a transcript of what was said in the chat.

I hope to see you Tuesday!

Me, B.A., M.A.

Forgive me for horn-tooting. Here's me crossing the stage and shaking hands with USF President Judy Genshaft at Saturday night's commencement exercises in Tampa for doctoral and master's students. After four and a half years I finished my M.A. in ancient history -- you know, Greek and Roman guys wearing dresses and sword-fighting and all. [Photo courtesy of William Murray.]

My master's thesis was titled "Electoral Abuse in the Late Roman Republic." The general idea is that the collapse of the 500-year-old Roman Republic around the time of Julius Caesar, and the beginning of its transformation into the Empire under Augustus, were preceded by a dramatic rise in the stretching and breaking of laws concerning the Romans' annual elections.

You've got to be really bored or really interested, but... here's a copy: Download Thesis.pdf

Column: St. Petersburg's bid to grab island is a troubling sign

In case you didn't see my Sunday column on St. Petersburg's plans to annex part of Tierra Verde...

* * *

If you take the Bayway exit off Interstate 275 southbound in Pinellas County, head for the beaches, and then turn left toward Fort De Soto Park, you'll pass through the unincorporated island community of Tierra Verde.

There's a little village of marinas, restaurants and shops on your right just after you cross a drawbridge over the Intracoastal Waterway. I used to stop there at the Bait Bucket on my way to the park, back in the days when I pretended to be trying to catch snook or redfish.

But if the city of St. Petersburg has its way — and if the residents of Tierra Verde can't stop it — this northern end of the island will soon be known as, uh …

"St. Petersburg."