Here's the St. Pete City Council video

Here's a video of the St. Petersburg City Council's discussion on Dec. 20 in which the council re-confirms its intention to include the designation of Al Lang Field as a park when it next amended the city's land-use rules. The discussion takes about six minutes.

This past Thursday, the council finally passed that amendment -- but without the Al Lang designation. Citizens who supported the park idea were upset and said that the council had gone back on its word. But some of the council members deny it. So, I thought it would be useful to show the video.

Note that Bill Foster starts by asking his colleagues -- haven't we already agreed to do this? Am I crazy? Are we going back on our decision? Council chairman James Bennett assures him that the Al Lang issue will be "number one" in the ordinance. Others agree, and member Herb Polson says that anything else would be contrary to what had already been said.

But that was then, this is now... my Sunday column asks whether the council has yet something else up its sleeve for Al Lang, even if the idea of a waterfront stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays falls through.

Comments

[Pablo]

Two points. First, how can Bennett face himself in the mirror every morning? Second, what the heck is a "glitch ordinance?" Every definition of "glitch" I can find includes a reference to a mistake or a sudden change. What a great excuse: "Oh, it was a glitch to promise parkland in the first place, so we'll fix it." Final thought. Maybe Foster feels that, since he's no longer on council, he doesn't need to fulfill his promise of shaving his head.

[Jack Burlakos]

Which is less?
$100,000,000 or $400,000,000?

You figure it out:
$100,000,000 - still owed on the current Tropicana Field
plus
$450,000,000 - proposed cost of a new waterfront stadium
total
$550,000,000 - proposed to taxpayers for cost of new stadium plus the
balance due on the existing Tropicana Field.
minus
$150,000,000 - All that Rays are obligated to pay on the new stadium.
balance
$400,000,000 - Taxpayers, the city and county will be liable for.

Percentage question: Which is less?
You figure it out!
33.3% of $450,000,000 - Rays obligation for new stadium
or
66.7% of $450,000,000 - Taxpayers obligation for new stadium
plus
100% of $100,000,000 - already owed on the Trop.

Comon folks! This is is nothing more than a numbers game which involves needed revenue for taxpayers to save, not gamble at this time. This is just not the year or the time to allow this Rays proposal to go any further or to allow our representatives to pursue this proposal. Let's at the least wait another year. And to all you avid sport fans out there who love their sports, the Bucs are socking it to you with their ticket hikes! Don't think for one minute that the Rays won't do the same, especially by giving up 10,000 seats to the new stadium they want.

[guy]

Howard ~ I have yet to meet or talk to anyone who thinks a new stadium is GOOD idea.
This subject has drawn more response to your blog site by far than any other.
You should organize a scorn campaign against the council and the Mayor and get them to start respecting the people.

[matthew lawson]

Of the many people I chatted with in the past two days the overwhelming theme to their responses to the Council's and Mayor's shenanigans with the Rays is "What? Do they think we're stupid?"
Everyone can see the Rays seem to feel they've got our elected officials wrapped around their moneyed fingers. Everyone wonders if that money isn't sliding off into the Council's pockets? Everyone feels disgusted that our government somehow thinks we don't understand that the money for all this is coming out of our pocketbooks.

No Council, everyone is not stupid. And they are tired of you thinking they are.

[Thor]

It really amazes Thor at the short sighted view of these people. You want what 80 some acres of parking lot downtown with some stupid looking ancient domed spaceship looking stadium for the next 100 years or do you want businesses and homes located right near downtown putting more tax revenue back on the books sending much needed money to the schools, creating a lot of jobs and a really cool looking ball park. The Rays say no taxes from people, it all come from the trop area and Thor beleives 'em. So go ahead, keep going against this and St Pete will remain some sleepy city, hey we may be able to attract Cocoon three, the remake. Thor is brave, Thor is wise.

[Chris Jenkins]

Thor is an idiot.

If the city council and the Rays had any kind of a record of veracity with the taxpayers, fiscal accountibility, and self sufficiency not requiring city funds, then Thor would have a reason to believe the Rays. If Thor would have seen reindeer on his roof and a fat man in red in his living room, Thor would have a reason to believe in Santa Claus.

From where I sit, both look like fantasies.

My property taxes and insurance keep climbing while my selling value keeps dropping. Solvency is truly questionable at some points. The one thing I really do not need is the city of St. Pete trying to chip a few more nickels out for a new ballpark.

The thing that really kills me is this:

No one I know gives a crap about our baseball team. No one. I don't know a single Rays fan. I can't give away the stacks of comp tickets I get all year. What's more, all the "Peripheral Economic Development" that's supposed to occur with a deal like the Trop (and of course, the proposed new ballfield), has resulted in what for the Mid-Town area? Longer lines at Ferg's, an empty parking lot at the Trop, and a name change for Bethel Heights (although certainly not an economic boost for the residents there). Wow. For this, Thor believes we should believe the Rays and the City will magically generate money from nothing, and not try to take my last fifty cents.

Right. I forgive Thor; he's a Norse Barbarian God of Thunder, not exactly known for their intelligence. The rest of us, however, need to take a good hard look at how deeply our local representation is willing to stick it to us.

All incumbents must go. Every one of them.

[Chris Jenkins]

OK, after watching the video again, I think Bill Foster might get to stay. The rest of them need to go, and take Baker with 'em.

Then it would be "A Great Day in St. Petersburg!"

Let's remember that this Feb. 26th, the Governor's Baseball Dinner will be held AT THE TROP.....

http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2007/12/17/daily36.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Might start assessing JUST HOW FAR UP THE FOODCHAIN this public hoodwink is going. Remember, Gov. Crist is the ONLY politician on record completely supporting the stadium deal...and rumor has it that BUD SELIG Major League Baseball is the one who REALLY wants the Rays to have that new stadium.....
So when we're playing "find the rat".....we might want to think beyond just our dullard City Council.

Hope you're invited to that, Howard, so citizens can hear what REALLY goes on that evening with all those biggies of MLB and the city. And I would hope that NOT MORE THAN ONE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ATTENDS..OR WOULDN'T THAT MEETING HAVE TO BE NOTICED?? Or maybe anything to do with the Trop JUST CAN'T STAND THAT STRONG LIGHT IN THE SUNSHINE......

[Aquaserpent]

Does anyone have $100,000.00 or more? If not the City and County Counsel persons will not hear you, and that is that.

I have been told by my employer that I cannot accept a lunch from a vendor for fear that the gesture could sway my judgment; a $10.00 lunch represents approximately 0.014% of my total income. At the same time a local politician can accept $500.00 or approximately 0.25% the average funds needed to run for office locally and when asked the politician will scoff that sum would not sway their decisions. So either I am cheap, or I need to become a politician so that my ethical standards can attain the level I think they should be.

Until we remove all private money from the political process, you can bet the farm that our elected officials will be pimping our resources to the guys with the money. If you think I am too cynical I would say to you, “No I am not asleep at the political orgy, and I can feel it every time I get tagged.” I just never can figure out how the guys stay in office for decades. I can’t understand why the public keeps electing them, I haven’t voted for an incumbent for decades, but they stay election after election, and if by chance we get someone new in an office, it’s not long before they are selling us to the guys with the money.

So someone with more intelligence than I explain to me; how could this happen, who then is to blame. In case you don’t recognize this line it is from Steppenwolf’s Justice Don’t Be Slow. It is scary how songs written by these guys 30 years ago are still prevalent in today’s politics.

[Aquaserpent]

A BIKER BAND! Who would think, they would think beyond Drugs, Sex, and Rock and Roll? Maybe they were anti-establishemt for a reasion.

[TD]

Chris Jenkins from 11:49 AM says that he does not know ANY Rays Fans. Chris, leave your house, you recluse! Go Rays, Go New Stadium, & Go Trop Redevelopment.

[thor]

Hey Chris, Thor figures you must be about 150 years old, too old to leave the house. Thor will take you to a game with a lot of Rays fans. This idea is good for the whole city, area and state. Chris can stay in the house, Thor knows there will be a lot happening in St Pete. Hey Chris, Thor will dig you a whole so you can stick your head in it and hide from all the good things about to happen here in St Pete. Thor is brave, Thor is wise, Thor has a shovel to begin consturction.

[Chris Jenkins]

Thor and TD must be alternate personalities of the same developer.

I'm hardly a recluse; I'm 33, in technologies, and have a wide, diverse, and very active social circle. We are into the arts, local music, and good entertainment. We support local small businesses such as The Globe Coffee Lounge, Vitale Bros., Munch's. We go to shows at Jannus Landing and the State Theatre, and occasionally make the drive to Ruth Eckert to see a classical performance. We love dinner at Ceviche and drinks at Mastry's. In other words, you couldn't possible be more wrong about my socialization.

It's the older crowd that really adores baseball, not the younger crowd. Everyone I know deeply into organized sports is into Football, Basketball, and Hockey, in that order, and the second two don't have nearly the following as the first.

What's more, my social circle is intelligent, politically savvy, and active on voting day. One of us is a strong candidate to replace an existing city council member, and we are in the plannng stage to make that happen. We LOVE the fact that St. Pete is waking up from the sleepy little burg it's been, but we are damned if what it will wake up into is a soul-less city comprised solely of Megaplexes and Sports Complexes. Cities are made of people. If you want a city to grow and prosper you must take care of the people in it. That means jobs, affordable housing, decent road systems, and effective emergency services.

All of you former frat boys nearing retirement and bemoaning the loss of your glory days with barely conscious freshmen can quit trying to sell us these giant white elephants. We are the next generation of Saint Pete's municipal leaders, and we want a city that serves its population, not the whims of developers and the pockets of a few. We believe in new development, but it must be careful, and worthwhile. We believe the value of a waterfront park is greater to the average young family in this city than another un-needed sports center. We also believe that if the city has money lying around they are itching to use, it should go to existing city works projects to continue our positive progression in the core midtown, uptown, and downtown areas.

Sorry, Thor. You and all your developer buddies can talk all the trash you want, make all the assumptions you want, but it's clear that your connection to reality at large is no better than your perspective of who you were talking to. It's not the stodgy reclusive types who are standing in your way; its the next generation, and believe you me, we are coming.

[Howard Troxler]

With all respect, I don't think that the statements "Nobody I know is a baseball fan any more" or "Everybody is in favor of this except for a few naysayers" is convincing in either direction. But of course this is why we have elections -- if it goes that far.

I am a lifelong baseball fan, excited about the fact that pitchers and catchers report on Thursday. I have suffered with the Rays for their 10-year history so far. If this new stadium works and gets built, you will see me there.

NONE of that changes the fact that any deal that the city pursues has to offer 100 percent protection to the taxpayers -- and so far the city's track record not only is unreassuring, it is downright scary. Any government that claims the right to hold public proceedings, in which the public believes it is hearing A, while the city has signed secret documents that say B, and a government that claims the right to do the opposite of what it says it is going to do, is not going to win the public trust, seems to me... :)

[Makes sense]

Wow, Chris J. You summed it up perfectly. I'm older than you, but I think like you and the management of this city needs groups of young blood like you!

Attention Bill Foster!

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper944/stills/3e5ba88ec26e7-44-1.jpg

[Jack Burlakos]

Are we the taxpayers actually paying for these people to hold meetings in which no one pays attention to the other? Do any of them actually communicate with each other?

11:19.......THAT was funny!!

[Chris Jenkins]

"I am a lifelong baseball fan, excited about the fact that pitchers and catchers report on Thursday. I have suffered with the Rays for their 10-year history so far. If this new stadium works and gets built, you will see me there."

No offense, Howard. :D I wasn't slamming the Rays, just noting that they don't seem to be of any importance in my social circle, and that I can't give away the comp tickets I get.

It really doesn't have anything to do with Baseball, and everything to do with the city council treating the public domain as their personal opportunity to pad wallets and sell influence. That makes me mad.

[Thor]

Chris, Thor appreciates your earlier post. However, Thor does not beleive Mr Troxler's website was meant for resumes, or personal ads. Thor auggests Chris vist www.careerbuilder.com or www.eharmony.com. Perhaps if you get a job or a date, you will think differently about a new ball park and new shopping at Tropicana Field. Perhaps you can work at one of the new stores or take that lucky someone to one of the new places to eat. Thor has spoken, Thor is brave, Thor is wise. Thor is going to career builder herself right now.

[Chris Jenkins]

"Chris, Thor appreciates your earlier post. However, Thor does not beleive Mr Troxler's website was meant for resumes, or personal ads."

Hey Thor, I think you meant "beLIEve". Did you forget the "lie"?

Oh wait. You included it in your previous post...

[Paul]

Hahahha! 'perhaps you can work at one of the new stores...' that's funny. Yeah, now that's what I call economic growth. A retail job, wow, what a career. Maybe if one is really really lucky, they can move up to household goods and geee, wow, maybe they'll even get a store discount. That's exactly why this project is a turkey. Retail jobs and housing are not economic growth. The only one who makes money are the out of town corporations who own the places. My new saying is 'Scrap this Crap, recall City Council'.

[20/20]

I say again!...

This situation is quickly becoming a disgrace and an embarrassment. For what it’s worth, this is what I believe should happen;

1. The entire plan should be immediately halted… and all dates, meetings, actions, e-mails, phone records, promises, leases, trade-offs, pay-offs, and players publicly exposed.

2. Any politician involved should be charged with Dereliction of Duty and Intent to Defraud the Public… and summarily removed from office forfeiting all residual benefits.

3. The BOCC should be held in contempt for having full knowledge, and failing to protect via injunction proceedings… property owned (presuming it still is) by the citizens of Pinellas County.

4. Bill Foster can possibly salvage (to some degree) his career IF, he stands by his word and shaves his head. It is the manly thing to do; it is the honorable thing to do; it is the right thing to do.

The again, I'm just a sucker for that whole Constitution thing.

[TH]

If the plan continues on the path that the Rays, City Council, AND Baker are going there is a problem. The current contract for the Rays at the Trop is locked in tight and would be VERY expensive for MLB to get out of. If the Rays negotiate to build a new stadium, you can bet that the existing contract will go away and a new "loop hole" one will come in its place. Then we are going to be stuck with a new stadium and a team that will constantly be holding over our heads the idea of moving (even to Tampa).

My second comment is why do the Rays have to go downtown? There is plenty of room for them to do a flip on the 80+ acres that they own and build a new stadium with retail and a housing mix surrounding the new stadium. Then they could bring about another shot of re-development in that area and provide new services to the community. There would be plenty of room for a developer to come in and assist in the underwriting of the new facility and the city could keep Al Lang as an outdoor concert location or a baseball park where college & recreational baseball tournaments could be held. Gee, an opportunity for the city to create a revenue stream from a park location... What a concept!

[Will]

Anyone wondering about the clandestine nature of Mayor Baker’s secret meetings with the Rays, the huge increases in his city budgets during his tenure and his amazing giveaways in taxpayer dollars in the name of “economic development” need look no farther than his family tree. These giveaways, these manipulations of our money have been done by Baker, a man who once admitted to sandblasting paint off old scrap metal which was then processed and passed off as new and used in military equipment. When such equipment began failing and effecting the health and safety of the U.S. military the federal government began investigating Aerodyne, the Baker’s company. Those hearing ended with discoveries not only of the sale of scrap metal as a new product but money laundering as well. A federal indictment of Baker’s two brothers and his father as felons resulted in the brothers going to prison and the father serving house arrest. Baker did no time. The St. Pete Times did not reveal his involvement in the Aerodyne scandal until well after his election. See link to that story below.

This man, who has manipulated our money, orchestrated giveaways to corporations, and who knows what else clearly has his “eye on the prize.” And that is not the protection of the citizen’s interest or pocket book. Many feel he has his goals set on Tallahasee, maybe Washington. And his road there will be paved by the money and power-brokering he’s done here. Some newcomers to the city express outrage at the mayor’s secret dealings with the Rays. Those of us who have lived her a long time are not surprised. The apple does not fall far from the family tree.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/041101/TampaBay/Mayor_copes_with_rela.shtml

[Chris Jenkins]

Right on, Paul @7:59.

We don't have affordable housing. Let me say that again. We don't have affordable housing.

Plans for new development that do not take into consideration the current state of actually living in St. Petersburg, without the benefit of being a member of the self congratulatory '100 Most Influential' crew, are furthering the house of cards destined to collapse on the taxpayers' heads.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8625/citilifetb9.jpg

[Chris Jenkins]

The level of propoganda this circle of developers is putting out is truly a sight to behold. Citilife, a free monthly with a bad enough design team to actually be another independent mag around here, uses Sterling Powell's face and zany credentials to put out a fluff article called "A Billion Dollars in New Investment at No Cost to the Taxpayers!". Long on hype and short on facts, it completely acted as though this entire previous conversation since the initial land use meeting had not occurred. This is the same issue in which Rick Baker cover stars, and features in roughly every other photo. It's also the issue where every developer in the county gladhands each other, and the few local notables they gave a passing nod to (kudos for mentioning JoEllen Schilke, but where was Vitale Bros and Tom Nestor in local art and music?).

Why is this all relevant? Because Citilife is run by notable local developer and real estate guy George Gower (Gower Prudential) and content contributed by Colleen Smith of Project One, a building engineering firm. Their faux "alt-monthly" is acting as a completely factless campaign poster for the Rays deal.

[Aquaserpent]

Rewind about 15 years ago, the city proposed the Dome for baseball and at almost the same time a Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Where do you think the Pier came from? Fast forward to the present, the Dome is still viable and there is still a debt on it, and no one goes downtown after dark, unless it is to the Dome. Now let us examine the reasons no one goes downtown; there are more bullets flying downtown then at the rile range, you need to have your wife or significant other clinging on to you so the hookers will leave you alone, and you need a bucket of bum repellent. These are just a few of the reasons on one goes downtown at night, and is the very reason this new development plan will not attract any one either. Finally; No I didn’t forget about the dueling protests, but everyone needs to get into a good fight now and then.

[Aquaserpent]

Yes I have dyslexia and can’t read or write that well, but that doesn’t mean I’m stupid.

[HaThor]

Chris, HaThor here. Too bad you are not well informed. HaThor wishes you were. If you were, you would know that this is a really good idea, there is no downside. Chris, go sit in the Tropicana parking lot tomorrow. HaThor bets you'll just ooze with the tax money coming from that big nasty lot...oops guess what there is nothing coming from that lot. HaThor knows that. Perhaps you could try to learn it instead of being against anything that comes down the pike. Chris it is a good thing you were not around when Tom Edison was inventing the light bulb, HaThor beleives you would have been against the light. Follow the light Chris, become informed. HaThor has spoken, HaThor is brave, HaThor is wise.

[Adam]

HaThor is hilarious.

Chris did a good job criticizing a free monthly magazine with a "bad enough design team" for putting out a "fluff article." Apparently, Chris hasn't heard the concept, "You get what you pay for." I bet Chris is the kind of guy who takes free samples of sweet-n-sour chicken in the mall foodcourt only spit it back into the lady's face for being too sweet and sour.

Aquaserpent, I don't think you've been downtown in 15 years.

All of you pinheads are wrong. A scam is a scam is a scam... scam me once (Trop), shame on you... scam me twice (Al Lang), shame on me.

[Chris Jenkins]

Speculative Ad Hominem, and a blatant Straw Man? That's the best you can come up with, Adam?

I have quite a selection of free weeklies to choose from. Creative Loafing and TBT are both well designed, and occasionally have content worth reading. I did do a good job recognizing the fact that there is not a shred of integrity to the Citilife mag, that there is a clear connection from the players in the fluff article to the publishers of the mag, and how that connection is not in any way disclaimed in the mag. That's not something the Times would get away with.

Everytime I make a point, based in fact, about the dirty nature of this deal, you guys respond with an ad hominem. Perfect. Your lack of refutation of my points, and substitution of attacks on my character, serve only to reinforce the truth of my statements.

Say hi to Rick, Sterling, and the rest of the boys for me when you guys are in the next "screw the residents" meeting, Adam.

P.S. Yeah, I put my real name in here. Unlike many of the shady participants, and their chosen mouthpieces, I don't have to hide behind anonymity, and I'll debate you on this topic in any public forum you like.

[Adam]

The Times wouldn't get away with it because they're recognized as a legitimate news outlet. I'd be suprised if Citilife saw itself the same way. You have to lower your journalistic expectations for free montlhy info-tainment publications.

I don't think anyone is refuting the notion that the City Council's decision not to designate Al Lang as a park is questionable. But is that fact alone sufficient to categorically dismiss the stadium idea on its merits even before the Rays release a financial plan and the proposals from developers come in?

Chris, you admonish me for making "speculative ad hominem attacks" and then promptly suggest that I associate with "Rick, Sterling, and the rest of the boys" and engage in "screw the residents" meetings. You're calling the kettle black, my friend.

[Chris Jenkins]

Fair enough, Adam. Your response in this case was measured and even toned, and I'll do the same.

The rest of the story is un-necessary if it begins with "There once was a shady deal...". It doesn't matter what the the brightest possible outcomes could be if everything goes right, because this arrangement started with deceit. You do not prenegotiate contracts, and THEN ask the residents for permission to consider a deal. You do not ignore a clear public mandate, and then hide behind bureaucratic stalling tactics instead of rectifying the situation.

Sorry, you don't get to argue about the merits of the outcome of the actions you lied about when you start with a lie. Fix that first, admit the fault, admit who the key players were in arranging it this way, and give the mea culpas. Then, come back to everyone in the light of day, with the current deal blown away, and negotiate with the residents of the city for a deal that meets everyone's needs. This one ain't it.

[Chris Jenkins]

P.S. I'm not in way anti-development. I'm anti-government deceit. You'll find I argue just as vehemently for the deal, when formulated openly, and with the overall needs of the city truly taken into account.

[20/20]

Well put, Chris.

[Adam]

Chris, you say the City shouldn't enter into a CONTRACT and then ask for residents' permission to consider a deal.

Specifically, who are the parties to this alleged CONTRACT, and what are its terms?

I don't believe the City has formed a contract with the Rays. I believe they have had discussions.

The City cannot authorize a new stadium unless we the voters approve via a referendum (vote) of the underlying lease of the Al Lang property.

Tell me what the contract says, or give me proof that the City improperly entered into a binding agreement.

Otherwise, still, the only problem I see here is that the City Council has not yet designated Al Lang as a park in its zoning ordinances (even though the city charter already designates it a park). I don't think that alone is a deal-breaker.

[Chris Jenkins]

Adam, we were doing so well until you decided to take the disingenuous route of playing semantics, and crafting another Straw Man argument.

I did not say the city entered into a binding contract. I said they prenegotiated, which they most certainly did:

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/16/Southpinellas/St_Petersburg_City_Ha.shtml

They entered into secret discussions, had a rough approximation of terms, and then turned to the resident, WITHOUT REVEALING THE EXISTING PROPOSAL.

This is where the deception comes in. A lie by omission is still a lie.

Do you have something of substance to add to the conversation, or are you more interested in trying to find semantical ways to attack my argument, to which I will simply clarify my position and understanding once again?

[Thor]

Chris, Thor does not understand why you are constantly on Mr Troxler's website. Thor thought you were very active based on your post from several days ago which outlined your entire life and career. How can anyone beleive you are credible when you are on here all of the time. Thor does not post her resume, Thor does not preach against a terrific idea like the new area around tropicana field. Thor also does not see a conspiracy in everything that happens. Chris in your world you probably want to vote on everything. Thor beleives you want to get rid of city council and have all of us handle it. Well Chris last council election saw 12% of the population vote your world just cannot happen. Please listen to Thor, she is only trying to help. Chris Thor beleives you live a lonely life. Thor noticed you posted your very real name, as does Thor, but as Thor has advised, please go to the personal ads, or to e harmony.com, no one is looking for a date on Mr Troxler's blog site except you. Thor is only trying to help you find your way Chris. Thor has spoken, Thor is brave, Thor is wise, Thor is hungry for the new ball park.

[Ink Redulous]

Ink cannot believe Thor is still spelling beleive. Ink cannot believe Thor is still referring to itself in the third person. Ink cannot believe that Thor is attacking a well-spoken, articulate person's personal life based on assumptions... and we all know what those do. Come back with some factual evidence that you're worth the 1 second read, Thor. Otherwise you just sound partially literate and assumptive. Please listen to Thor? Why, so Thor can hurl baseless insults about someone being a lonely conspiracy theorist? Rid Ickulous. Thor is silly. Thor cannot spell. Thor useth not commas in their correct places. Thor brings no fact to back her/him/its love of ridiculous personal slams, and expensive, shady ball park deals. Ink is pretty sure that by her/him/its own measures, Thor has a lonely personal life too. Ink is disgusted. Ink would like to get back to the topic at hand. Ink is not Chris.

[Adam]

Chris, I'm not sure you clarified your position, but it does appear to be more unreasonable than before.

You seem to believe that the law requires the Mayor and City Council to publicize details of mere discussions of possible economic development ideas even though the article you cite clearly says that the law doesn't not require that level of disclosure.

And there's a good reason for that. Chris, if the City spent time telling the public details of all preliminary discussions about potential ideas for economic development, they wouldn't have much time to do anything else, such as actually pursuing those ideas. That's why the law doesn't require them to publicize the minutiae of preliminary discussions that frequently arise in the course of the jobs we hired them to do.

Do you disclose to your boss the subject matter of every phone call you make or every converstaion you have, or do you gather information, synthesize it, reach conclusions, and then meet with your boss to discuss your findings and conclusions?

You say they "had a rough approximation of terms, and then turned to the resident, WITHOUT REVEALING THE EXISTING PROPOSAL." The City hasn't revealed a proposal to the public because the City doesn't have one to reveal. All it has is a "rough approximation" of a proposal from the Rays. Nothing indicates the City is prepared to endorse the Rays' proposal because their proposal is not complete. The City still needs a financing plan and to hear developers' ideas. The City is still in the fact-finding process.

Again, I don't see the problem with the City keeping its options open and choosing to gather all the information it can before committing to an idea for the Al Lang site.

You suggest that the City has lied to us. What did the City say, or omit to say, and why was it a lie?

[Stu]

One thing is for certain; psychotropic drugs are very popular in this area.

Another thing that should be noted is that folks who profess open and legitimate dealings, while using pseudonyms and third-party retorts, shoot themselves in the proverbial foot with each post.

"The City hasn't revealed a proposal to the public because the City doesn't have one to reveal."

Simply put: HA! Get back to work, Rick's coming!

[Chris Jenkins]

Adam, I'm going to adopt a position for myself that you are sincere in your position, despite the fact that my gut instinct tells me you are being just a wee bit weasely. That being said, it comes down to a matter of quality of government.

You've noted that the city withholding the fact that there was a hard proposal on the table from the citizens whom it was asking for input on land use does not constitute an illegality. True enough. However, are we willing to settle for an administration which chooses to operate in an ethical grey area, just inside the comfort zone of legality?

Growing up, my father taught me what he called the LEM principle, for Legal, Ethical, and Moral. He strove to make sure that all his business dealings met those three criteria, so that he could at all times be a man of integrity, and above reproach.

The city is failing on two out of three right now.

You posit that further, this is for our own good, as we would be overwhelmed if we were given all the trivial details of the day to day administration of the city, and that it would hamper productivity, and cripple the ability of the administration to do its job.

This is again a straw man argument from you, hinging on your qualifying the fact of a Rays proposal as a trivial detail, on the par of Granny Smith's code enforcement citation for an overgrown lawn. A 400 million dollar deal with an organization who has yet to make good on previous debts, and who has not shown the level of peripheral economic impact expected from previous dealings, does not qualify as a trivial matter of no importance, not worthy of bothering city residents with. It is a major deal, with far reaching economic, social, and environmental impacts.

You defend well, Adam. I suspect your day job involves legal work. However, making a legally defensible point is not the same as proving truth, or recognizing that good city management should think a little about that LEM principle, or at least the ethical part of it.

Given that this is the same county where Jim Smith made such a tidy profit, the appearance of corruption is enough to turn the tide of public opinion. If the city administration wants to float an economic development package out there that they truly believe will be good for our city, then they should do so, in full light of day, with all the players and stakeholders clearly spelled out. If they can't begin with that level of clarity, anything else they offer up, including pointless bureaucratic delays, is suspect.

[voter]

Hey, Adam, you wouldn't be Adam of Adam's Towing, Inc. would you?

[Adam]

Chris, understand that I am trying only to be fair. You're LEM point is well taken, and I agree with that perspective.

I have been suspicious about the City's decision not to disclose its discussions with the Rays sooner. Though I tried to rationalize their "secrecy" by suggesting the City simply didn't want to announce a half-baked idea, I could never be sure that was the real reason.

You referred me to an article suggesting that state law allowed the City to keep such discussions with the Rays confidential: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/16/Southpinellas/St_Petersburg_City_Ha.shtml.

Critics such as yourself have pointed out that what's legal may nevertheless be downright dirty. You and others chastise the City for not bringing their discussions with the Rays out into "the full light of day." On blogs like this one, people are calling the negotiations "secret backroom deals." Conspiracy theorists are out in full bloom.

I have one question: Has anyone, Howard included, considered the notion that state law actually REQUIRED CONFIDENTIALITY and not merely allows it? Has the St. Pete Times misstated the law?

Read this statute (state law):

"Upon written request from a private corporation . . . information held by an economic development agency concerning plans, intentions, or interests of such private corporation . . . to locate, relocate, or expand any of its business activities in this state IS CONFIDENTIAL . . . for 12 months after the date an economic development agency receives a request for confidentiality or until the information is otherwise disclosed, whichever occurs first."

What is an "economic development agency"?

"“Economic development agency” means . . . The public economic development agency of a county or municipality or, if the county or municipality does not have a public economic development agency, the county or municipal officers or employees assigned the duty to promote the general business interests or industrial interests of that county or municipality or the responsibilities related thereto."

What is the penalty for disclosing this confidential information?

"Any person who is an employee of an economic development agency who violates the provisions of this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree . . . ."

Why did the state legislature enact this law?

"[t]he Legislature finds that it is a public necessity to provide confidentiality for certain information concerning businesses participating in a state incentive program held by an economic development agency. The disclosure of information such as trade secrets, proprietary confidential business information, or other business information could injure a business in the marketplace by providing its competitors with detailed insights into the strategic plans of the business or with confidential personnel information, thereby diminishing the advantage that the business maintains over those that do not possess such information. Without these exemptions, private-sector businesses, whose records generally are not required to be open to the public, might refrain from participating in economic development programs or tax credit or tax refund programs and thus would not be able to use the incentives available under the programs. If a business were unable to use the incentives, the business might choose to locate its business and other investment activities outside the state, which would deprive the state and the public of the potential economic benefits associated with such business activities in this state. The harm to businesses in the marketplace and to the effective administration of economic development and incentive programs caused by the public disclosure of such information far outweighs the public benefits derived from the release of the information."

Here's the statute: Fla. Stat. Section 288.075.

Here's the link: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0288/SEC075.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0288->Section%20075#0288.075.

[Adam]

The law quoted above appears to explain why the City didn't say anything about discussions with the Rays until after someone leaked those discussions to the Times.

In the video of the City Council meeting, posted above, council members discuss a memo dated that same day, December 20, 2007, and written by City Development Administrator Rick Musset about whether to designate Al Lang as a park. As part of Musset's analysis, he acknowledges that the City had discussions with the Rays about the new stadium as late as August 9, 2007, when the new LDRs were adopted.

However, he points out that the "City staff was required to keep the matter confidential pursuant to State law."

Howard has posted links to Musset's memo, in two parts:

http://blogs.tampabay.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/21/al_lang_1.jpg
http://blogs.tampabay.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/21/al_lang_2.jpg

Under the statute quoted above, Musset appears to be 100% correct. And the City appears to have done what the law REQUIRED the City to do.

But has the Times reported the law accurately? I'm not so sure. The Times has reported that the law merely gave the City the option to keep quiet:

"While most government records are accessible to anyone, state law allows cities to shield economic development deals from the public view."

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/16/Southpinellas/St_Petersburg_City_Ha.shtml

I think the Times needs to look into this and be sure it's reporting the City's legal duties accurately so as to avoid unfair characterizations of the City's actions.

How does this affect your view of how the City has handled the matter? The alleged "secret deals" have caused great ire, and to some extent, I can understand the confusion and frustration.

But you'd have to agree that if the City were legally required to keep its mouth shut, with no other viable option (unless some city official wanted to commit a misdemeanor), you can no longer blame the City for "secret dealings," right?

Of course, this law requires confidentiality only upon request from the Rays. Did that occur? It appears so. The Times reported a "confidentiality agreement" signed in March.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/16/Southpinellas/St_Petersburg_City_Ha.shtml

[Josh]

MLB and the Rays have promised Crist a bunch of money for his Vice Presidential campaign, Crist has promised Baker and Mussett support in becoming either governor/lieutenant governor or something equally appealing at the national level.

[Chris Jenkins]

That's an interesting point to make, Adam. Two responses:

1. "until otherwise disclosed."
This law isn't a requirement. It's permission. The last sentence of the statute makes clear that the EDA in question has the option to disclose, whenever they determine it is necessary. The confidentiality law is in place to protect the players, and the consequence of breaking the law is only applicable to leakers, discouraging those privy to private deals from whistle blowing. It would be interesting to see how Federal Whistleblower Protection Laws deal with this particular anti-Sunshine statute.

2. "The disclosure of information such as trade secrets, proprietary confidential business information, or other business information could injure a business in the marketplace by providing its competitors with detailed insights into the strategic plans of the business"

Who is the competitor to the Rays who might benefit from the leaked information, Adam? Do we, unknown to all of us residents, have ANOTHER MLB team lurking in the wings, waiting to unseat the Rays as our hometown ball team?

Interesting perspectives you've presented, but it still smells like protectionism, legally justifiable according to Florida secrecy laws, but not truly justifiable in any ethical or moral sense.

[Adam]

1. "This law isn't a requirement. It's permission."

Chris, that's wrong. The law is a requirement. You're severely misreading the statute. What you're suggesting is that the legislature created an illusory duty, i.e. that the legislature said to municipalities, "You have to do this unless you don't want to." That reading of the statute renders the statute meaningless and thus makes no sense. And of course, for that reason, no court would interpret it that way.

To interpret this statute, like anything else, read the statute in its entirety and maintain your common sense. Yes, the economic development agency (the municipality) is free to disclose confidential information. However, if you read the statute in its entirety, you'll notice that the penalty for disclosure is a misdemeanor. Chris, this is a crime. Like any other criminal law, anyone has the "option" of violating it (if you want to rob a bank, go ahead), but no one with much common sense would suggest that the legislature ever intended to give you "permission" to commit the crime. If the legislature intended to give municipalities "permission" to disclose confidential information, the legislature wouldn't have penalized disclosure.

2. "the consequence of breaking the law is only applicable to leakers"

Not entirely true, Chris. The plain language of the statute says that the penalty applies only to "any person who is an employee of an economic development agency." In other words, in this case, the statute penalizes only city employees who leak confidential information. If someone from the Rays leaked the discussions, the penalty doesn't apply. And that makes sense because the purpose of the statute is to protect the confidential information of businesses who want to expand their business in Florida. So if the business wants to disclose that information, that's their prerogative.

Now, once anyone discloses that information, the City is no longer under a duty of confidentiality. That's why the statute says "information . . . is confidential . . . until the information is otherwise disclosed." Chris, this simply accounts for the common sense conclusion that once the information is made public, continued confidentiality would offer no meaningful protection. Of course, if someone from the Rays leaked the information, the effect of the statute is that the Rays have waived their right to confidentiality. But if someone from the City leaked the information in violation of the statute, that person committed a misdemeanor.

3. "Who is the competitor to the Rays who might benefit from the leaked information, Adam?"

Chris, I don't know if you're just spewing rhetoric at this point or if you really mean that.

Here's the deal. When the state legislature passes a law, it often explains in general terms the reason it originally passed the law. This expression of legislative findings and intent is not law. Rather, the plain and ordinary words of the statute are law. If those words are somehow unclear, then the legislative findings and intent may help interpret the meanings of those words, the law.

While no one is suggesting that another MLB team is moving here, that doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply because the plain and ordinary meanings of the terms are clear and would seem to apply here.

The legislative findings and intent never encompass every conceivable set of circumstances that could arise under the law. So you can't take one sentence out of the statement of findings and intent, conclude that that sentence doesn't apply here, and then conclude that the statute doesn't apply here. Remember, only the statute itself is law.

The findings and intent merely serve to help understand the reason for the law. Ultimately, the legislature has made a policy decision to require confidentiality so that businesses would not be discouraged from doing business in Florida.

The statute does not make an exception where the business doesn't have an obvious competitor. Such an exception would make the statute ambiguous (ie, what is an "obvious competitor") and thus further discourage economic development in Florida and lead to costly unnecessary litigation. It appears that the legislature simply made a police decision to keep the law simple: a municipality having information about a business expansion must keep that information confidential for a specified amount of time.

But if you really must know who could be competing with the Rays, you have to look beyond MLB teams. Consider, for example, that other baseball leagues or businesses may want to compete with the Rays for the same parcel of land. Of course, that's just speculation, but it's one consideration. Again, remember that no one needs to identify a competitor in order to determine whether the law applies, as I explained above. You need only read the statute to determine if it applies.

Remember also, that even though the City was required to maintain confidentiality, absolutely nothing will happen on this deal unless we the voters approve of it. So don't assume that because confidentiality applies for a certain amount of time that we the citizens would never have known about the deal.

[Adam]

1. "This law isn't a requirement. It's permission."

Chris, that's wrong. The law is a requirement. You're severely misreading the statute. What you're suggesting is that the legislature created an illusory duty, i.e. that the legislature said to municipalities, "You have to do this unless you don't want to." That reading of the statute renders the statute meaningless and thus makes no sense. And of course, for that reason, no court would interpret it that way.

To interpret this statute, like anything else, read the statute in its entirety and maintain your common sense. Yes, the economic development agency (the municipality) is free to disclose confidential information. However, if you read the statute in its entirety, you'll notice that the penalty for disclosure is a misdemeanor. Chris, this is a crime. Like any other criminal law, anyone has the "option" of violating it (if you want to rob a bank, go ahead), but no one with much common sense would suggest that the legislature ever intended to give you "permission" to commit the crime. If the legislature intended to give municipalities "permission" to disclose confidential information, the legislature wouldn't have penalized disclosure.

2. "the consequence of breaking the law is only applicable to leakers"

Not entirely true, Chris. The plain language of the statute says that the penalty applies only to "any person who is an employee of an economic development agency." In other words, in this case, the statute penalizes only city employees who leak confidential information. If someone from the Rays leaked the discussions, the penalty doesn't apply. And that makes sense because the purpose of the statute is to protect the confidential information of businesses who want to expand their business in Florida. So if the business wants to disclose that information, that's their prerogative.

Now, once anyone discloses that information, the City is no longer under a duty of confidentiality. That's why the statute says "information . . . is confidential . . . until the information is otherwise disclosed." Chris, this simply accounts for the common sense conclusion that once the information is made public, continued confidentiality would offer no meaningful protection. Of course, if someone from the Rays leaked the information, the effect of the statute is that the Rays have waived their right to confidentiality. But if someone from the City leaked the information in violation of the statute, that person committed a misdemeanor.

3. "Who is the competitor to the Rays who might benefit from the leaked information, Adam?"

Chris, I don't know if you're just spewing rhetoric at this point or if you really mean that.

Here's the deal. When the state legislature passes a law, it often explains in general terms the reason it originally passed the law. This expression of legislative findings and intent is not law. Rather, the plain and ordinary words of the statute are law. If those words are somehow unclear, then the legislative findings and intent may help interpret the meanings of those words, the law.

While no one is suggesting that another MLB team is moving here, that doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply because the plain and ordinary meanings of the terms are clear and would seem to apply here.

The legislative findings and intent never encompass every conceivable set of circumstances that could arise under the law. So you can't take one sentence out of the statement of findings and intent, conclude that that sentence doesn't apply here, and then conclude that the statute doesn't apply here. Remember, only the statute itself is law.

The findings and intent merely serve to help understand the reason for the law. Ultimately, the legislature has made a policy decision to require confidentiality so that businesses would not be discouraged from doing business in Florida.

The statute does not make an exception where the business doesn't have an obvious competitor. Such an exception would make the statute ambiguous (ie, what is an "obvious competitor") and thus further discourage economic development in Florida and lead to costly unnecessary litigation. It appears that the legislature simply made a policy decision to keep the law simple: a municipality having information about a business expansion must keep that information confidential for a specified amount of time.

But if you really must know who could be competing with the Rays, you have to look beyond MLB teams. Consider, for example, that other baseball leagues or businesses may want to compete with the Rays for the same parcel of land. Of course, that's just speculation, but it's one consideration. Again, remember that no one needs to identify a competitor in order to determine whether the law applies, as I explained above. You need only read the statute to determine if it applies.

Remember also, that even though the City was required to maintain confidentiality, absolutely nothing will happen on this proposal unless we the voters approve of it. So don't assume that because confidentiality applies for a certain amount of time that we the citizens would never have known about the proposal.

[local]

So, Adam, are you the Adam from Adam's Traffic, Inc??

[Howard Troxler]

Howard here on Monday morning. Y'all don't really need me around at all, I can tell.

On the issue of the state law, may I add these points:

(1) The city went beyond the minimum requirements of the law and eagerly signed a contract, a confidentiality agreement, that blanketed the whole thing. Furthermore, the "economic development" loophole was abused, IMHO -- using the redevelopment of the Trop to keep the entire idea of a waterfront stadium from the public. There is no recourse in this wicked statute for such abuse -- you could run an entirely secret government that way.

(2) Even when the Rays wanted to go public earlier in the fall of 2007, worried there would not be enough time to sell the deal to the public, the city refused, wanting to keep it a secret.

(3) We now know the city was working with the Rays even a year in advance of the confidentiality agreement, but never bothered to let the public know.

(4) In addition to whatever obligations the city had to keep certain info secret, it also plunged ahead with public hearings on land use at the site and engaged in active deception of the public during those hearings, with Rick Mussett, et al -- the very signatories of the agreement -- sitting there trying to steer the supposedly "public" proceedings.

Happy Monday to all...

"... signed a contract, a confidentiality agreement, that blanketed the whole thing."

"... -- you could run an entirely secret government that way."

"... the city refused, wanting to keep it a secret."

"... confidentiality agreement, but never bothered to let the public know."

"... and engaged in active deception of the public during those hearings,..."

Oh yeah, I trust them!

... nuff said!

[Chris Jenkins]

Good to have you back, Howard, and way to nail the summation! :)

Howard, glad you're back. Just a few responses:

1) "Furthermore, the "economic development" loophole was abused, IMHO -- using the redevelopment of the Trop to keep the entire idea of a waterfront stadium from the public."

In fairness, the statute doesn't limit the scope of confidentiality. Rather, it requires confidentiality of information concerning a business's interests to locate, re-locate, or expand "ANY of its business activities in this state . . . ." So the statute required confidentiality of the Rays' interests in redevloping both the Trop site and the Al Lang site.

2. "We now know the city was working with the Rays even a year in advance of the confidentiality agreement, but never bothered to let the public know."

By "confidentiality agreement," I assume you're referring to the agreement reportedly signed in March 2007. My question then is whether the Rays first requested confidentiality a year before, in March 2006. If so, then the confidentiality REQUIRED by the statute would have run for 12 months beginning in March 2006, per the statute. In that case, the City would have been legally bound to stay quiet from March 2006 to March 2007.

After that point, in March 2007, the statute would PERMIT the City to extend the period of confidentiality for another 12 months, but only upon written request by the Rays. But you're right; if that happened, the statute would not require a second confidentiality agreement.

3. "Even when the Rays wanted to go public earlier in the fall of 2007, worried there would not be enough time to sell the deal to the public, the city refused, wanting to keep it a secret."

The concern about having enough time to sell the deal to the public is certainly legitimate. Regardless of any confidentiality agreements, the Rays are always free to go public with their plans. Whether the City could go public depended of course on when the Rays first requested confidentiality--March 2006 or March 2007. The duty of confidentiality then runs for 12 months after the request or until someone (the Rays) disclose the information, whichever is sooner.

No matter what color you paint it or how much stucco you use… a deception, is a deception, is a deception… and intent makes it criminal in nature.

There is no excuse; there is no retort worthy of coverage.

The Rays may have had the right intent, but the politicians blew it for them. How many times must we go around the mountain… politician + developer = corruption and deceit.

Bridges to nowhere, airports with no reason to land, baseball stadiums with no team, and new stadium deals in the dark…

Have we had enough yet?

[POWW! Team]

1) POWW! stands for Preserve Our Wallets and Waterfront!
2) This whole deal is being done with OUR tax dollars and OUR real estate. The Rays "contribution" of $150M is in the form of a loan that the City will pay back in the form of free rent on the new stadium for 30 years.
3) The Rays do not own the Trop site. They are tenants. They want us to sell City land and use the proceeds to build them a stadium on possibly the most beautiful and valuable piece of land the City owns, parkland on our protected waterfront.... then give them the stadium for 30 years.
4) A stadium can be built anywhere. You can't make new waterfront!!
(Pd. Pol. Adv POWW-PACC, PO Box 56014, St. Petersburg, FL 33732-6014)

[Thor]

Hey Poww, Thor figures you are just a bunch of rich slobs sitting in some condo by the water front. Thor thinks you want to keep it all to yourself and not share the waterfront with all of the "petty masses" like baseball fans. Thor knows POWW stands for Petty Old Wicked Wackos. Thor asks you to move and let's have a baseball game. Thor has spoken, Thor is brave, Thor is wise, Thor is hungry for a new diamond.

Thor, how about you volunteer with your great strength and wisdom to be AN UNDERWATER PILLAR TO THE 8,000 DUMP TRUCK LOADS OF FILL THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CREATE NEW LAND FOR YOUR PRETTY LITTLE DIAMOND.
Wisdom is usually a characteristic of a person who cares for more than their own petty desires.......on that note, you're pretty much a WHIFFER.....

[matthew lawson]

Thor, I am delighted to hear that you (and any spouse and children you have) will be delighted to hand over to the Rays $1,800 each to build them a new stadium. Thats the figure you get when you divide the number of citizens of St. Pete into $450,000,000. And that does not even count the cost over runs, fire and police protect needed for "fans", etc.
So glad to know, Thor, that you are wealthy enough to pay their bill. I'm not.

[Nick]

Redevelopment of the Trop site and a new waterfront stadium are separate issues. If we can replace the old stadium with condos and retail space that will yield $500M in additional taxes, I'm for that. But why do we have to waste the windfall on a new stadium? Let's bulldoze the Trop, build a bunch of condos & retail space and let the Rays's find a new home somewhere else in the county.

Nick,

"Redevelopment of the Trop site and a new waterfront stadium are separate issues."

Due respect, you are dead wrong on that... they most certainly are connected. In more ways than one.

Thor has issues and should see a psychologist as soon as possible before he hurts both himself and that other person living inside his head.

[Thor]

Hey Matthew, Thor is glad you paid attention in 8th grade math class. However, Thor does not beleive (ha ha ha) that you paid attention in civics class. Sell the tropicana land, get money from it, build a new stadium, build new things at tropicana land and use that tax money for whatever you like, maybe a new padded room for you, or a new set of glasses or remedial civics class. Thor will make it even easier. New stores + new retailers + new stadium - one trop = no tax dollars coming from you or Thor. Thor has spoken, Thor is brave, Thor is wise, Thor didn't even need a calculator or a dictionary from Chris Jenkins for this posting.

[matthew lawson]

Thor - The tax revenues from whatever is built at the Trop field will go to the building of the stadium for the Rays. Check their literature. This is mentioned, but in very fine print. The city will NOT get that tax. Actually they won't get anything but debt, traffic congestion and a white elephant of a stadium that will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and will sit empty 280 days a year. What a tragic waste of money.

Have you considered anger management classes or adjusting your medications?

[Chris Jenkins]

Actually Matt, what's missing in Thor's (and all the other proponents') postings isn't anger management, or medication, it's honesty. Thor displays his or her arrogance in these "Duh" postings, and Adam speaks eloquently when building a passable legal defense for these actions, but the majority of us recognize the basic truth of the matter: the actions taken by the city council in dealing with this issue are ethically questionable, and morally wrong.

Positive and constructive conversation cannot occur without honesty, and from what I've seen so far, that's a commodity that is likely to remain in short supply.

I repeat: Thor has issues and should see a psychologist as soon as possible before he hurts both himself and that other person living inside his head.

[Howard Troxler]

Howard here. This thread keeps going and going.

The deal is:

* $150 million from the ownership group, one way or the other.

* $300 million from selling Tropicana Field, and borrowing against the future tax payments of whatever gets built there. So that is NOT tax money available for other purposes; it pays for the stadium. (For 30 years anyway.)

BANG-O-RANG, Howard!

[matthew]

Howard, Thank you. I hope you will point out that if the Rays take out a loan to pay $150,000,000 upfront the City gets NO rent. Therefore the City is, actualy paying back the Rays loan with the "no rent" they do not get. Likewise, as I said above and you pointed out, whatever might get built at the Trop (remember the promises of "revitilization" of the Trop are from 20 years ago?) would produce taxes, yes, but those taxes would be funneled right to the Rays for "their" stadium. No one wins but the Rays.
*

[Paul]

Matthew, while I agree with you completely, I do have to so its quite ironic that you state 'no one wins but the Rays'... see, that's crackin me up, because they loose like hell on the ballfield and whoaa, they WIN big time in the bank account. I think this is the real Rays, a financial team.. top notch at that... being disguised as a baseball team. I really really feel sorry for saying bad things about the 'Rays' because I think the team players themselves are most likely pretty decent guys. Its those stinking wall street owners they have, no one likes them and they know it. I'll say it again, Sternberg 'You are a douchebag'.

Paul,

I think you've said this the best of all.....simple yet erudite...to the point. With a little New York thrown in...........you're last line might be the quote of the year..............I know Howard is tired of this thread.......but I don't think he's ever seen anything like this in his blog's history....which says something in regards to it's, hmmmmmm, content and controversy value. The thread that never dies until Council says "UNCLE".

[matthew]

I know a guy who knows a guy who knows the man who made probably the best comments of all at the City Council meeting on Thursday. It really sums what this is all about. To quote someone "It's the money, stupid." A guy named Bob Bedford did his homework and discovered that what the Rays are all about is money for themselves from OUR pockets. Here are his comments - the ones he spoke at City Hall. Thanks Bill and Jay for routing them to me. It's OK, I tracked down Mr. Bedford and got his permission to reprint this:

My name is Robert Bedford, I’m a die-hard fan of the Rays Players and I love watching them pick off the Yankees in air-conditioned bliss. I’m here, however, to speak in opposition to the new stadium proposal because I don’t like being taken advantage of by the team’s owners.

This entire proposal has nothing to do with what’s good for the citizens or the City of St. Petersburg. This proposal is all about the Rays owners wanting to increase the value of their franchise by having us finance their new stadium. This whole scam has been detailed in many publications, the most recent of which is entitled: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston. It was recently reviewed in the St. Petersburg Times with 3 color renderings of the proposed new Rays’ stadium.

I’d like to point out a couple of examples of how this works: 2 years ago the Seattle Mariners’ franchise was valued at $107 million dollars in Financial World magazine. Now, with a new stadium, the franchise value has more than doubled, to $236 Million dollars, according to Forbes. However, the Seattle Mariners are still litigating whether they or tax payers will pay huge cost overruns at Safeco Field. Likewise, the Dallas Cowboys’ value increased by 28 percent as a result of a new stadium scheduled to open next year. By the way, the original estimate for the stadium was $650 million, but the final cost has turned out to be $1 Billion. I know the Rays have promised to pick up the tab for cost overruns, but I’ll be it’s not in writing and that, ultimately, it’ll wind up being paid for – in some form or another - all of us in this room. Look what happened in Seattle. There are numerous other books and articles besides Mr. Johnston’s that describe how building sports stadiums results in no increase in revenues for the municipalities whose voters fall for slick presentations like those being delivered by Mr Kalt.

It’s no secret that the Rays owners are a group of New York financial wunderkind who made their money by using other peoples’ money. What they are trying to do is the same thing right here: Use our tax money to turn a profit on their investment. It’s all about the money. Frankly, I don’t think we should get suckered into it.

[Thor]

Matthew, thank you for allowing Thor to continue to speak. Hey Matthew, you must be part of my very good friends at POWW. Pitiful, ODD, Wallowing Wackos. Thor knows about the in fighting, Thor knows about the disagreements you have had internally. Thor has been involved, Thor is ashamed to have once called you friends. You never really know who you can trust in your discussions do you, Thor knows. Thor is simply reporting on the news. Thor knows about the e mails flying around and the fear and desparation of my former friends in that elite organization. Thor knows that you know what is going to happen. Looks like it won't collapse under it's own weight does it POWW. Thor knows voters will see the truth and vote yes to the idea of a better St Pete and no to the idea that you people at 1 Beach drive speak for the city. That baseball team has one heck of an idea and it drives you crazy and Thor enjoys that. That is why you people want to crush it now, don't let people vote. Thor is ashamed of you. Hey Matthew, Thor has spoken, Thor is brave, Thor is wise, Thor won't be silenced.

[Kathleen Ford]

Today, the City could redevelop the Trop Parking lots and after deducting the cost of replacement parking, the Rays and the City would share in the proceeds. Instead of half, the Rays want all of the proceeds from redeveloping not just the lots but the stadium, too. The Rays want to amend their contract with the City. This is not a new business plan that entitles the Rays to secrecy. It is a breach of the existing contract (which only allows the Rays to use the Trop for baseball unless the CITY decides to develop the Air Rights. City attorneys, the Mayor and City staff knew this March/April 2007 and failed to tell City Council or the public. The Lease Negotiation documents for publicly owned or operated stadiums in Florida are not confidential. Thus far, City attorneys do not have those proposed contract amendments. If they don't who does? Rays or Hines' agents.

[Jim]

Get a clue you tax pigs, this stadium would never be self supporting or bring in adequate revenue, decision makers in Pinellas are serious government policy rejects.