Protecting Al Lang Field

One outrageous aspect of St. Petersburg's secret deal with the Tampa Bay Rays last year was that the city went right ahead and held bogus public hearings to ask for "public input" on the citywide land-use plan that was being re-drawn at the time. The city knew about the waterfront stadium proposal; the people didn't.

Several citizens, acting in good faith and believing they were taking part in an honest process, testified that the old Al Lang minor-league site should be used for a park or green space. The city kept putting them off, saying it needed to "keep its options open." After the stadium deal became public, the City Council said -- repeatedly -- that it would designate Al Lang as a park anyway, and if the stadium went through, it could always be changed. But now the council is backing off that statement. Here are a couple of citizen letters that have been sent to the council in advance of Thursday's meeting:

I am writing to propose that the City Council amend the Land Development Regulations (LDR's) for the property known as Al Lang Field and the associated parking lots to the north. The amendment would be to designate the aforementioned property as DC-P (Parkland), rather than DC-3. Making this change in the LDR's would be consistent with the waterfront park system which this City has been striving to protect for close to a  hundred years.  We were promised this “oversight” would be corrected in the first glitch meeting, when the Council presented the LDRs on August 9, 2007.  The Council’s promise was made in the face of significant public outcry on the DC-3 zoning designation for this important part of our Public Parks.  Postponing this change is not acceptable!!  Do it NOW........the citizens have already spoken. -- Lorraine Margeson

Last spring, when you considered the question of LDRs, I was part of a large group who spoke to you about Al Lang Field and its curious designation of DC3 instead of the DCP designation that the rest of the public parkland was given. You all declared, to our faces, that this would be corrected at a "glitch meeting" and merrily passed the LDRs without include Al Lang - and the Mahffrey and Dali - as park.
Many people have worked tirelessly to protect our waterfront. Members of Council have, in the past, worked to turn this city around - from a Green Bench ghetto to a vibrant center of cultural and residential distinction. You promised to correct that glitch but we, the citizens now know that, even when you were promising that to us you were promising something else to the Rays.
We feel betrayed. You are not listening to your citizens. I hesitate to consider what  or who you are listening to. But it's not us - the people that have taken the time to participate in our city government, listen to your campaign promises and hope for the best for our city. Mr. Straub and his friends meant for the waterfront to be one long. emerald necklace framing our fair city - not some disposable commodity to be given away in dribs and drabs. I urge you to do the right thing and make good the promise you gave us last spring. Fix the glitch and change the LDR for Al Lang Field to DCP this  Thursday. -- Faith Andrews Bedford, St. Petersburg

Comments

[Bland]

Howard,

Per an article in the Times last week the Rays staff were suppose to start meeting with the neighborhood organizations last night. I went to my Jungle Terrace organization but apparently the date was incorrect in the article.

Do you know if anyone attended the other neighborhood meetings? I am so interested in the response and questions from the concerned citizens even if the City Council is not....

Keep watching those rascals.

“You are not listening to your citizens.”

If the other89% of your voters would get off their butts on Election Day and VOTE… maybe you can change that.

Why do you think they shove it in your face? Because you haven’t shown that you’re willing to do anything about it, that’s why.

[Hal Freedman]

I attended a DNA Committee meeting yesterday. About a dozen citizens met with City officials to get the answers to a group of questions. I, and others, were shocked at how far this proposal has come and how little the City knows about the details and feasibility of the plan.

We were told that the City isn't even sure if the Al Lang site is suitable for the proposed use as a stadium of this magnitude. We were told the State planning document (IADRI) might have to be amended, because there may not be any more allowed residential units available for the Trop site. It could take a year to accomplish this task. We were told that the City has just begun to look into the experiences and characteristics of other cities with in-town ball parks (the Trop is in-town, by the way).

It would seem that these questions, concerning suitability and legality, should have been answered, before doing any of the work that has been done to date (RFP for Trop site, etc.). What is the rush? The Rays lease runs for another 20 years!!

[Larry]

I was hoping with some new blood on council, we would see some change in the inner workings of city government in St. Pete. But, it's plain to see that it will be business as usual. This entire proposal is nothing but smoke and mirrors for the city to give the Rays what they want and to hell with the citizens who pay the taxes in this city. I don't care how fancy you make the stadium, with a ball club like the Rays playing there, it ain't going to be the miracle cure to increase revenue. Rick Baker and Rick Mussett and all their minions at City Hall would sell the souls of the taxpayers to the devil, if it meant more development for the city. It's too bad and it is not good for this city. And the earlier post about the voters getting off their butts does ring true.

What the "City" hasn't told anyone is that the Rays have threatened to move the team... this public-financed scam is an attempt to keep them.

TELL THE TRUTH JAMIE!

"Rick Baker and Rick Mussett and all their minions at City Hall would sell the souls of the taxpayers to the devil, if it meant more development for the city."

truer words have never been posted.

[Orville & Wilber]

I am not sure I would describe my feelings as there is nothing positive about the Rays’ proposal. There is nothing positive for our community at large by building a new tax-payer financed stadium on the waterfront. What I see as otherwise positive may not come to fruition. The proposal gives us a chance (if taken advantage of) to consider and debate the importance of the Rays to our community. More importantly, it gives us the opportunity to talk about redeveloping the parking lots at the Trop that I don't think would otherwise have happened. I think part of our message ultimately is that we can have all of the positive tax benefits that the Rays talk about without needing to give up our waterfront. We get that by keeping the Trop, redeveloping the parking lots and as an added bonus we get new parkland around Booker Creek.

[Jackson]

Not sure how I feel about the ballpark yet, but if people on this blog are so concerned about voter turnout and getting the maximum amount of public participation (which they should be), I could not think of a better way to do that than by putting the Rays proposal on the November 2008 ballot. 2008 is a presidential election year, a year in which turnout will be highest and thus will be the most accurate representation of what the city really wants.

The Big Story: ‘Project Rebirth,’ the secret two-year courtship of the Rays, St. Pete
Wayne Garcia from Creative Loafing

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/politicalwhore/2008/02/06/the-big-story-project-rebirth-the-two-year-courtship-of-the-rays-st-pete/

Just came out today, might be somewhat relevant to this discussion.........

[Bland]

01:10 PM,

Thanks for the reference. You’re correct that is a great article.

From an overall PR standpoint, City Council has blown this thing....

I predict there is no way this proposal will pass the vote needed in November. Council will probably table it if the outrage is as strong as I think.

[Adam]

Wow, with all the negativity on these posts, no wonder St. Pete is a second-rate city.

Vote yes for the stadium. It'll truly be a landmark.

Thanks Adam... now get back to work before I call Stu.

I thought "a landmark" is what the homeless were leaving on the steps of City Hall... which caused all the hubub!

[Steve]

They can build a new stadium, but not downtown on the waterfront, put it where the existing stadium is, close to interstate access. St Petersburg has all kinds of dead property in the immediate area surrounding the current stadium. St Petersburg needs to be concentrating on providing shelters for the homeless, that population exploding because they could not afford to stay in their homes, with low wages, lack of jobs, and exploding taxes and insurance rates, created by the council working with investors & developers... There's plenty of room and money for them to build a homeless community with all the facilities they need to accomodate the ever growing population. Instead they want them roaming the streets...

Bunk - per the county's annual homeless census last year, and the census the city took during the tent city fiasco the homeless in St. Pete have been here, on average, less then 6 months. They didn't have homes here, they didn't work here, they don't have family here - they came here from another city very recently.

Why?

Because despite all the speeches by a few out of town activists (Rev Wright lives in Tampa) St. Pete has a great reputation as a homeless haven. One blog even listed the city as "the only place in the country where you can be homeless and still gain weight".

So your arguments about a growing homeless community based on local economics and city policy are simply not based in fact. What does the city council have to do with insurance rates?

Have you ever been on 5th Ave N just past St. Anthony's hospital? Maybe you should go and check out the stroage facilities the city is building so the homeless can store their stuff. Or admire the bathrooms the city is building for the homeless to use.

Or maybe you should offer a homeless person a job. I did. Know what he told me? No thanks!

[Larry]

I might add Adam, that all the negative posts on this blog are the mindset of the taxpayers who will be called upon to pay for all of this. Where do you live?

Bunk-er –

“per the county's annual homeless census last year”

Give me a grant and I’ll tell you whatever you want to hear.

“What does the city council have to do with insurance rates?”

Absolutely nothing… which is why they should have publicly rebuked Amendment 1, because the Legislature has nothing to do with property taxes… do the math, pinhead. One a*s covers the other.

“Or maybe you should offer a homeless person a job. I did. Know what he told me? No thanks!”

I would have too. Who wants to work for an arrogant and ignorant a*s? At least they were polite about it.

[Adam]

Larry,

How do you know that our tax money will pay for the new stadium? The Rays haven't released final details of their financing plan--other than to state in clear, plain terms that the plan does NOT call for any new taxes.

True, the Rays have said that property taxes generated from the sale and redevelopment of the Trop site will pay for a large portion of the new stadium, but this is property tax revenue that the City doesn't currently have.

The Rays, not the citizens, will generate the tax revenue that pays for the stadium.

The effect will be two developed sites contributing to the tax base, including ad valorum taxes for schools.

I live in St. Pete.

Adam, don’t you have some dry-cleaning to pick up for your new “jailed” minor leaguer?

I’m calling Stu and telling him your pimping his deal on these blogs while you’re supposed to be working for him… oh… never mind.

“True, the Rays have said that property taxes generated from the sale and redevelopment of the Trop site will pay for a large portion of the new stadium…”

That’s nice, what do the Rays think about the war in Iraq, immigration, the economy, the trade deficit… oh, that’s right… THEY WERE NOT ELECTED BY THE VOTERS TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS!

[Adam]

Anonymous Blogger,

My apologies. I didn't realize this is the blog for perpetual negativity and conspiracy theorists.

It's always easy to be on the side of cynicism, isn't it? At least you don't risk being great.

Let me ask you, and anyone else, this: Would you support the plan if you didn't have to pay more taxes for it?

[Adam]

"THEY WERE NOT ELECTED BY THE VOTERS TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS!"

Do you not understand how a referendum works? The Rays came up with an idea for the development of publicly owned property. The Rays have developed a plan to accomplish their idea. And then we, the public, vote on their idea.

The Rays aren't determining anything. They put an idea out there, and we vote on it. It's that simple.

You make it sound like they have legal authority to coerce us into approving their plan.

We the voters determine the fate of their idea.

Sorry Adam, my mistake... I thought our elected representatives ran our cities, county, and country... that whole democracy, Declaration of Independence, Constitution, of-by-and for the people thing and all.

Tell Stu I'm in, great kool aid, love the new look... and if he has any ideas on how we can lower insurance rates, end the war in Iraq, deal with illegal immigration, protect our ports and harbors, and lower gas prices… just let us know! We’ll drop it in a referendum for him. Oooo, and see what he thinks about the color green, in case we decide to paint the trim at City Hall.

Adam,

If you think our city is second rate then why are you hanging around here - or are you just a second rate kinda guy?

NO! We would not support the plan even if we didn't have to pay more taxes for it. The question of taxes is only one problem to overcome - the location is another - the parking issue still another. So, even if the Rays had the legal wherewithal to assure no taxes ( which they don't ) - they still have the question of location - and no matter how your architect juggles the pretty renderings, no matter how you try to convince people it will be just a lovely small outdoor baseball venue - IT IS TOO LARGE FOR THE AL LANG SITE. IT IS AS TALL AS THE HILTON HOTEL ACROSS THE STREET!

And since the Rays haven't finalized their financial plan - how could they possibly know if the plan does not call for any new taxes???

The Rays want the referendum on the Nov. 2008 ballot not because of business timing - but because the Nov. 2009 ballot will be a re-election year for 1/2 of the council and a new mayor.

So, Mr. Adam Second-Rate, at the risk of not being great - let me just suggest that exercising cautious judgment is far more difficult than mindlessly careening headlong into the same investment mistake this city has already made and is still paying for and that other cities have made with similar investment in their stadiums.

If you run fast you can catch the next bus to a first rate city and help them pay off the bonds for their sports facilities - that should make you a real first class citizen!

[Howard Troxler]

Y'all be nice though. I am tempted to delete the post where one guy starts calling another one a "pinhead" and an "arrogant a*s." Let's go no further, all right?

Adam, certainly with no disrespect to you intended, but IMHO and my long-time experience, the track record in St. Pete is the city tripping over itself to become a big city without doing due diligence when it comes to fine print.

The stated plan here is NOT to use "new" tax dollars, I agree. However, every dollar doing into it IS a public resource one way or the other -- even if the whole shebang works as stated.

In addition, I think we are entitled to scrutinize the deal carefully to see what risk is involved to involving those 'new' tax dollars if the revenues fall short otherwise. Personally, I would like to see a pile of gold bricks stashed in a vault as a guarantee, but I would settle for a bond... (grin).

As several folks have pointed out, nobody can sneak out there and just start building the thing. The voters get the final say in November, assuming the city actually likes the deal enough to call an election at all. I liked the observation about it coinciding with a presidential cycle and us getting maximum participation.

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far!

[Adam]

"Tell Stu I'm in... and if he has any ideas on how we can lower insurance rates, end the war in Iraq . . . just let us know! We’ll drop it in a referendum for him."
_________________________

Actually, Stu, like any other citizen, would need to talk with state and federal representatives about those particular issues.

But regarding the development of local publicly owned property, the proper channel is through the City Council and/or the County Commission, who would then decide whether to pursue the idea further by putting it to a referendum.

[Adam]

"If you think our city is second rate then why are you hanging around here - or are you just a second rate kinda guy?"
______________

Yeah, that's a great outlook: "If you don't like where you live, just leave; don't bother trying to improve it." That's the kind of perspective that demoralizes a city and turns it into a wasteland.
_______________

"The question of taxes is only one problem to overcome - the location is another - the parking issue still another . . . IT IS TOO LARGE FOR THE AL LANG SITE. IT IS AS TALL AS THE HILTON HOTEL ACROSS THE STREET!"
________________

That's it? That's the only objection?

First, I GUARANTEE the Hilton, and every other downtown hotel, would LOVE to see a new modern stadium within walking distance. And I don't see the City basing its public policy on the size of the Hilton.

Second, the proposed location is the strength of the proposal. It's absolutely beautiful down there, and it's currently VACANT eleven months a year.

Third, parking is a red herring and a losing issue for those opposing the plan. Have you been to San Fran, Wrigley, Yankee Stadium, or Fenway? These stadiums routinely sell out even though they aren't surrounded by a sea of concrete. Downtown has plenty of parking spaces and garages. The City has a public transporation system that definitely could use more passengers. And the Rays and even Ferg's Sports Bar have proposed providing shuttles. People will have ways to park and get to the stadium.

Other than the financing issue, the only legitimate objection should be that the Rays have never had a winning team. But I believe that's going to change this year, based on the off-season acquisitions and the development of their young core.

[Adam]

"the track record in St. Pete is the city tripping over itself to become a big city without doing due diligence when it comes to fine print."
__________________

But isn't the City doing much better now than it was 10-20 years ago?

The city isn't even doing much better than it was a few years ago when we let the Ocean Jewel birth at the port.

And yes, Adam, the size of the stadium on the Al Lang site is an extremely important consideration. It will over develop the parcel - very decidedly poor public policy from a planning perspective, to say nothing of destroying a 100 year history of protecting the waterfront from just this type of over development.

Glad you think it's "beautiful down there", but did you think it is beautiful by happenstance - or maybe some citizens who came before you had enough vision and restraint to prevent it from becoming exactly what you are advocating - a massive structure blocking the view and restricting access to the waterfront.

And really Adam, you can't guarantee how any downtown hotels will feel about this now can you? Do you think the Hilton will change its advertising from "Rooms with a View" to "Rooms with a view if you go outside and walk around to the other side of the baseball stadium"?

I love baseball and yes, I have in fact been to many of the intown baseball stadiums. They all - without exception - live in cities where the mind set is one of relying on mass transit and those cities actually have mass transit available. Contrary to your assertion that this city has a transit system - it does not. According to the MPO mas transit is a very long way off ( phased in over 20 years if it started immediately ) and will cost a giant amount of money to construct. Probably not in time to shore up your argument.

And, yes, there are parking spaces and garages downtown - which service the business, visitors and residences - so, where exactly should those people park when the Rays play?

When the Grand Prix came to town the city told the downtown businesses that the foot traffic would bring a significant increase in restaurant and retail sales. Well, as it turns out, people going to the race took up all the parking that regular customers used and were not at all interested in eating downtown after spending a hot day in the sun drinking beer and eating the food available inside the race track. So - you guessed it - all that "increase in business" rhetoric ended up costing the downtown merchants because no one could get to them to eat or shop. To add insult to injury, after the race the attendees dropped trash and torn up landscaping.

I don't really want you to catch a bus out of town( unless you work for Stu ), but I do want you to stop and think through the ramifications of accepting a plan without knowing the actual facts, hidden costs, impacts on others.

While you are thinking maybe you should ponder the idea of re-working the Trop site with a new stadium supported by mixed use retail, housing and commercial on the out parcels. Or, if you really must have a waterfront stadium, maybe it should go out at Gandy, where there is an easily accessible confluence of transportation corridors.

Oh, and by the way, do you recall that the Trop was to be an open air stadium until people figured out it would be too impractical and it got covered up? Remember when the Trop was refurbished the architects told us that when a home run was hit a big orange light would travel around the outside of the Trop that could be seen out in the bay and that there would be a fog horn component out in the bay, too? Ya know Adam, you shouldn't believe all the stories the Rays are offering up - developers will sell you a bill of goods every time.

10:25......that was beautifully said.......problem with Gandy site??, although as a site plan offering Derby Lane is PERFECT???.......gambling plans have been lurking in the mist for the Gov's new little way to make money for the state.......owners couldn't get the Wal-Mart through, but they NOW know they have eventual dibs on the next Casion Royale on Gandy Blvd.........no proof.......but watch out for the NEXT boondoggle...courtesy of the State of Florida in it's deep wisdom for the economic development of said state.....

[Paul]

Why do people use the 'we dont' want to remain a 2nd rate city' line when pushing for the stadium? I have lived in St Pete for 15 years now and have never heard anyone who lives here say much other than good things about our city. The few people I met that had gripes, well, they moved away which is fine. St Pete is great, our downtown is already great, growing and yes, even thriving. I work downtown, live close by and am there everyday of the week, so I speak from experience. I have not come across anyone, yes, you heard me, not anyone, who is saying let's build this turkey for 1/2 a billion because its a good idea. Nearly everyone I chat with in St Pete has an astonished reaction to the idea being one of the most ridiculous things they've heard of. The citizens are NOT asking for a megaplex anything to be built downtown, and we're certainly not asking for 'more shopping'. We moved here because we like our city, and we are not in competition with other citys. Ok, I'm done, off to work.

10:45 - sadly, I think you are right about the Gandy site idea.
I just suggested it because Adam needed to understand there may be alternatives to consider.

10:25

[Adam]

re: preserving the waterfront:
Yes, it is beautiful down there even though what's down there is nothing but an empty parking lot, a road, and a vacant baseball stadium. City planners have done a good job NOT attracting people to THAT portion of the waterfront. On the other hand, the Rays' proposal would turn the parking lot into a public park and the vacant stadium into a modern stadium that certainly isn't an eyesore. In terms of aesthetics, that's a pretty good trade off.

re: Hilton
The rooms in the Hilton have views to the north and to the south. None of the rooms face east, which is where the stadium will be. The stadium won't substantially alter the views of Hilton guests. I think the Hilton and other downtown hotels will welcome the addition of an attraction that will bring more tourists downtown.

re: public transportation
Actually, yes, St. Petersburg does have public transportation. It's a bus system called PSTA, and it includes the Downtown Trolley. Having a downtown stadium with parking spread out in other downtown areas presents an opportunity for the City to expand its PSTA and Downtown Trolly services. Many people already use the Trolly service to get to the Trop; it could work for the new stadium, too.

re: downtown parking
Yes, parking is currently limited, but adjacent areas, particularly near the Trop, have sufficient parking. And part of the Rays' proposal for the Trop site is to build a parking garage for Rays games.

re: Grand Prix business
I find it hard to believe that businesses, especially restaurants, don't benefit from the Grand Prix. I've been downtown during the race and have seen crowded restaurants when they would ordinarily be empty. In fact, I've seen the same effect during Spring Training games.

re: foot traffic and pollution concerns:
Well, this is the price of having a vibrant city. There are ways to police it and to manage it. But the fact that a new stadium would bring people downtown is not much of a reason to oppose it.

re: reworking the Trop site
I wouldn't necessarily oppose that if they could make it into more of a mixed-used development used year-round. Currently, it's used half the year and sits as a quiet sea of concrete for the other half of the year. That vacancy combined with the eleven months of vacancy at the waterfront site equals a lot of wasted time and space. But I think the waterfront idea has a higher upside in terms of creating an attraction for the city.

re: Gandy location
Sure, it has a lot of transportation corridors, but building a stadium there is sort of like buying your wife a frying pan for Valentine's Day: it's practical and sensible if she doesn't have a frying pan, but it's no fun, and it lacks style.

re: Trop rejected as open-air stadium
The Rays aren't proposing an open-air stadium. They're proposing essentially a retractable-roof stadium. So they're not proposing what was rejected for the Trop.

re: light & foghorn idea
That sounds like a rediculous idea. Who would buy that?

Someone’s working hard on the talking points memo. Nice way to test them too. Work it hard Adam… but you NY boys are up against a “been there, done that, and I gave the t-shirt to a homeless person” crowd.

The Rays and the City puppets have messed this whole deal up by hiding it from the beginning, and misleading the citizens about their plans. Why in Gods name would anyone trust what you say? When this whole deal crashes, you boys need to take a long look in the mirror to find the reasons. And when election time comes around, the City boys will want to share that mirror with you.

[Adam]

re: "2nd-rate city"
I should add that by calling St. Pete a 2nd-rate city, I don't mean to say that it's a bad place to live. I very much enjoy living here. But 1st-rate cities are cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, London, Paris, and Rome. They have the best infrastructure and attractions. I don't think anyone would confuse St. Pete with any of those cities. We offer dirty beaches and the Dahli Museum. Obviously, that's an overstatement, but my point is that we have room to improve. And I see the Rays' proposal as an opportunity for the City to develop toward its potential.

[Adam]

"You NY boys"? I'm far from being one of them. Believe it or not, there are people outside the Rays organization and outside this blog who do support the stadium proposal.

Adam, Adam, Adam, - son, you need to research your facts before the words you put in print betray the shallowness of your knowledge.

The city does not have a transportation system. The PSTA is called that because it stands for Pinellas ( as in county wide) Suncoast Transit Authority - the city gave up its own service many years ago in favor of allowing PSTA to be created by Florida statute. All 24 municipalities compete for PSTA services, so exactly which of the cities would you like to deprive of PSTA services in order to allow your waterfront stadium? PSTA has taxing capabilities, and could expand service with more available tax - but, oops! we said it again! - new taxes.
The Looper service is provided by the Downtown Partnership, an offshoot of the Chamber of Commerce and in no way has the capacity to move up to 35,000 baseball fans. Also, because of PSTA's transit authority, the Looper is very limited on its uses. If the Rays make trolleys available they will have to offset the cost somehow - oops! we said it again - more hidden costs.
But, hey, glad to hear Ferg's Bar can handle transit of 35,000 people.

The Trop was initially considered a "retractable roof stadium" - go figure Adam! Light and foghorn - good question - who would fall for that? The elected officials did - the architects actually presented those ideas to the council as a really "cool" idea to sell the cost of the project.

The parking lot at Al Lang will be UNDER the new stadium.

So - when you moved to St. Petersburg, did you think it was Paris, Rome, Boston or New York? Really?

Note to 9:53 - I really don't think Adam is a Rays guy - not even the Rays are this out of step with the facts. Although, on second thought....

The Feb 6, 1:10 PM poster gives an excellent link to Wayne Garcia's expose on the city involvement with the stadium project.

Everyone who is even remotely concerned with how local government operates should read Kathleen Ford's response to Wayne's article.

Thank you Wayne for doing the heavy lifting the Times couldn't seem to do ( present company excluded, HT) and thanks to Kathleen Ford for sharing her insightful understanding of the dynamics which have led our community into this shameful excuse for public policy.

It occurs to me that the only actual facts we know about this deal are that it has thus far been conducted without benefit of public input or knowledge, that the council has withheld the promised Al Lang zoning in the LDR glitch ordinance, that there has been extensive expenditure of staff time doing research for the Rays, that the Rays attorneys are being coached on legal affairs by city bond council and that the Rays were extended the benefit of hiding these activities from view by an extremely liberal interpretation of Florida statute.

[Adam]

re: PSTA
Are you suggesting that PSTA serves all municipalities equally? Or does PSTA alter its routes to accommodate demand? If downtown St. Pete were to have a predictably higher demand, particularly during baseball season, wouldn't PSTA strive to service that demand? Granted, I misstated the governing body of the "Pinellas" STA, but the issue is the same: Coud public transportation help transport fans to games? I believe the answer is yes.

re: looper & Ferg's
Nice job mis-characterizing my point, young man. I never suggested that either the Looper or Ferg's or both would transport 35,000 people a night. I merely suggested that they are two more potential sources of transporation. Of course, people could also park their cars and simply walk to the stadium. That's not unheard of in other parts of the country.

re: Rays' trolley and "hidden cost"
If the Rays provide trolleys for free, yes, revenue from their sale of tickets, merchandise, and advertising would likely pay for the trolleys. If you want to call that a "hidden cost," then you'd have to agree that any other business that provides a complimentary service, although funded by the business's revenue streams, imposes a "hidden cost." I don't think this would be the least bit unusual for any business. But as with any other business, you could simply choose not to purchase their product. Similarly, if the Rays provide a trolley for a fee, you could simply choose not to pay that cost.

re: Trop
The Trop was built in the 1980s, when domes were still in vogue and retractable-roof stadiums were yet in this country. I don't recall any serious discussions for the Trop to have a retractable roof.

re: moving to St. Pete
Again, nice job of mis-characterization. Who suggested I ever moved to St. Pete and wasn't born here 43 years ago? All I said was that no one would confuse St. Pete with the 1st-rate cities.

Adam

It's been amusing playing with you.

Have a nice day.

[Don Mott]

My dear Adam you are expending an extraordinary amount of time beating a dead horse. The residents will never vote for this especially since they were lied to from the start. Once you tell a lie you can never be trusted not to lie again. And even if somehow the plan comes to fruition, which I seriously doubt, they still have to deal with that filling in the bay thing and I don't think that will fly either, Stu's wallet isn't that big. Not to mention all the other obstacles that you seem convinced can be overcome but in reality probably can't. It's a pipe dream that won't happen. As the old saying goes "when pigs fly"! The whole idea is more like pig slop.

Sorry Howard - But as someone who has been very active in the homeless issues downtown I do have to deviate from the topic and address the offensive points made by poster February 06, 2008 at 03:48 PM.

Sir - your language speaks volume about your character. The post you are referring to was nothing if not polite and frankly quite accurate in its content. I disagree with the posters position, but at least his comments weren't offensive.

You are mistaken in your position. Your supposition that the county grants are spent by those trying to prove the homeless are recent local residents is completely false. I participated as a volunteer in that process and it would have helped us quite a bit if the homeless were long term residents. Perhaps then the city would care about its neighbors. Sadly, the fact is most of the local homeless population does come from outside the city, and gernerally arrived in the last 6 to 12 months. This doesn't make them less deserving of our help, but does make it a harder pill for local taxpayers to swallow.

While I believe many homeless do want to work to better themselves, there is a large population that do not. Just another sad fact of the situation. There are many who come by local shelters each morning with offers of daily or weekly labor - there are very few (though some!) takers.

Anyway - since you appear to be on my side of the argument I'd like to ask a favor. Stop helping. Your rhetoric does nothing to benefit us, and only makes us look like jerks.

[Paul]

St Pete has dirty beaches, Adam? You have got to be kidding me. Perhaps you don't go to them. We are a 1st rate city for active people, namely, triathletes, bicyclists and kitesurfers. We are setting sport history with kitesurfing and triathlon races... no thanks to a HUGE megaplex stadium. I'm old too, 40 yrs to be exact, and have lived here 15 years, so I too speak from experience when I suggest the bumbling idiots we have for city council should make Al Lang a park, just like we've been asking for what.. over a year now... and just as the rest of the waterfront is a connected park system, lets keep adding to it to protect if from the greedy developers and the shady, double talking city politicians.

[Adam]

For such a dead horse, Don, opponents are also spending an extraordinary amount of time defending their positions.

"It's a pipe dream that won't happen." Yeah, spoken like a true visionary. That's the kind of voice this city really needs.