St. Pete Times pro-stadium conspiracy!

In doing more research on the Rays proposal, I now understand why we've not heard more under cover work about the real scoop re the Rays. Clearly your hands are tied with respect true, open reporting. According to Forbes magazine the Times is one of the major corporate underwriters of the Rays. Can we say conflict of interest? I am sorry for you ... I am sure you would like to be able to tell the true story -  to get to the bottom of what is "rotten in the state of Denmark." Used to be we little people could count on the Times to look out for us - to tell the whole story. But...... well, you guys gotta make a living. I understand. I'll send all the new, juicy stuff I uncover to the Tribune. FIA, Florida sunshine law, injunctions, power brokering - you know.  But you wouldn't touch it anyway. Just one problem of a newspaper underwriting a sports team. C'est la vie. -- Willie Doyle

Dear Mr. Doyle: I appeal to the record. I began my first stadium column with the words "No, no, no, no, no." I wrote columns accusing the city of St. Petersburg of being a liar, and accusing the city of conducting a fraud against the citizens by keeping this plan secret for most of 2007. I have said repeatedly that the city ought to conduct new elections for the City Council to replace the sham elections that it conducted last year while keeping this secret. I wrote that the City Council was rushing into issuing the RFP, and accused the City Council of breaking its promise to protect the waterfront Al Lang site as a parkland. I keep saying there is no way the city should ever, ever enter into this deal without ironclad guarantees that the taxpayers will not be at risk. I don't give a hoot in hell about who the Times' advertising or marketing partners are and I think that this track record proves it.

Comments

[Jan Allyn]

Howard,
I don't think anybody could accuse you of being biased toward the Rays. Your newspaper, however, has been a wee bit too enthusiastic about this whole plan, and the fact that it's a corporate sponsor of the Rays and receives a fair amount of money from advertising does make people question the objectivity of those making editorial decisions. If any other private entity floated such a proposal to transfer public funds and land to its benefit, the Times would be crowing about the cupidity of all involved. Even you've gotta admit its reporting on the plan has been a mite, well, muted.

[Scott]

Mr. Doyle,

Why, you’re not suggesting that the Times Editorial Board is less than completely objective when it comes to the Rays are you? And here I thought it was only their political views that MIGHT be slightly less than impartial.

Of course the Times is in support of this. Do the math… the Times loves Rick, Rick loves the Rays… that equals four. Besides, they want naming rights to the new stadium.

On the other hand, accusing Howard of being biased on this… well, that’s just plain stoooopid.

[Virginia]

Howard,

I commend you on the restraint of your response to Mr. Doyle.

I also compliment the 12:07 poster on a point well made and her refined statement, "...the Times would be crowing about the cupidity of all involved " - such a diplomatic way of saying the Times would be milking this for all their circulatory worth!

[Naturalbill]

Howard,

The reason you are one of the few stars in the desert at the Times is you tell it like it is sans sugar coating which translates to tellin' the truth. This is why your readership is so strong. It would be a sad day at the Times if the muzzle is thrown your way. I trust your employer realizes the jeopardy in their credibility loss if this were to occur.

[Howard Troxler]

Well, now, if I get to NAME it...

Howard, you indeed wrote these absolutely ON TARGET columns.......with some of your comments noted below:

"I wrote columns accusing the city of St. Petersburg of being a liar, and accusing the city of conducting a fraud against the citizens by keeping this plan secret for most of 2007. I have said repeatedly that the city ought to conduct new elections for the City Council to replace the sham elections that it conducted last year while keeping this secret. I wrote that the City Council was rushing into issuing the RFP, and accused the City Council of breaking its promise to protect the waterfront Al Lang site as a parkland."

The problem is...you ARE the lone wolf wrting such commentary......but material coming from the Times reporters/editorial writers at large....HAVE NOT YET REFLECTED SUCH WISDOM. BOGUS IS THE ONLY WORD THAT COMES TO THE MIND OF MANY FOLKS AT THIS POINT IN TIME....this is when reveiwing the Times coverage other than your own.
One can only assume that due to the financial advertising linkage to the Rays ongoing in conjunction with the Times which has obviously been an important part of the Times portfolio that indeed some staff with the Times Executive offices ALSO KNEW and kept this deal secret from the public throughout 2007 and very likely earlier, in my opinion........SO, your accusations point the finger at the Times organization as well, perhaps....
It makes no sense that the Times knew nothing of important plans coming from the Rays. Seemingly the Rays’ management wants to “monetize” the existing Trop site at its highest & best value…it is more valuable without the Dome. Many figure that THEN the Rays would use that money (and more of the City’s money) to build a stadium to make the team more valuable when they sell it. Stu and company are Wall Street guys afterall.....and wouldn't this be info shared with big investors in the franchise??
Ah, what do I know.........

[Larry]

Howard, I do not believe anyone can accuse you of biased coverage on the new stadium issue. Your employer, however, is another matter. And it's understandable. I'm very sure they have already taken steps to ensure that there is no Tampa Tribune Field in downtown St. Petersburg on the waterfront located on Tampa Tribune Drive. Don't you think?

Picked up on that, did ya Larry!

[guy]

Howard better get his fingers in shape for Super Tuesday~~~~
Maybe a good stiff drink or two, by his keybord.

Major league baseball now being played at the TRIB!

I like the naming thing, I can see it now…

“Baseball ROCKS at the TROX!”

[earthmuffin]

Howard, comments from one person are just that. I dont think any body could accuse you of being biased about this issue, even though you love baseball. Keep up your good work (ok time off for comments on Super Tuesday) but after that, back on it. I know chosing between the dysfunctional legislature and the stadium issue is a tough choice.
The reporting and editorial comments of the paper have been sorta weak or non existent. Image what a headline would look like if the Times got really into this issue:
"Public money used to support millionaires while basic services are being cut??"
"Millions of dollars to move the stadium a few blocks to hit balls into the bay?"
"Other cities report loss of revenue due to stadium siting in their downtowns."
I would love to see those type stories if the reporters are allowed to follow up
City staff is not doing their homework, looking at real examples in other cities. They are doing too much to jump through the Rays hoop and following orders from a bought out council and mayor. Spending valuable time working on a pipe dream rather than working on the real problems and needs of St Pete
Just my two cents worth
Keep up the great stories. You are my hero!!!

[Jan Allyn]

Huzzah, earthmuffin! The reasons "why not" are too numerous to count!

[Moey]

Dear Mr. Troxler, I have always enjoyed your well written & often amusing column. I write not to berate you but to encourage you to offset the oh so pro stadium coverage. Isn't what is best for the citizens of and the future of St.Petersburg the most important thing? Relocating a losing proposition 16 blocks for a MINIMUM of $500,000,000 to our beautiful Bayshore waterfront is not a logical proposition. So who IS benefiting? Certainly, not the local residents, not the birds, not the sealife or sailors that will lose precious protected water to ecologically damaging fill. When we voted for the "Thunderdome", most of us had no idea it was disposable. Fool me once...

[Mango]

$450,000,000 to move 16 blocks? Sell a Brownfield site (the Tropicana Dome)to private developers to build housing and retail during a recession caused by over-building? Fill in our waterfront to build a stadium for a sport that can can be played anywhere? Good grief. Are we seriously considering this?

[Earl cox]

I am a fan of the Rays and attend a few games.
But it seems to me that the building of a ballpark or stadium for sports purposes is not a Government purpose or obligation.