Thursday morning

Happy Thursday. Happy NCAA Tournament. I got a kick out of Gary Shelton's column this morning. I have the same picks he does for the national final (UNC over UCLA) which means we are almost certainly wrong.

* My print column today is based on the proposals for redeveloping Tropicana Field. They are filled with pretty pictures but they do not immediately answer the question of how they will promise to generate $300-million toward the cost of new baseball stadium. For more on the plans' failure to answer all the questions, see Aaron Sharockman's news story.

* It is just as well that two Pinellas legislators are dropping their plans to allow higher tolls on the bridges of the southern county. The whole thing was handled inartfully by the Department of Transportation. The state should restore the money that's been taken from the toll fund in the past. The state should pay for the future bridge improvements with both tolls AND other revenue -- don't sock folks going to Fort De Soto Park for $7-plus.

* It's good to see the demise of parking meters in Ybor City. But these things are always cyclical, and there's always a tradeoff between those who want parking turnover and those who don't, depending in part on what kind of business is involved. One day, I guarantee you, somebody will be arguing to the city that what we need are parking meters in Ybor...

Comments

[Larry]

Howard, although I am getting a little weary of hearing all this Ray's Stadium nonsense I feel I have to comment on this morning's article. The Ray's spokesman says that the old Trop site will generate and additional $218 million in tax revenue to pay for the new stadium. But isn't that additional tax revenue going to be needed by the city for infrastructure, fire protection, police protection, and city services to the new residents and businesses who are attracted to the site? This is starting to sound like a Ponzi Scheme.

Since Hines requires the city to clean up the Trop site in preparation for redevelopment, think on these points:
Note, I only reference Hines, the only seemingly TRUE bid offer, at least the only one offering any money!

The City of St. Petersburg has published a copy of the City’s most recent test (December 19, 2007) of the four monitoring wells and surface water from Booker Creek at Tropicana Field. The monitoring wells were put in place after the City was cited for pollution during removal of the old gas plant and construction of the stadium. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection required semi annual testing from these monitoring wells to ensure that there is no groundwater or surface water contamination.

The entire report, with tables, can be found at the City’s website, www.stpete.org under the City’s Economic Development tab where the City has posted the Prebid questions and answers for the Trop RFP. It’s at the back of the report.

The City was sued by the FDEP for polluting Brooker Creek during construction of the stadium. Eventually, the City agreed to clean up the pollution and entered into a consent order (also posted) describing what it would do. This is posted at the City’s website as is a copy of the Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) following the City’s action under the Contamination Assessment Plan (which is not posted and should really be reviewed).

The December 2007 results show that acenapthene was above its groundwater cleanup target level (GCTL) and that the retaining wall around the contaminated site appears to be effectively retarding the groundwater flow (and thus, any contaminants that would flow into Booker Creek). Environmental Consulting & Technology recommends continuing semi-annual groundwater and surface water monitoring at the stadium site. I do not know how that retaining wall would be impacted by any construction/landscaping around Brooker Creek. Some renderings from the responders to the Trop RFP show a lake, a dock, etc. I am not sure how that would impact the retaining wall and/or whatever other structures or systems may be in place, if any, to address the past pollution.

There was pollution. There was remediation. There is still some pollution and at least one system, a retaining wall, in place to address past pollution. Since remediation can be very expensive, lenders will want environmental assessments done and assurances that the site is clean or that the lender will be indemnified for the cost of environmental remediation. Some lenders just will not lend money at all if they believe the risk is too huge. A former fish farm may contain some contaminants but an old gas station or gas plant may contain a whole heck of lot more. The former may get a loan whereas the latter may not depending on the remediation performed.

[guy]

Why, I wonder, are their people on your blog site already, who so vigorously back the new stadium plan, when actually we only have an artist's rendition of a very stupid idea that common sense say's will not fly??
Who are these people??
How did you like the March sunshine in Al Lang Howard??
Imagine July, Oh I know Mr. supporter will say "Night games"
What about the great Florida MOSQUITO???????
I've seen them so big that one of them flew by my boat in Tampa Bay carrying a young child. LOL

[Howard Troxler]

Howard here. Larry makes an interesting point about the demands of new services, etc., and how that should be calculated in the impacts of new tax collections, etc.

Also there's question of how much of these "new" tax collections are simply shifted away from other existing retail, and how much would be from money that's not being spent anywhere at all now.

It's BOOKER Creek on the Trop site, and BROOKER Creek up in the northeast Pin Co -- folks often use one for the other, an understandable mixup.

Hi Guy. To me, there's nothing in these proposals so far to move anyone from the 'undecided' to the 'pro' camp. But, as I said, that's "to me."

[Don Mott]

Larry IMO has hit on a very important question we all should ask. The Rays promise no new taxes yet they want the taxes from the redeveloped Trop to go towards the cost of the new stadium if I'm correct. So in essence we don't have 'new' taxes, as they like to say but the city has additional costs that may be very substantial and where do they come from? The taxpayers! It may not be 'new' taxes but it may mean a tax increase or cut in services. To mention a few things, who is going to pay for all of the new piping needed for water, sewer and drainage? Where is it all going to go or in the case of water come from? As stated the police and fire costs will increase. There will probably be road modifications needed, i.e. accel and deccel lanes etc. Who will pay for all of this since the taxes are going to the Rays new stadium? No new taxes, think again.