Here's the transcript of the April 22 live chat

Hello and welcome to the transcript of today's special-edition, two-hour live chat here on TroxBlog. Today's chat was dedicated to the topic of the waterfront baseball stadium that the Tampa Bay Rays propose for downtown St. Petersburg.

To read the transcript of today's chat: Click on the "Comments" link at the end of this item, a few lines below. It's not too late to add your own comment as well. Keep refreshing the comments page to see the latest.

I'd say that most of the comments in today's chat were in opposition to the stadium, for a variety of reasons -- financial, environmental, aesthetic. But there was a good representation from folks who either support the stadium or say it's worth considering. They argued that it would energize downtown St. Petersburg, be good for the city and county and Tampa Bay area in general, that it would bring jobs and other economic benefits, and generally that St. Petersburg should avoid being a backwards, anti-progress kind of place.

But maybe I am mischaracterizing what people had to say. Take a spin through the transcript yourself by clicking on the "comments" link at the end of this post -- and feel free to chime in with your own opinion.

Thanks to everyone who came by or took part in today's chat. I hope to see you at the next, regular weekly live chat next Tuesday, April 29.

Comments

[Howard Troxler]

Welcome to the chat! Let's start with some prefiled questions, along with my answers.

Here's one from Justin Elza, who is (I hope he thinks this is a fair statement) skeptical of the proposal:

If you had to rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, how favorable your impression of the stadium proposal is at this point in time, 1 being very unfavorable and 10 being very favorable, what would your rating be?

Dear Justin: I'd say 5.5, square in the middle of your scale. I like the design and think a big-league stadium on the waterfront is an interesting idea. I am extremely skeptical of the financial aspect, especially pertaining to Tropicana Field and the future risk to taxpayers, and, thanks in part to you and other folks, increasingly worried about the environmental aspect.

[Howard Troxler]

Part of a pre-filed comment from justme, regarding the news that the proposal includes an extension of the county's hotel tax:

Hmm is this there way to tick many of the residents of Pinellas County off to the point where many say.. "to hell with it"? ... We vote it down and they move the team?

Dear justme: I honestly don't think this is a sham attempt to force a rejection -- I believe the Rays want to make it work if they can. But I am surprised at the team's lack of smoothness in dealing with the county from the get-go. I think it's partly the fruit of the original secrecy agreement with the city, which delayed the whole thing and has done far more harm than good.

[Howard Troxler]

Pre-filed comment by Elaina:

Sure. Vote no. Watch the team leave the little city and go elsewhere. Watch as your taxes continue to rise and businesses/conventions stay away because of the stigma of being a loser city. What a bunch of idiots. St. Pete does not deserve to have a team. You could have had Tampa International Airport. Too much whining. You could have had the Bucs there. Too much whining. St. Pete could have so much more-be so much more- yet you whine and complain. Then wonder why you are not taken seriously.

Dear Elaina:

Well, if I'm an whiny idiot for not forking over $300-million in public resources just 'cause they asked, so be it. No one who spends time in downtown St. Pete can think of it as a "loser city" as matters stand today. As I said above, I think this is a beautiful and interesting idea, but I am ready to push the no button if it doesn't add up.

[Howard Troxler]

Pre-filed from get-smart:

Lets face it, they will need a couple of acres of bay. We are just being sandbagged until the project starts. We will then start seeing all the miscalculations and engineering mistakes and of course, the cost over runs. What about all the sub-sonic noises emanating from the speaker system played by the MC's to excite the fans. With all its sirens, whistles and sub-sonic thumping audio sounds, the stadium will be a virtual Mega Mega Mega Boom Box. Sound does travel underwater, you know. It will also be the end of having a nice quiet stroll about town.

Dear get-smart: Agreed on the risk of "miscalculations" and "engineering mistakes" and overruns. The contract HAS to give the city absolute protection on the front end -- and, dare I say it, the city has to be able to walk away at any time. Part of me doesn't care if the thing is half-built when the Rays or contractors come back and say, "Oh, by the way, give us X or it won't work." That is an interesting point about sonic pollution and I frankly do not know anything about it.

[guy]

The headline in the Local and State news this morning could also have read, “County may not work with Rays”
I have gathered the more pertinent information about the proposed stadium off of this Blog site than from any other source.
From people who have the experience and the background to make educated decisions on these matters , like Steven Lange, architect, Kathleen Ford, past Council member and Mayoral candidate, Lorraine M. renowned environmentalist, and CONA, have shown opposition to this project because the facts show it to be an enormous fiasco.
People who send their support to the new stadium at this point in time can only be doing so with something either financial or egotistical to gain.
It is of deep concern to me that another piece of our waterfront is being considered for development.
I remember when Madeira Beach was a pristine area sprinkled with Tiki-bars and white sand.
Not so long ago.
Probably one of the nicest tourist spots ever, go there now.!!!!
We should be looking to keep Tropicana Field, and Al Lang as a spring training facility, believe me, no baseball team is worth spoiling our little garden here in St. Pete.

[Howard Troxler]

Hi guy! Thanks for the comment. A lot of people certainly feel that way, judging from the comments.... I do not know what MOST people think, but I have heard folks both in support and opposition say that "everybody they know" agrees with them... :)

[Howard Troxler]

Pre-filed from Don Mott:

Do you have any feeling for which way the County Commissioners are leaning toward the new revelations that the Rays will be asking them for more money? They have been quiet up to now since of course they haven't previously been consulted.

Dear Don Mott: There was a story in the paper this morning with some comments from commissioners. I would say they are cautious, a little offended, but not prepared to rule it out. The extended hotel tax is not especially offensive -- it exists already, it affects mostly (but not exclusively) non-residents, and the money couldn't be used for much else anyway. On the other hand, in my book extending the tax would be a "new" tax, contrary to the initial promises.

[John]

I am confused. This thing supposedly costs $450 mil. The Rays are prepaying their rent for 30 years by putting up $150 mil (so no yearly revenue). The $300 mil left has to be financed. Assuming we can get 4% bonds for 30 years, that’s about $17 mil a year. The county bed tax is committed through 2015, so where’s their $5 mil a year for the first 3-4 years? There’s no redevelopment at the Trop site for the first 3-4 years while the new stadium is being built, but we are paying for the bonds. Even if you average the $450 mil over three years, $150 mil from the Rays gets us through year one, $150 mil is borrowed year two and an additional $150 mil year three. Year one – no interest, two - $8.5 mil, three - $17 mil. Looks like $25 mil cost before we get any NEW property tax money from the ten year redevelopment and obviously those taxes will start coming in over time – none the first year, so that’s another $17 mil. I am assuming that any money paid by the developer (all is paid in “phases” over time whether it’s $50 mil or $61 mil) won’t come close to paying for all the added costs (infrastructure at both sites, demolition of the Trop, site remediation at the Trop, and who knows what else). That looks like a minimum of $25 mil plus $17 mil or $37 mil in annual payments due before we see the first dollar of NEW tax revenue. OK, let’s add ‘em up: $17 mil times 30 years = $510M plus unknown costs (not the stadium, the Rays are paying for cost overruns but not all the other stuff). Hines (their favorite developer) projected $167 mil in NEW property taxes over 30 years. Am I missing something or are we holding the bag for an extra $343 mil (funny, that’s about what the Trop is costing us – $323 mil, right?). Oh yeah, the county’s $5 mil for 27 years is $135 mil of NEW taxes so that leaves St. Pete taxpayers with only $208 mil to cough up. I think you said $1.00 would be too much. Is this too complicated to understand? It really is much more than $1.00, my friend.

[Justin Elza]

Howard, once again I wanted to let your readers know just how massive this new stadium is going to be. There is a to scale diagram at http://www.stpetepoww.com that shows the size and height in relation to other structures.

[Aaron Sharockman]

Aaron Sharockman here. Howard asked me to join in from time to time and help clarify any technical points that may come up.

Elaina brought up the possibility of the Rays' leaving. In short, the Rays have a lease to play in St. Petersburg and at Tropicana Field until 2027. If they attempted to leave, they would be on the hook for at least the debt still remaining on Tropicana Field. At present, that's about $89.6-million. By 2012, the number shrinks to around $40-million. Unless some other city was willing to build the Rays a ballpark at no cost to the team, the Rays probably would be here at least through 2016 (when the local debt expires) no matter what.

The Rays, by the way, say they have no intention to leave if the waterfront stadium does not happen.

[Howard Troxler]

Hi John! The way I understand it is, the sale price of the Trop is used to pay off the existing LOCAL debt (the state debt is paid off over the normal life and does not concern us).

But the local payments, about $11m a year, CONTINUE. That's the county hotel tax and city sales tax. Those payments, through 2015, would be "what we're paying anyway," as the argument goes, and does not cost us extra.

That continuing payment is used to finance new debt, which I have heard estimated at $230m or so. After the year 2015, in THEORY, the new development on the Trop site has grown enough that it will be producing sales taxes that account at least for the city's share.

Even with this scenario -- $150m ownership, $230m from existing payments -- you will astutely notice that is NOT $450m. How to make up that difference is a key question; one presumes that the money does not just fall out of the air, although one can always hope.

[Howard Troxler]

Aaron, thanks for the point -- my own thinking is that at SOME point down the road, even if we held the Rays captive to their lease through 2027 at the Trop, it becomes increasingly thinkable for them to abandon the remainder at whatever cost is left.

I'm not saying that like, "Ooooh, we can't have THAT." If that's the course we chose, so be it. But I do think there is a tradeoff that changes as the years pas.

[Howard Troxler]

An excerpt from a pre-filed comment from Jon McPhee:

If the Rays want a new stadium, don't mortgage the future of this City to give them some "world-class" White Elephant. If you want to give them something, give them Toytown Landfill, a large, ideal site, and let them put up the money out of their own large pockets, or borrow the money to build from investors who are smart enough to protect their own interests and rich enough to swallow a loss if the project goes belly-up.

Dear Jon McPhee: Indeed, I thought LAST time, 20 years ago, that the Toytown or Gateway area made sense as a stadium site. Some have suggested the dog track site (presuming its eventual demise) as well. There would be big traffic issues there but, uh, there are in downtown as well. On the other hand, a winning and/or popular team probably overcomes all geographic issues.

[guy]

Dear Aaron ~~ see what I mean about learning the facts on this blog, you just answered a question that I could not get a response to anywhere.
Now the ball is in our corner.

[Mandy]

Aaron, I just want you to know that I feel your reporting on this issue seems slanted in the Rays favor. In fact, I was at the first public forum before City Council and saw you sitting with Kalt and Silverman the entire night.

You can deny it if you want, but just know that we see what's going on and take your reporting with a grain of salt. The Times really should assign more journalists to this issue than just you and some times Silva.

[Howard Troxler]

John, I know my answer is somewhat apples and oranges but -- under the example I game there is still a $70m gap that has to be made up somewhere. AND this does not include in the calculation that we are selling off a public asset, the Trop site, for whatever that is worth as a publicly held parcel with an institutional use (as opposed to what it is worth privately held and developed). That's a "cost" as well. And there's the question of potential liability for enviro issues at the Trop site, acts of God, etc. - all of which has to be addressed in the contracts, but all of which potentially involves the scale of money you are talking about, true?

[Howard Troxler]

Mandy, thanks for the comment. I would point out that Aaron also has been accused by some of secretly trying to destroy the deal at the behest of his evil Times masters, as hard as that might be to believe... me too for that matter.

[Chris Jenkins]

Howard, point blank question:

Is the Senior Editorial Staff at the Times generally for or against the stadium deal?

[Howard Troxler]

A pre-filed excerpt from Chris Jenkins:

I think for you to remain on the fence the way you have, you either have external editorial pressure not to pick a side in the argument, or you legitimately feel like a good deal is actually a possibility. If the latter is true, I'd just like to understand why you think it is a possibility.

Dear Chris: Editorial pressure can kiss my sweet patootie. As I said to Justin above, I actually LIKE the design and aesthetic possibility of the waterfront stadium. But I'd walk away from the deal as soon as there is any open-ended financial risk. The Tropicana redevelopment HAS to guarantee the revenues to pay for the city's share of the debt as soon as the current payment expires in 2015. The contract HAS to protect the taxpayers against any other expense -- including unanticipated environmental risk at the Tropicana site -- with the city able to walk away the first time somebody says, "Reach back into your pockets or else this won't work." Lastly, I still need to be convinced on the enviro issues dealing with the bay. My prejudice right now is that we're not talking about essential and prime bay habitat, but a more or less spoil area with only patches grasses... I am ignorant of the effects of turbidity, noise and other impacts of construction... so the enviro stuff could still be a deal-breaker.

At the onset, I was so angry and disappointed that the city kept this a secret from the taxpayers for several months, after signing a confidentiality agreement with the Rays, that I was almost ready to be opposed to the thing for that reason alone.

[guy]

Howard Old Buddy ~ I really had to rush to get here by 11:30, I was up in Philly @ 7:00 am to vote for Hilly. LOL
I left my laptop home~~~

[Mandy]

Would really like to hear the basis for that argument. He's essentially implied over and over that people against the stadium are liars who will make up anything they can think of to stop the poor, honest, good ol' Rays from trying to make St Pete a better city.

Rediculous.

We see right through it though, no worries.

[William Fisher]

Why is a business asking for tax dollars? Sport's teams need to be taxed and regulated like the "businesses" they are... In this time of fiscal drought, their tax status and use of public property needs to be changed. What does that add up to in dollars going back into education etc.. And a more realistic site for a stadium would be out by Toy Town where it would be cheaper to build, easier to get to from the Tampa Bay area, and probably easier to sell out - not to mention concert income... All things a business would be smart to consider. Then the City of St Pete could redevelop the gas plant site to increase the tax base. Sports are BIG BUSINESS, or hasn't anyone noticed?

[Harold]

I think we should 'be happy' with the air conditioned dome for summer baseball in St. Pete ---- pay off the debt we have there and encourage the Rays to become 'winners' in the coolness. There aren't 34,000 locals that will sit for 2+ hours in the heat and humidity at the old Al Lang site anymore. Get real and start living within your means in these trying times.

[Howard Troxler]

Ah, Chris posted just as I was posting his pre-filed comment. Howdy.

Hmm, "senior editorial staff." The editorial BOARD, which writes the institutional opinions, I believe has more or less said what I have -- purty idea, let's see if it works, and we need to know sooner than later. I work over in the newsroom; we do not work for the editorial board, which is a separate outfit -- there are plenty of times, trust me, when there is a different take between them. In fact I've been here 17 years and have disagreed in print w/ quite a few sacred editorial stands, so far without repercussion.

[Peter V]

I invite the owners of the Rays to relocate their team to Tampa, Brandon, Lakeland or NYC/ NJ.
I do not consider them an asset to the community.

I oppose any Public funds supporting private for profit athletic teams and oppose conversion of Saint Petersburg waterfront to this purpose.

St. Pete resident since 1986.

Al Lang for minor league & college ball ? That's fine.

[John]

"Sure. Vote no. Watch the team leave the little city and go elsewhere. Watch as your taxes continue to rise and businesses/conventions stay away because of the stigma of being a loser city. What a bunch of idiots. St. Pete does not deserve to have a team."

PLEASE, PLEASE VOTE NO.
PLEASE let them go elsewhere. Remember, it costs us a LOT of money to have the Rays here. They pay us $1 mil a year rent on the Trop and the bonds cost us $10 mil a year - so you think they really make up the other $9 mil a year being in St. Pete? I don't think so.
Look at the free parking scam: they owe the city $1.02 per car parked on site. 17,000 people with 2.9 per car (their number) equals 5,800 cars or about $6,000 per game times 80 equals $480,000. They negotiated an annual payment of something like $132,000 to the city for 2006 and 2007 while it cost the city nearly $400,000 to pay for traffic management! So we go in the hole another $267,000 just on parking!
Notice all the thriving businesses around the Trop? Oh, I forgot - they get everyone inside to eat and drink so THEY make all that maoney.
PLEASE VOTE NO. PLEASE let them go away. "We do not deserve to have a team!"

[Howard Troxler]

William Fisher, thanks for the comment!

Harold, I confess that I am quite comfortable in the Trop and there has been many a night I have sat there, lighting crashing outside, happy to be there.

[Howard Troxler]

Peter V, thanks...

John, I kinda doubt that voting "no" now means automatic departure of the team -- I imagine what would happen is they would wait a few years and try again...

[Howard Troxler]

On that point, a pre-filed question from Lee:

Howard, if this stadium fails to pass, do we have any idea how much more another stadium will cost in another five or ten years when the Rays propose it again?

Dear Lee: That is a smart question. The Rays WILL propose it again. The existing stadium -- which, remember, is already 20 years old -- will NOT realistically last until the expiration of the lease in 2027. At some point it will not be worth keeping. At some point, for that matter, it will become worth it for the Rays to do whatever they can to get out of town. I am not saying that as a threat -- if the time comes, it might well be the best decision for us to say, "Seeya." At any rate, it will be sooner than 10 years, probably sooner than five, and today's $450-million will be a figure from the past, sort of like $2.50 gasoline.

[Howard Troxler]

Pre-filed from Hammer:

The whole thing is an election year ruse. That’s why so many local politicians who should be commenting, aren’t. When all the ridiculous plans have been laid out, and as we get closer to the Elections, you will see and hear the incumbents proclaiming “Our citizens said NO, and we listened to them… so re-elect us or the terrorists will attack Pinellas.”

Dear Hammer: This is the first theory I've heard that this is a conspiracy to say NO for local pols to look good. But you may have a point -- I think the politicians, especially Mayor Rick Baker, have been remarkably cautious, keeping their options open.

[Howard Troxler]

Hey, guy, were you REALLY voting in Philadelphia? Pretty impressive if so. Who's gonna win?

Oh, wait, this is a stadium chat...

[Chris Jenkins]

I think your answers are honest, Howard, and it seems to me you like the stadium idea only from the "Gee, that would be kind of cool!" perspective, as someone who would likely be there in the new stadium, watching the team play.

I readily admit that not being a big baseball fan probably works into my bias against the deal, but the core issue to me is effective use of city resources, at a time when so many of us are struggling just to get by. I've seen my RMR drop by almost 70% in the last year, as the builders and mortgage companies who made up a large portion of my client base began scaling back, or closing entirely. There is a serious economic repression going on right now that is hurting the average resident of this county, either directly, or indirectly.

All of these deals depend on increased tax revenue for the city. However, if your tax base is bankrupt, where are those increased revenues going to come from?

It seems to me to be a no brainer that when everyone is talking about cutting back and tightening belts, the one thing you do NOT do is risk a large portion of the available city resources on a questionable deal with unclear risk and unclear impact, against the dubious reward of future tax revenue increases.

To quote Ernest Hooper, I'm just sayin...

[bob ross]

i don't understand how the city can sell the
Trop site to private developers, then hand the proceeds and all the profits and taxes it generates to the team. that sounds like a gigantic giveaway at the public's expense.

plus, isn't the gas plant, er, Trop, highly contaminated?

one more thing: parking. there isn't any. i don't buy this claim that there are already enough spaces downtown. it gets pretty darned hot to walk 6-8 blocks in summer.

[Carl Crawford]

All of these political folks sre in on this.

If Pinellas County was truly “miffed” at this mess, they had every opportunity to slap an injunction of the City to prevent them issuing the RFP to begin with. This is pure political posturing. The County will let the City take the heat, then pull the proverbial “We can’t stop now, we’ve invested too much” rabbit out of the hat.

The County Commission is as dirty in this sneaky deal as the City of St. Pete. They should all be run out of town on a taxpayer-funded, 700-million dollar CSX rail!

[Aaron Sharockman]

re: John's comments about parking. He's right. The city received $132,000 from the Rays in 2006 and 2007 for parking. The money, however, is to pay off improvements to Tropicana's air conditioning system. The payments are not to cover traffic management, which runs around $400,000 a year.

My understanding is the city will stop receving the parking money this year because the air conditioning repairs will be fully paid off.

The money that's supposed to cover traffic management comes from ticket sales, which it comes close to doing. The big hit the city takes each year on the dome is property insurance.

The city is paying about $2-million this year to insure the dome...

How much will waterfront property be to insure?

[guy]

I have to believe that Mayor Baker and lots of his staff are reading this site.
Mayor I was the ugly "guy" sitting in front of you at the last game you attended at Al
Lang when your face was getting a bad burn.
You kept mentioning the word "Sail". and smiling through your pain.
But that sir was a taste of reality and only the month of March.
After that day, anything you say Pro-Stadium has made you seem very shallow in my eye's.

[Howard Troxler]

Hi Bob Ross! (I was going to ask, are you THE Bob Ross, but the answer to that would be "yes" no matter what.)

You're right. This deal requires the disposition of public land, and then pledging all the proceeds, both sales prices and future tax revenue, to the stadium.

Re: contaminated: Although I keep hearing assurances this is a largely solved and limited problem, I still would want to see the city's liability sharply limited in the contract. Like, to zero.

Re: parking; The city staff memo (I posted it earlier today here) agrees that the Rays estimate of walking 3/4 mile on a sultry summer night is too optimistic.

[Howard Troxler]

Insurance, now THERE'S a question. Do I assume correctly that the city would bear that cost, or could it be negotiated in the contract? Also, whether it is considerably more on the waterfront than 16 blocks inland -- I am thinking wind-wise it doesn't matter, and in theory the thing would be fairly "flood-proof'' -- in fact, one of the advantanges being that they can just hose the joint down, which they can't do at the Trop, also saving a big pot of money.

[Mama Nature!]

The earth under the parking lot is as contaminated as the earth under the dome. Again, you'll see a liability loophole in this deal big enough to drive many, many trucks filled with bad earth out, and many, many trucks filled with clean earth in... at taxpayers expense no doubt.

[John]

I think everyone forgets that the Al Lang waterfront site is worth something - appraisals have ranged from $50 mil to $100 mil - what do you think a developer would pay for 12 acres of prime waterfront land?
And remember, that developer would put millions of dollars worth of condos on the site and generate millions of dollars of property tax revenues for the city. The Rays pay no property taxes - not at the Trop, not on the waterfront. So that's a LOT of taxpayer money lost by giving our land to the Rays.
WE the citizens own that property, so there's another minimum $50 mil we are donating to the corporate welfare fund.
Whatever happened to the idea that corporations are supposed to sell a product and make a profit and pay their own way? Why do sports franchises get all of our money while police and fire departments are understaffed, underfunded and have to work without contracts?
Ever wonder why we train so many police officers and they leave after a couple years to work somewhere else?
NOT ONE TAXPAYER DOLLAR.

[Howard Troxler]

Re: the mayor: I dunno, he is being really cagey on this. I think if he had to make a Sophie's Choice he would choose the Grand Prix over a new stadium hands-down. I think, to be a little cynical about it, that all the city officials would be there on Opening Day, taking the glory, but fully intend before then not to put their necks on the chopping block until the last possible moment.

[Howard Troxler]

Howdy, Mama Nature, thanks for the comment. Again, if the contract leaves the city with open-ended liability on the enviro issue, then the voters ought to rise up and kill this deal even if the City Council won't. All the assurances in the world that there's "not much there" mean absolutely zero absent that contract language -- agreed?

John, ah, yes, the Al Lang site as well inures to the benefit of the team. So in addition to the $300m public share of the construction cost, there's the cost, both land-value-wise and "opportunity cost" of other potential uses, of both the waterfront property, and the 86-acre Tropicana site.

[Bill]

Any of these politicians considering “putting their heads on the chopping block” is relative to voter apathy. Heck, after they pulled the original Dome deal over on the voters, several went on to higher office.

[bob ross]

Yes, Howard, it's me, the old critic. One more note: I took my brother from New York and my brother-in-law from Tennessee to two games at the Trop last week, one Orioles and one Yankees. We all had a fine time, for what it's worth.

[guy]

Howard, I am the most Right -Wing person on this planet,
My initials spell GUN.(Fact).

So Philadelphia NADA (not a democrat advbocate).
But I can't wait for when the subject of the second amendment comes up, I will really be so infomative that you will go to the gun store and get a permit to carry. LOL

[Howard Troxler]

Now, on the other hand, IF IF IF this worked the way it is proposed, then St. Petersburg has a pretty interesting new western component to its downtown, an excellent waterfront site, a lively downtown filled with pedestrians (and retail, restaurant and bar customers!) 81 nights a year, and all kinds of cool things going on, along with a more robust tax base, etc...

Also IF IF IF it works, the school system would benefit as well, since its taxes are not captured in the tax-increment financing district to which the city revenues would go.

Not drinkin' the kool-aid here, but just trying to provide the offsetting argments. Thor, Thor, where are you?

[William Fisher]

BIG BUSINESS WELFARE.... I'm wondering how many local jobs the Rays/Trop have created... And if you take that number and divide it into the public cost, just how much money per job does it cost the city/tax payers?

[guy]

Oh I forgot "Stadium Chat"

Howard,

"... an excellent waterfront site, a lively downtown filled with pedestrians (and retail, restaurant and bar customers!) 81 nights a year, and all kinds of cool things going on, along with a more robust tax base, etc..."

Do you mean like Bay Walk and the Dome were supposed to do?

[Justin Elza]

One thing the Rays are doing, which I find reprehensible, is trying to court the African American community with the promise of affordable housing and plentiful jobs.

I say reprehensible because the Rays are really trying to put on a "WE REALLY CARE ABOUT YOU!" face, only because they want something in return. Reprehensible because the amount of affordable housing and the number of jobs available to anyone is not something they even control.

[concernedcitizen]

Could we at least bring some honesty to the numbers being tossed around and the "PROJECTED" income from future redevelopment at the Trop. First the numbers...Kalt's baby in New York..the new Yankee stadium has infrastructure costs that have soared 79% from 135 Million to 242Million. Remember that's JUST the infrastructure costs! I love Howard's idea of a liability cap but again there is no mention of it from any of the 3 respondents to the RFP. In fact 2 of the 3, including the DeBartolo group (Debartolo made his fortune from shopping centers think he understands retail?) have said the site is not actually that promising for retail but better suited for more residential development. Doesn't anybody remember Bay Plaza and all the promises excuse me PROJECTIONS? A 40 million loser!!! How about the Centro Ybor project in Tampa..a total failure that again featured wonderful PROJECTIONS...but perhaps most importantly..all the PROJECTIONS of redevelopment the DOME would bring. 3 strikes and you're out!!! Can we stop using Kalt's numbers as if they were FACT when the reality is they are pie in the sky PROJECTIONS.(guesses)
NONE of what the Rays have promised is FACT...so supporters please stop quoting them as if they are..they are guesses...look at New York's experience with Kalt's FACTS. As for the person who keeps worrying about our "SMALL" little city...don't let the door hit you in the behind as you hit I-75 north to settle in a more suitable locale..Atlanta perhaps...or if that's too small why not take it all the way to New York where the sharpies are fine with wasting taxpayer money and you can live in a LARGE city.

[Howard Troxler]

William Fisher, good question -- I also would ask the same about the $600m to Scripps Institute, this $600m deal being proposed for CSX Transportation, as well as all the panoply of "economic incentive" gov't money gone to corporations...

[Shanks]

I mean this seriously, if we build a stadium, what is going to happen to our drunk bums? Who is going to take care of them. Sure on Mondays and Wednesdays I can run down there on my Vespa and handout tofu sandwiches but I have hemp braiding class on Tuesdays and my weekends are spent framing evil corporations.

Seriously if someone else in this crummy city ever shops at Walmart again I'm going to lose my mind! Things were so better when I lived in Vermont. I only moved here because I had to escape an abusive father. When I lived in NYC I thought it was good but they were too materialistic. Then I moved down here and I realized all the food sucks (but somehow I weight 340 lbs.) Every time I get a chance I let St. Pete natives know how bad their food tastes. I wear yankees hats to Rays games because I lived in NYC for three weeks.

But seriously who is going to take care of the drunk bums and when are we going to get some biofuel in this redneck town!!!

[Mama Nature!]

I’m curious how a facility less that 2/3 the size of the Dome will bring “more” jobs. What will happen to those people working at the Trop, won’t they get first dibs on the jobs at the new site (IF IF IF)?

[Howard Troxler]

Howdy, concerned citizen. Thanks for mentioning Bay Plaza, which is seared in my brain -- I am afraid that younger folks keep rolling their eyes when I bring it up ("back in the blizzard of aught-six, we had to walk to school barefoot"...)

In my thinking, the Trop redevelopment deal ought to either (1) guarantee X dollars in tax revenue by year on an increasing basis over the build-out or (2) a guaranteed payment from the developer in lieu of taxes in the alternative. I also would like protection against Chapter 11 filings or any other such stuff -- I've joked that best would be $300 million in platinum bars put down as a deposit, with the city holding the only key. I suppose there would be some carrying costs for THAT, though. (grin)

[William Fisher]

"I also would ask the same about the $600m to Scripps Institute, this $600m deal being proposed for CSX Transportation, as well as all the panoply of "economic incentive" gov't money gone to corporations..."

OK, baby steps Howard, baby steps :)

[Chris Jenkins]

@12:17

EXACTLY!

Downtown development has not provided the pot of gold it was supposed to. The original trop has not returned the numbers it was supposed to. This is a GAMBLE, on a horse proved to perform at mediocre, or just under, economically, and has a broken leg as far as its sport record goes. Why are we believing for even a second that THIS TIME, they'll get it right, THIS TIME, the revenues will increase substantially, THIS TIME there will be more benefit to the downtown scene.

Go downtown and ask the business owners there what Baywalk has done for them. The economic benefits from the downtown redevelopments so far seem to be mostly trickling upwards to corporations who aren't even based in Florida. Local businesses get HOSED in these deals. Ask JoEllen at the Globe. Ask the fine folks at Star Booty. Ask the people who are actually supposed to "benefit" from this deal what they have benefitted so far, and how much more they think they will benefit with the new development.

[Jon]

It appears to me that the St. Pete Times takes a negative stance regarding the stadium and not an unbiased view. All this talk about secrecy is comical - it's called business. A deal does not have to be broadcasted to the public before initial discussions take place. This stadium is a wonderful idea that will really put St. Pete on the map. I think the youth in this city realizes this. St. Pete needs to grow economically like all other cities around the country. Status quo or regressing will not cut it. I really want to see this city shine and become a summertime destination with this new stadium.

[Mama Nature's Brain]

MAMA! I FELL OUT! HELP ME!

Construction you fool.

[Of course Jon]

Jon, have you ever read the SPT? Of course they are against the stadium! The SPT would rather have domestic terrorist Uhurus build a training facility on that site.

[guy]

Howard~~~~~` you have an extraordinary thing going on here today, Remember to take the POLL please, pretty please.

[Geneva Forrester]

When evaluating stadiums across the county the “hot” words are construction jobs and increased sales for contiguous businesses presumably increased sales taxes.

Are any of these promises rational or feasible? There will be an increase in construction employment, thereafter the jobs remaining will be low-wage service jobs. The concept of feasibility studies to determine “highest and best use,” determining financial risk and projected financial gain appears to be lost.

It was good of the City to analyze some of the issues raised by the voters. The largest draw for visitors to Downtown St. Petersburg is the Dali Museum; this premier draw will be damaged. The waterfront area at this time is lacking easy, accessible parking for events including Mainsail Art Show this weekend and of course the newly expanded Fine Arts Museum. Progress Energy Center for the Arts/Mahaffey Theater also will be “fighting” for parking.

While the city addresses some of these problems it glosses over other uses for a prime property on the city’s waterfront. Consideration is not given for these options, such as an upscale park with high-density housing and retail surrounding the green space. This option would increase property values for adjacent residences and businesses.

A large stadium interrupts neighborhoods creating a sizeable footprint that is used only for specific time periods and when not in use is a “dead-zone” interfering with livability and the area’s ingress and egress for walking, biking and enjoying green space. When in use it prohibits the use of some of St. Petersburg’s most enjoyable cultural attractions: our museums and the theater.
Geneva Forrester

[Justin Elza]

Howard, you say you think the new stadium could provide “an excellent waterfront site, a lively downtown filled with pedestrians (and retail, restaurant and bar customers!) 81 nights a year, and all kinds of cool things going on, along with a more robust tax base, etc...”

But study after study has shown the myth that sports stadiums are good for local businesses to be just that, a myth.

Think about it, people are going to:

1. Drive to the game
2. Drive around looking for a place to park
3. Pay a lot for parking
4. Walk 10-30 minutes, depending on where they park, in the heat to get to the game
5. Pay a whole lot of money for tickets
6. Pay a whole lot of money for food, drinks, and souvenirs
7. Sit outside in the hot sun for hours (or in the muggy hot evening air) drinking and hollering, doing the wave, etc.

Do you really think they are then going to stick around as money spending pedestrians, blessing our downtown with a lively atmosphere?

No, they are going to go home.

[Mama Nature!]

Ok, "Mama Nature's Brain"... then what? So we get a few hundred "temporary" construction jobs that will go “predominantly" to illegal immigrants who send 80% of their income back to Mexico. Great, they’ll be good to go, then what?

[William Fisher]

"All this talk about secrecy is comical - it's called business. A deal does not have to be broadcasted to the public before initial discussions take place." Well put - oh wait, then it is a business. it needs to pay it's own way, it needs to PAY taxes... That's what he meant, right? :)

[Howard Troxler]

Jon, thanks for the comment -- hey, Mandy/Justin, come to my defense!

Re: secrecy: Secrecy for a limited business purpose is one thing. Keeping it secret for the better part of the year while HOLDING SHAM PUBLIC HEARINGS on the future of the waterfront, with city officials urging citizens who wanted to preserve the waterfront as a park to "keep their options" open is an active, ongoing conspiracy. And then, the city held City Council elections, resulting in a ridiculously low turnout, while keeping the most important decision in modern times a secret as well! Apparently it was too important an issue to actually influence an ELECTION. Even the Rays wanted to go public before the city did!

[Chris Jenkins]

Bad news, Jon, I AM the youth in this city, as are my friends. With a few exceptions, my social circle is 21-34, with me falling in the upper half of that spectrum.

Trying to paint the resistance to this deal as stodgy old people is a straw man.

Underestimating the social and political awareness of the younger generation in this area is simply a mistake.

BANG-O-RANG, HOWARD AT 12:25!

[guy]

Howard ~~ Who was that guy on Bay Plaza that used to make Leslie swoon???

I say we let the Rays hot the road, and bring back the Rowdies!

[Howard Troxler]

Hi, Geneva, thanks for the comment! They are flying fast now...

Is it OK if I do NOT buy into the construction-job argument, nor even care about it? I was slightly put off that the Rays shipped in a bunch of union guys to testify that we should build this stadium because they needed work. That is NOT why the taxpayers should go on the hook for $300m or whatever... no disrespect intended, I'm just saying, this is not a job-creation program.

Re: them not sticking around: (And I am being a little bit of a smart aleck here) - If parking is bad, then won't that be GOOD for pedestrian, i.e., customer foot traffic?

[Justin Elza]

We sit at two computers in the same office Howard, she's my wife.

[Mandy]

(and his better half, without a doubt)

[Larry]

Good chat today, Howard, on a subject that should be near and dear to every St. Petersburg resident. And the opinions seem to be either "for" or "against", whether the reasons be loving baseball and the cool idea of a waterview stadium or the financial, aesthetics, hot summer days and nights, or relinquising more of our precious and valuable downtown waterfront. While it would be nice to look at the whole picture before forming an opinion, the city staff tainted that possibility when they decided to negotiate in secret and deny the voters the opportunity to measure a candidate's position before the last citywide election. There will always be those who call us a bunch of local hicks because as you put it, "not be willing to fork over $300,000,000 of public funds simply because they asked for it." Name-calling is nothing but a sign of weakness and lack of credible evidence to document one's position. I do believe, however, that once all is said and done, the citizens of St. Petersburg will not permit commercial development of the downtown waterfront at this time. That will be the only opinion that matters. Thanks for your efforts to bring this to the attention of the community and for providing a forum for discussion of this very important topic.

[get-smart]

Jon 12:21 - I don't know what you call business, but by keeping the new stadium a secret, the mayor and city deprived us of an important issue that needed to be aired for our election of our new city council members. I guess the mayor and friends didn't want to take a chance that any of the city council candidates declare themselves opposed to the stadium and God Forbid win. Maybe the State Attorney needs to investigate these people and find the pay offs plus interfering with the political process.

[William Fisher]

Isn't worrying about future costs kinda like saying we should hire everyone who needs a job NOW before everybody's working and we can't find anyone to hire???

[Mike]

Howard,

Please be judicious with who comes through with comments. Some "guys" are posting over and over with inane, off-topic comments that are killing this discussion.

Thank you,
Michael

[Douglas]

The new stadium rendering "looks cool" but It's way to hot to sit outside in July, August & September. We were just down there Sat and looked at the proposed site and there is no parking. The economy is bad and the team is in last place, now is not the time to ask for money to build a new stadium period.

[reality]

Since when is Derby Lane going away? Talk about something the city needs to save. They have been here since 1925, and have paid more in taxes, than the Devil Rays ever will.

[Reality]

The entire deal should be shot down for the simple reason that it, and its’ players, have lacked “Integrity” from the get go. Shut down one 300-million dollar political/corporate deal… and maybe, just maybe… they’ll learn a lesson.

I know that’s a tad over-simplifying, but hey, we’ve got top start somewhere. Our own backyard sounds like as good a place as any!

[Jon]

How can you blame Mayor Baker for not wanting the general public to be informed. Have you seen the sub human scum that call themselves activists in this town? It's really sad that my vote counts the same as some drooling neanderthal wandering up and down 16th street.

Keep the morons in the dark, they're safer there.

[Howard Troxler]

Guy suggested we take a poll... I'll be happy to say, "Everybody reading this make a post that says, 'YES' or 'NO', but I have to say, it won't mean much by itself... not at all scientific or representative, and besides, we still don't know enough yet! If you twisted my arm right now I would have to vote...

NO.

Satisfy me on the guaranteed Trop revenues, the zero-limit on enviro or other "surprise" costs, enviro risks at the new site, then maybe...

[guy]

I really don't think the local politicians really care about getting re-elected if they are in the pockets of the Rays.
They have been promised more than they would ever make in office in one swift swoop.

[guy]

NO

[Justin Elza]

NO

[Chris Jenkins]

Ha, NO!

[Shanky]

I'm surprised the libs haven't called for the destruction of Derby Lane since it promotes GAMBLING...OH NO!!!! GAMBLING!!

I would be sad to see Derby Lane go but in terms of location for a stadium, it's not bad. Some old school things are worth preserving IMO.

[Carey]

Face it. We either build the stadium or watch the site developed for condos.

Choice 1: Development everyone can enjoy.

Choice 2: Development for select few.

Turn it into a park? That's a laugh. We already have parkland stretching from the Yacht Club to Coffee Pot Bayou. Do you really think they'll turn Al Lang into another park. Or do you think they'll cash in and sell it to some developer. Personally, I'd be interested in taking a more indepth peak at the organized opposition to this projects and see whether their motives are as altruistic as they claim, or if there are relationships with "others" with "other ideas" for that site.

Bottom line: The city can say what it wants, but anyone who has lived here for any amount of time and seen what is going on in downtown knows the truth: Stadium or Condos. Take your pick.

[concernedcitizen]

Larry...thanks for your comments and your accurate description of people resorting to name calling.
Howard...thanks for pointing out the irritation of watching Union members who came from as far away as Jacksonville and Miami insult our more successful citizens in a lame attempt to insert class warfare and ageism into this important discussion. And lastly to all of the proponents of this idea you may wish to see the writing on the wall. Take a look at all the red signs popping up all over neighborhoods EVERYWHERE in our city, not just Beach Drive. And trust me this is just the BEGINNING. If this makes it to the referendum the town will be awash in red signs!!!

[William Fisher]

I believe it makes better business sense for the Ray's to build out in Toy Town and create a "showpiece" , no tax dollars - they are a business...

[Howard Troxler]

Lots of comments, I can't keep up! Mike, I disagree that the discussion is getting "killed" by inane comments, but I will keep an eye out for anything that really ought to be blipped.

(Re: comment on "scum" and all that: Well, I have OFTEN wished my vote counted more than some other folks... my only solace is that most folks don't vote anyway, and so my sole vote cancels them ALL out.)

Reality, re: Derby Lane: I hope it doesn't go away, but the core business certainly has suffered lately & they rely increasingly on card room etc. -- just mentioning a possibility that lots of folks have mentioned.

Justin & Mandy: I figured that! I mean, not about which is the better half, a topic on which I have absolutely NO opinion. (benign smile here)

NO... in fact; a big NO TAX DOLLARS NO!

no

[new stadium advocate]

I am not a baseball fan, but the residents of the city of St. Petersburg will benefit from this project. Creating a vibrant downtown will have a positive economic (income levels, property values, etc) on homeowners, renters, and business owners alike.

Furthermore, the ownership and managment group for the Rays has proven to be first class. They have kept their word every step of the way since taking over the team.

This is an opportunity for St. Petersburg!

[Open your eyes!]

"... Creating a vibrant downtown will have a positive economic (income levels, property values, etc) on homeowners, renters, and business owners alike."

You mean just like Bay Walk and the Dome were supposed to?

[blondie]

No! No! No!

[Howard Troxler]

Carey, thanks for the comment. I hope it is not a "condos or stadium" decision -- I don't think the citizens would stand for it.

It MIGHT be that some folks in power have a "Plan B" that they aren't letting on, which would explain the weird insistence of city staff and the City Council that the site NOT be designated as a park in the city's new land regulations.

Some folks have suggested Al Lang become something more than just green space, but still a public use, e.g. a spring-training museum and field, even getting other Grapefruit League teams to play here in the spring, getting Major League Baseball to buy into the idea, even a mini-Cooperstown... dunno how feasible.

Some cynics even fear a new City Hall or municipal use for the site.

[Ron]

I go nuts every time I read someone say that this proposed stadium will create a "a vibrant downtown". They obviously never go to downtown St. Pete. It is not perfect, but visit downtown St Pete & downtown Tampa some weekend, then tell me which is "a vibrant downtown"

[new council advocate]

I agree with one thing... "This is an opportunity for St. Petersburg!"

[Howard Troxler]

New stadium advocate, I assume I can put you down for a "yes"?

Otherwise we are a hotbed of opponents... Thor, Thor, where is your third-person-using self?

[Howard Troxler]

Howdy, Ron, I agree... see reply to post early on from someone calling St. Pete a "loser" city...

[Harold]

NO

[Mike]

YES!

[Tom]

The boys from new york have reigned in Thor. I hear he started referring to Stu in the third person, and that really ticked him off.

[guy]

so far 0 yes votes

[William Fisher]

Little League lost the field out by Bogie - good match for Al Lang AS IT IS...

[Shanky]

You're naive if you don't think it's a Stadium or Condos decision. Premiere property doesn't fall into the hands of the general public in the 20th century.

Ovation part deux and if we're stupid enough to vote down the stadium only the super rich will benefit.

[Howard Troxler]

Blondie, you only get one vote, sorry... :)

[Shanky]

ERRRR make that 21st century.

[Aaron Sharockman]

I had to step away for awhile, but in scanning through the comments, I noticed a question about property insurance:

RE: Property insurance on the waterfront stadium. The Rays and the city say they haven't talked about the issue. My sense is that when a discussion, if a discussion begins, the city will seek to cap its contribution (if it pays at all) for property insurance. If the city doesn't have to pay for property insurance, my hunch is that the Rays would probably counter with trying to take a portion of ticket sales or naming rights off the table. The debate will likely come down to maximizing potential profits (through ticket sales) or capping potential costs.

NO, I mean YES, no wait, I mean Maybe… umm, NO make that a YES… hey, I’m playing Charlie Crist!

[Chris Jenkins]

We HAVE a vibrant downtown, with heavy pedestrian traffic, from Ceviche to the Globe. We have a nice selection of local businesses, along with the expected corporate stalwarts. Parking's not great, but it's reasonable. Jannus Landing and the adjacent blocks are a perfect vibrant downtown scene, with everything from Bohemian coffee shops to upscale wine tasting to high energy dance clubs. We need help with vibrancy how?

[Howard Troxler]

Re: Thor: Howard had the idea that Thor was a she. Surely, Howard says, wide-eyed with innocence, no one using the internet would be a male posing as a female!!!

[Mike]

The notion of downtown St. Pete's "vibrancy" is moot when trying to compare to Tampa. Of course it's more vibrant than Tampa. I believe the original poster is asking us to picture a future downtown versus a current one ... to keep the amazing momentum we have mustered over the past decade going.

That's funny... :-)

[Con]

This shifting fields is a ego, money and gotcha play. A conspiracy to bring social sports, not social medicine to the detriment of the taxpayers.
I enjoy watching most sports with enthusiasm, but not to the point social priorities are being overlooked.
What is more important? An underpaid teacher not paying out of pocket pencil, eraser expenses because there is no money in the budget . A baseball player or in fact any athlete having a per diem living allowance to stay at the Vinoy or Pink Palace or any 4 star hotel in any city.
An underpaid police officer who puts their life on the line every time they leave home cramped in car loaded with almost every anti crime device possible. An athlete who leaves home in a Bentley or Hummer of one of their 10 Gas Guzzling Cars to a Chartered First Class Flight to their so called job.

Owning a Major Professional Sports Team is Big League, if you cannot play in the Big League’s with your own money or private equity funds then get out of the Big Leagues.

When most middle class families are struggling to stay in their existing homes, why would the Taxpayers want to buy the Rays a new home to play a game? In better times if they ever return, then we could bring up the proposal again. This time, strike three you’re out. What is it about the city commissions that they do not get, we are in a financial crisis in this state as we stand.

I believe without promoting any book or author, is there not a book on taxpayers being ripped off by the socialism of professional sports franchise owners. It appears that reading this book just might open most peoples eyes.

The Trop was great for the Lightning, has been a Great Place to watch a ballgame in the sweltering outside temperatures and no worry of getting heat stroke. I say STAY AND PLAY RAYS.

If your not sure if it will create a vibrant downtown look what happend in Cleveland. That city was a dump till they built Jacobs Field. Now it is beautiful down there and a great place to bring your family. I really hope they build the new ball park it will not only be great for the city but great for faithful fans. This wouldnt be an issue if all Tampa Bay area fans weren't the biggest front runners.

[Tom]

Mike's been drinking, I call foul!

[William Fisher]

It's all going to come down to the Ray's trying to NOT pay any of it... Prices will eventually go up like the Buc's - that's what a winning team means - not everybody will be able to attend AND WE NEED TO GET AWAY FROM TAX DOLLARS that don't benefit the PUBLIC...

[Chris]

I am worried about what will happen to the struggling areas around the proposed re-development. I don't care at all about the new stadium, I haven't been in the Trop, and will probably never be in the new one either. For years neighborhoods have tried to rebuild and make a safe and walkable neighborhood. While it may bring more money to the redevelopment area, it does nothing but distract from the areas that are already so tenuously holding on that surround the dome and some industrial zone. Patrons to these areas are plagued with panhandlers and lack of city support...a new plastic neighborhood planted in the middle of that seems a joke in poor taste.

[Justin Elza]

Sounds just like what the Rays are trying to do in general, maximize their profits while minimizing their costs.

YES, YES, YES we need a new stadium!!

[guy]

come on, no name don't goof up the poll

[Mike]

There it is! Nice one Tom! Somebody supports the stadium and they've "been drinking". I suppose this is where I call you a hick who doesn't want to see progress, right? Keep it clean, pal!

Why can't we just biuld a big horseshoe pit!

[concernedcitizen]

Carey...don't know where you're getting your info but the opponents..at least the largest organized group POWW would never sit still for Condos. Most of the support from that group as revealed in the Mahaffey "visioning" was for keeping Al Lang as a site for amateur baseball/softball in all it's many forms.
Tearing up the parking lot and converting it to parkland for perhaps a permanent home for the "Saturday Morning Market" on grass, on the waterfront instead of asphalt. Perhaps if Carey and others actually attended things like the Saturday Morning Market, Mainsail..and the many other events such as the FREE Florida Orchestra concern she would realize where the opposition is truly coming from. I can state unequivocally that NOBODY in POWW at least has any ulterior motives that protecting wallets and waterfront...and that protection includes from condos..convention centers..hotels..whatever.

[justme]

finally a chance to sneak on here and trying to catch up with the message..

We have a very vibrant downtown. I will take St Pete's downtown any day against Tampa's. So much variety to do beyond Bay Walk.

[Jason]

How much would the tax increase be?

[Stevo]

What's wrong with the current stadium?

If there are sooo many questions on how to build the new stadium, as in parking, transportation, noise and such, there's no way it should be approved before all of these questions are 200% answered. Depending on others to provide parking is not an answer.

It is the Tampa Bay Rays, not the St Pete Rays.. There's plenty of un-developed land surrounding the bay. Why Downtown St Petersburg, amongst boats, parks and museums?

It just does not make any sense. The neighborhood associations voted overwhelmingly against the new ball park last week.

Why is it even being dicussed anymore? It should be a done deal.

No Waterfront Stadium!!!

[Howard Troxler]

The question is what's a "tax dollar." If it's the same as a PUBLIC dollar, then this whole shebang is being paid for by the public, one way or another.

The Al Lang site. The Tropicana site. The sale price. Future tax revenues. Even the increased rent payments from the team, being used to finance "their" $150m contribution.

A different yardstick might be, "Something we're not paying now." And even the pitch I think they're gonna make involves NOTHING we're not paying now until 2015.

After that, the idea is to have the county continuing its tourism tax contribution -- a "new" payment, seems to me -- and then HOPE that the tax revenues of the Tropicana site have grown to account for the city's annual payment. Otherwise, the taxpayers are on the hook, and that too is a "new" payment.

In this second calculation, we have to pretend to igore the fact we are giving up two pieces of public land and otherwise would have the old joint paid off by 2015.... on the other hand, it also ignores the fact we might sooner or later have to do SOMETHING about a new stadium regardless.

I am confusing myself now!

[Justin Elza]

12:52, downtown is not a dump right now so that argument makes no sense. It's one thing to put a stadium in a downtrodden area and then claim it increased economic activity in that area by a million percent or whatever, its another to cram one into an already established, healthy downtown area that's doing just fine as it is.

12:15
On the other hand, Howard, the Rays could buy out their contract, the city would redevelop the Trop site with a private developer ( the western component of downtown), and maintain its waterfront with a myriad of options for the existing Al Lang site (excellent waterfront site), and continue to enjoy the already lively and existing downtown - including those 81 nights that would otherwise be crushed by traffic and no patrons in bars, restaurants and retail because no one else could access those locations. The city would receive the benefit of increased tax revenue on the redevelopment Trop site and finally keep its promise to the African American community after all these years.

The city purchases stacked insurance through different companies because it can not get 1 insurer to cover its total liability. If the Trop is redeveloped by private interests, the insurance is paid by the private owners and the city is out from under it. The insurance on Al Lang would remain the same.

And the best part would be the Rays would be happier out of this market and into one which can support their needs. This question is not really about a waterfront stadium, or redevelopment of the Trop - it is about positioning for a contract buy out. The Rays will approach this issue repeatedly until they can get out and the figures are really chump change when they could relocate to Los Vegas, Atlantic City, etc. and catch naming rights like the Mets or Giants ( thats' NY GIANTS, Aaron) to cover a new stadium and the loss in St. Petersburg's payout.

[justme]

I vote NO

POW