Blasts from the past

I got another manilla folder of old news clips from USF-St. Petersburg history professor Gary Mormino the other day. On his way to finding whatever he's looking for, he usually digs up several other things, with a fine eye for irony.

1949: "St. Petersburg Gas War Spreads Through City." Prices from 22 to 24 cents per gallon.

1958: "Florida Coeds Win Right To Wear Bermuda Shorts." But individual professor can still ban them if they decide they are too "distracting." (I wonder what they'd think of belly-button rings.)

1963: "Master Transportation Plan Includes Monorail." My favorite part of this is the map showing where the specific routes are going to go. It's kind of sweet, really.

1963: "Parking Meter Removal Okayed." For downtown St. Petersburg. They've been installed and removed a bunch of times since, each time with the folks wondering how thet last batch could have been so dumb.

How should I answer this one?

Hi friend, This will be a surprise mail to you but it should not be so,i am just a friend, looking for friend to trust and to share Thought with, My names are Katerina jhonson , young single that is still searching for soul mate that i can trust, friends to share thought with, i work with the Canadian Armed Forces CAF, here in Canada before i latter employ to cruise shipping company early this year, these are my hobby, basket ball,table tennis,foot ball and some other exercise to make me keep fit, i do go out for road walk,that is part of all Canadian polisy,well i will say less here till will meet to share friendship,

Cheers
Katerina

POWW's position on a referendum

Here's a note from one of my correspondents with the anti-stadium group POWW:

Howard, my requests to have POWW's position on a possible referendum published by the Times as a letter to the editor have fallen on deaf ears.  I would like to take you up on the offer to post it verbatim in your blog, if you would be so kind. I know you have a lot to talk about but maybe in the next few days if there is a break in the action you could put it up. Again, it would be much appreciated. -- Justin E.

Dear Justin E.: You say it there, it comes out here. If my friends with the citizens' group in favor of the stadium would like the same favor, just give me a beep.

* * *

Let us vote!

POWW! is not opposed to having the stadium issue put to a public vote, in fact we look forward to it. However, we are opposed to hastily placing an item on the ballot without first having all details necessary to make an informed decision. We are also opposed to any ballot item that is vague and misleading.

It would be inappropriate and irresponsible to start the referendum process and then try to answer all relevant questions. All major questions should be answered before taking any steps to put this on the ballot. Such as:

Just how much does an independent, reputable environmental firm hired by the city say the environmental cleanup at the Trop site might cost? What is the maximum the taxpayers will be on the hook for? Who will pay general cost over runs for all aspects of the project and how? Will the County contribute $100 million through a new extension of the bed tax? What impact does an independent, reputable environmental firm hired by the city say the dredge and fill process will have on local marine life?

Will all environmental permitting be possible for the dredge and fill process (we must know for sure beforehand rather than just assuming that it will be as delays could be very costly)?

Who will pay for infrastructure, such as widening Bayshore? Exactly how much will that cost?

Who will pay to demolish the Trop? Exactly how much will that cost?

What about the parking garage Mayor Baker asked for? Who will pay for that? How much will that cost?

What about parking and traffic in general? How will we be guaranteed this won't be an issue?

There are many more questions, but this is a start.

We also want the people to be able to decide EXACTLY what they want, EXACTLY where they want it, EXACTLY when they want it, and EXACTLY how much the total cost will be. Simply asking the voters to extend the lease on Al Lang Field WILL NOT cut it.

Without the power to say specifically what you do or do not want, democracy loses its meaning.   

Once we have all major details in place and can be asked to vote on a clear, specific item, we too say “LET US VOTE!”

A doctor takes offense, and several other reader e-mails

As a practicing hospitalist, i'm very offended by your column of April 15th. I've been a practicing hospitalist for several years, at an academic institution, and now at a local hospital. I understand some of the exaggeration and farcical nature of your column. And certainly understand and appreciate that the nurses are the true cornerstones of our hospitals. However, you deeply mispoke about hospitalists, and how our group practices. We are 24/7 in house group, that prides ourselves in frequent visits to the bedside, coordination of care, family meetings, with a committment to communication. Basically, providing high quality patient care, 24/7. You should visit the main site for hospitalists, SHM, www.hospitalmedicine.org , to see how hospitalists are shaping the future of healthcare in the hospital, in a high quality, patient centered approach. We are not legendary creatures. -- Jordan Messler, MD

Dear Dr. Messler: Thank you for the e-mail and I will be delighted to publish your good defense of the specialty. On the other hand, I can with complete confidence, based on direct observation, report to you in this case my failure to detect "frequent visits to the bedside, coordination of care, family meetings, with a committment to communication." 

You were much too kind toward [state Rep.] Will Kendrick in your article [on seagrasses].  -- James Morrell

Dear Mr. Morrell: I know. My purpose in the column is to advocate a veto, instead of to beat folks over the head (even if deserved). Flies, honey, etc. -- also I believe there is a proverb about a quiet word turning away wrath, or in this case, a bad bill. A couple of columns ago I said the governor needed to physically kick one of his department secretaries in the butt, so I CAN say it sometimes... :)

In possession of first place, with the best Major League W/L average after fifty-one games, and the team performing professionally(!) in all on-field categories. The greatest day thus far in the history of the club. Nevertheless, the response of Bay Area citizens remains one of profound disinterest... Of course we will continue to be pitched that all we need is an expensive new waterfront stadium to bring regular SRO crowds out to the Rays games. Can any clear-thinking, objective observer really believe that spin? -- Anthony Wickel, Clearwater

Dear Mr. Wickel: My answer is that I do not know. I think there is a trailing effect here and that after 10 losing seasons the thing is not going to turn on a dime. But I have heard several people advance the idea that this market is just not going to work. I would let 'em get to the playoffs at least once to see what happens before being definite about it. That's just me, but I do remember sitting in lots of half-empty Bucs games...

If Pinellas County is ponying up $100 million vs. $75 million (St. Petersburg), why isnt the whole county being allowed to vote? One more question.Who picks up the slack if the proposed development comes up short of tax expectations? -- Wayne Webster, Gulfport

As for the first question you ask, the technical and legal reason is that the city MUST vote, because its City Charter requires a public referendum on any sale or long-term lease of the city's waterfront. The county does NOT require a referendum for its end of the deal -- deciding how to spend the tourism-tax dollars. [In my personal reply to Mr. Webster, I forget to answer the second question, but you already know the answer. The way this deal is set up, the taxpayers make the payments on the front end, and we are supposed to HOPE that we get some of that money back from the proposed development. I think this is a lousy deal.]

In your column on Sun you referred to yourself as a Ray's Fan. I don't know how anyone who is a true fan could be in favor of tearing down Enclosed, AIR CONDITIONED TROPICANA FIELD and replacing it with an outdoor stadium. I'm looking at this strictly from the point of view of the fans and the players... Your column sounds to me that you are looking at this issue with dollar signs in your eyes and not with the best interests of the Rays and their fans. -- Bill Jassmann, Dunedin

Thanks for the note. It is an interesting question, and I will recommend to our sports department that they ask the players what THEY think! (Although I don't know how frank they'll be, considering who signs their paychecks...)

Thursday's column on Wednesday! About the Trop, just one little detail...

Last July 27, the state sent a letter to the city of St. Petersburg about environmental problems on the site of Tropicana Field.

In that letter, the Department of Environmental Protection asked the city for a deed restriction that would restrict future uses of the site, “to prevent exposure to contaminated soil.”

The letter said that the DEP has been seeking such a deed restriction since the year 2000, but that the city has not complied.

In a follow-up letter just three weeks ago, on May 8, the DEP wrote to the city giving it 60 days to execute the deed restriction.

This is relevant, as you know, because selling off Tropicana Field to developers is a key part of the current proposal for a new baseball stadium in St. Petersburg.

The Tropicana Field environmental problem

New questions today about the environmental situation at Tropicana Field, which the city of St. Petersburg is supposed to sell to help pay for a new waterfront baseball stadium.

Here is Aaron Sharockman's article this morning saying the state Department of Environmental Protection wants the city to execute a deed restriction that would limit the future use of the Tropicana site.

Since developers are proposing to build all kinds of nifty things at the Trop site, including residential, office and retail uses, along with parks and greenspace, this is a potential problem. A DEP spokeswoman tells me the state basically wants any prohibition on removing the Trop's parking lot.

Here are more details. The DEP sent a letter to the city last July 27, wanting to know (1) why the city had stopped submitting semi-annual monitoring reports from wells on the Trop site and (2) why the city had not executed a deed restriction, which apparently the DEP had been seeking since the year 2000.

More recently, on May 8, the DEP sent a new letter that flatly gives the city 60 days to execute the deed restriction. (There's no explicit "or else" in the letter, so I don't know the alternative.) As you can see in Sharockman's story, a city official says the city considers this "voluntary" and is not going to do it.

Here's the May 8, 2008 letter: Download may_8_letter.pdf

Here's the July 27, 2007 letter: Download july_27_letter.pdf

None of this is to say that the Tropicana site is some kind of toxic Love Canal. The latest monitoring reports show that all but one of the many substances being monitored are below acceptable target levels for surface and/or groundwater. The problem is real nonetheless, because the DEP says the Tropicana site is NOT a closed case, and it is NOT suitable without further remediation for the kinds of uses being proposed.

So, there is a double-rub here. First, there could be some unforeseen remediation costs involved in making the site usable, and any deal between the city and the developer-purchaser has to deal with that. Second, there's a question of long-term environmental liability, and I do not believe the city gets off the hook merely by selling the land. This is a question that has to be fully vetted before the city can proceed. Seems to me, anyway.

Lastly, I asked two members of the City Council about this. One just learned about it a few days ago, and one did not know anything about it at all. Given that the council is supposed, one week from tomorrow, to take the first step toward launching a referendum on the stadium deal, I think this is a little late in the game to be getting surprises of any sort.

Hillary! Stadium! Sea grasses! Baby seals! Read the transcript of the May 27 chat

I can't say that a single subject dominated today's weekly live chat on TroxBlog, but we kicked around the presidential race, a little bit about the stadium issue in St. Petersburg, and the subject of my print column today dealing with a sneaky new state law allowing the destruction of seagrasses.

To read a transcript of the chat, click on the "Comments" link at the end of this item, just a few lines below.

As always, thanks to everyone who stopped by to take a look or who took part in the chat! I hope to see you at the next one.

Return of the live chat, noon - 1 p.m. Tuesday

I hope you can stop by for a weekly live chat here on TroxBlog from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday. I'll be here live and in person (more or less), taking questions and comments about current events in the Tampa Bay area and beyond. Feel free to take part, or just to stop by to see what folks are talking about!

To observe or take part in Tuesday's chat: Come back to TroxBlog at or after noon Tuesday and look for a new announcement with the headline, "The May 27 chat is OPEN." Click on the "Comments" link and you'll see a page with everything that's been said in the chat so far, and a form at the bottom for you to add your own question or comment. Keep refreshing the comments page to see the latest.

Now, what shall we talk about? My Tuesday column is about the exciting topic of seagrasses (for those of you hoping for more Hulk Hogan coverage, my apology). This is the week we finally get a decision on Florida's Democratic delegates. You might remember there is still a tiny little controversy over that baseball stadium in St. Petersburg. And feel free to bring up something else!

If you can't be here live Tuesday, you can "pre-file" a question or comment to the Comments link of THIS post, a few lines below. And remember you can always come by afterward to read a transcript of what was said in the chat. Otherwise, I hope to see you Tuesday...

Tuesday column on Monday! Veto this bad (seagrass) bill and let's go fishin'

Here’s good news — that is, if you happen to hate seagrass beds, mullet, manatees, speckled trout and redfish, and wish that there were fewer of them in your part of Florida.

The Legislature passed a law this spring that makes it easier for developers to destroy seagrass beds — a key ingredient of much of Florida’s inshore coastal ecology.

All developers have to do is dash off a check to the state. The state will be responsible for supposedly “replacing” the loss by growing other seagrass beds on public property somewhere else in Florida.

Here’s the funny part. House Bill 7059 originally was intended to help seagrass beds, with fines for boaters who damage them.

But the Legislature made — how many times have we heard this? — a last-minute change that nobody understood or debated. The bill sailed right through.

Memorial Day 2008 and other topics

Happy Monday and a happy but solemn Memorial Day to you. So far I have erased several different versions of trying to say how much I appreciate this day, because they came across as corny and hackneyed and insincere, especially from someone born in 1959, too young for Vietnam, too old for the rest. in the end I'd just like to say that, if there are those who fear that too many Americans have forgotten what this day means, there are those who have not.

Now, if it is not too trivial, onward to the topics of the day. My Sunday print column returned to the topic of the proposed baseball stadium in St. Petersburg. I argued that with less than two weeks before the St. Petersburg City Council is supposed to start the clock toward a referendum, we know almost nothing about the actual details of the proposed deal. There does seem to be a rising skepticism among both Pinellas County and city officials, but it is hard for me to imagine the City Council won't at least take the first step, on the theory that it can always change its mind before the final decision in August to call an election. But I am wrong about predictions all the time.

Already today I've heard some complaints about this morning's coverage of a traffic accident involving the Bollea family. See the post below and my response.

My Tuesday print column will probably be about whether Gov. Charlie Crist should veto a bill passed by the Legislature that, apparently, makes it easier to destroy sea grasses in Florida. Looks like it was sneaked through at the last minute...

Also, let's pick up the weekly live chat here on Tuesday -- I had to miss last week's and it will be good to catch up.

See you at the Rays game tonight? I went Sunday and saw Carl Crawford's catch and Evan Longoria's game-winning, walk-off hit. Tied for the best record in baseball on Memorial Day! Anything is possible after all.

E-mail of the day so far (although it's early yet)

I keep looking at it as if it will change. Brooke Hogan, in a fender bender, on the front page, above the fold. Are you kidding me? Is this for real? Is it April Fools instead of Memorial Day? What an embarrassment. In recent months I've found the Times slip towards all things redneck amusing and intriguing, a statement about modern reporting and newspapers in general. This steps over the line. It essentially tells the rest of the world that this garbage is the type of thing people in the Tampa Bay community really care about. I'd like to think it's not, and if it is, it's time to move. What an utter embarrassment. -- kidron2

Dear kidron2: Look, I don't care much for celebrity stuff either. Neither would I, if I were in charge -- which a merciful Providence has seen fit not to allow -- have placed a non-injury, not-her-fault fender-bender in the lead news position on Page 1A. But, also look -- there are things that you and I think are frivolous in the newspaper ALL THE TIME, there always have been, and there always will be. Some folks are interested in them, for one thing. And there's plenty of Serious News in the paper, even IF we also do run an article from time to time about whoever the governor is dating at the moment.

So, yep, I wouldn't have played it up so big, and (like you, I gather) I do not care much about the latest Hulkster divorce filing, Paris Hilton sighting and so forth. But I am on the receiving end of an awful lot of "Death of the Newspaper" e-mails and I have learned to relax a little bit. My column for tomorrow is probably about whether the governor should veto what looks like a really wicked bill passed by the Legislature that would make it easier to destroy sea grasses in Florida. Believe me, plenty of folks will think it is boring and useless and they will stick to the Really Interesting Stuff.

Cheers,

Howard

Which ship is sinking faster, Hillary's or the Rays'?

So, which is in worse trouble, the Tampa Bay Rays stadium plan or the Hillary Clinton campaign?

Lots of grumpy questions from the St. Petersburg City Council at Thursday's workshop about specifics of the plan, including my own personal axe-to-grind: Where is the guarantee that redeveloping the Tropicana Field site will generate enough in new taxes to pay for a new stadium? Later, stadium opponents outnumber supporters by 2-to-1 at the public hearing. Of course that is not necessarily a scientific sample, but you know, everybody had the same notice and the same welcome mat to come.

I mention the presidential race because several interesting things are happening, including the side debate over whether Barack Obama as president would just trot off, wide-eyed, to meet with any durn-tootin' nutbag and tinhorn dictator. I actually think Obama's critics have a point here, and although I usually cannot abide Charles Krauthammer's righteous know-it-all-ness, I thought he made an excellent case in his column we ran this morning.

I was thinking about some sort of satirical presidential-race column for Sunday's print column. Like, I took my car to the Obama Car-Repair Shop, where I find a great crowd of customers oohing and aahing over what a good speech he can give about repairing cars...

Hello? Is this thing on?

I'm back, for a few days anyway. What did I miss? Has anyone read the city's tax analyses of the Tropicana redevelopment?

No live chat today

This would be a great week to hold a live chat, given the latest Rays stadium doings, but unfortunately I can't. I hope we can resume them next Tuesday. Best wishes to all.

(1) I'm in North Carolina. (2) Thanks for the stadium comments. (3) Gratuitious puppy photograph.

Happy Monday. Once again, I've been called to N.C. for a family matter and am probably missing both Tuesday's print column and the weekly live chat. I'll try to keep tabs from the hospital and stick in a comment and an update here and there.

Believe me, it's not 'cause I'm duckin' the outcry from Sunday's column, in which I said I would support the baseball stadium IF the financial claims about the plan could be guaranteed -- in other words, if the redevelopment of Tropicana Field was guaranteed, by contract, to generate enough money in property taxes to finance the stadium without taxpayer dollars.

Since the Rays and the developer are unlikely ever to agree to such an ironclad promise, I figure that I am perfectly safe. I stand by my closing sentence:  "Otherwise, no sale." It is a good thing I am thick-skinned, else I would be upset at the various comments calling me a "whore" and such for saying I would ever consider saying yes to the stadium at all. Louie, on the other hand, is Not Amused, as his photograph attests.

Sunday's column on Saturday! If stadium is such a deal, put it in writing

Here's my Sunday column about the Tampa Bay Rays' financing proposal for their stadium. The tone might dismay some of my friends because it focuses solely on what to me is the key question -- the claim that this deal practically "pays for itself" by generating higher property taxes, instead of putting the taxpayers on the hook for the life of the new stadium debt.

If the Rays or the developer are willing to back this up in a contract, then I glibly promise to help "lay the cornerstone" and "shoo away the manatees" at the waterfront stadium site. But since both the developer and the Rays insist that such a guarantee is impossible, somehow I do not think I will have to live up to my promise.

But I would.

* * * * *

According to the Tampa Bay Rays’ pitch for a new stadium, the deal practically pays for itself.

True, the taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $175-million, or even more if you do the math differently (which I do).

But in theory, we would still come out ahead.

We would sell off the 85-acre site of Tropicana Field to developers. We would rake in lots of new property taxes on what was built there.

In just a few years, we would be taking in more new taxes than our payments on the stadium. Such a deal!

That’s the pitch.

Here is the problem. They won’t say it in writing.

Nowhere in this three-sided deal (city, developer, Rays) is there any guarantee that the taxpayers’ cost would be covered.

The Friday stadium discussion

The discussion to Thursday's post on the Tampa Bay Rays' stadium-financing proposal has been vigorous and lengthy and I thought I would pick it up in a new post today. Naturally, this will be the subject of my Sunday print column as well.

In my own mind, I divide the debate into two categories: Stadium Finance and Everything Else. Even this might be objectionable to folks either for and against the stadium who care most about a particular topic. I am certainly leaving out some arguments (feel free to add!) but for a quick summary of the "Everything Else" debate:

FOR THE STADIUM: Economic impact of construction and permanent jobs. Positive effect of pedestrian traffic downtown. Renewal and redevelopment (to whatever extent) of a new "west downtown" on the Tropicana Field site, with new property tax generation that will not only help pay for the new stadium, but create new revenues for schools and other services. Exciting new use for a site (AL Lang) that now only gets 15-20 uses a year. Creating a first-rate "signature'' on the waterfront, with the likely prospect of hosting an All-Star Game every bit as good or better for St. Pete than the Grand Prix. The argument that small-minded "green-benchers" are risking a unique opportunity that, once lost, may drive away the team eventually and doom the city to mediocrity.

AGAINST THE STADIUM: Misuse of the city's precious and irreplaceable waterfront that should be preserved for open greenspace or passive public use. Infeasibility of parking, ruinous traffic, heat & weather, degrading of downtown quality of life. Environmental impact of dredging and construction. "Hidden" future costs to taxpayers for law enforcement, public services, infrastructure, etc. The general argument that public support of sports facilities is unwise when we're cutting Medicaid, education and other services. The fact that there is still "shelf life" for Tropicana Field, which is not even paid off yet.

Okay, those are what I can think of in the "Everything Else" category. Now, as to the financing itself...

(1) The Rays say they will put up $150-million, a third of the cost, and guarantee any cost overruns. I do not think this is coming out of their pockets -- one earlier scenario was they would artificially inflate their rent payments to the city, and use that "revenue stream" to borrow the money. One way or the other I figure they will borrow it -- maybe against improved concession deals at the new park -- but I am not sure I care, as long as the public is not at risk. In engineering or software terms, their contribution is a "black box" -- i don't care about what's inside it, as long as it spits out $150-million and there is no public risk or detriment.

(2) Without question in my mind, the extension of the county and city payments represent "new" tax dollars -- otherwise the existing debt would be paid off by 2017. The question is whether the whole shebang "pays for itself" through all the new taxes we are supposed to collect on the new development at the Trop site. To me this is the critical question. Rays finance guru Michael Kalt says there is no question we will get that money -- which makes me ask, in that case, why isn't there some way to guarantee it, either in the contract with the developers, or the Rays? If it is such a slam-dunk, and Hines is such a world-class outfit, then I am just a little bib-overall-wearing, small-town rube, but I still think the deal should guarantee St. Petersburg that the revenues will be there, or else we shouldn't take the deal.

By the way, the math is tricky and can be worked in any way you want, rhetorically. The $100-million (county) and $75-million (city) contribution as estimated by the Rays simply represents the tax payments AFTER the existing debt period on the Trop runs out. In reality, we are talking about selling off one public asset (the Trop), leasing away another (Al Lang), dedicating the proceeds of the Trop sale to the new stadium, AND continuing to make the existing payments through 2017 even after we retire the existing debt. This is how I get to the calculation of $150m owners, $245m taxpayers, $55m parking and other deals, which is not quite the way the Rays frame it.

(3) Having said that, I can see the argument that this is a good deal anyway. The county and city taxpayers keep making their same "car payment" that they're making now, and they get a new "car". Plus they get whatever benefit arises from the Tropicana site redevelopment, and all the corollary benefits of new business downtown, job creation, economic impact, etc.

The devil is in the details. The city has to negotiate a Development Agreement for the Tropicana site, and a stadium lease and construction agreement with the Rays. In both these deals I want every possible protection for the taxpayers, and I do not know that I have 100% confidence in the city's ability to negotiate it. Just for starters, the city has to be protected from any environmental clean-up liability at the Trop site. There's the question of who pays for the Tropicana demolition. We need to be able to hold the developer's feet to the fire with a construction schedule, penalties and guarantees, and I don't mean just the ultimate "nuclear weapon" of reversion to city ownership, since that doesn't solve the basic problem of paying for the stadium. Then there's a whole separate body of issues concerning the new stadium. As one commenter noted wisely, what's a "cost overrun" and what's a "change order" that the taxpayers WOULD have to pay for? How do we deal with unforeseen costs and expenses? What happens if the thing is half-built and somebody files Chapter 11?

So my own thinking has not really changed much since the beginning. I am the guy sitting in the car dealer's office, being offered a deal that "pays for itself," and all I am saying is: If it pays for itself, then why won't you put that in the contract?

Looks nice. where's the warranty?

Okay, now we've seen the sales pitch on how to pay for a new stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays. The overall deal looks interesting and possible, but for me, the key question is still not... quite... locked down.

The key question is:

Are the taxpayers guaranteed to cover their share of the cost of a new stadium by selling off Tropicana Field to developers, and then taxing what gets built there?

What the Rays want in this deal is for county and city taxpayers to keep right on making annual payments, even after Tropicana Field is paid off.

We'd be making the same "car payments," and the pitch is that we'd be getting a new and better "car."

Here is the other half of the deal that is supposed to make it all work. In theory, if we sell off the 85-acre site of Tropicana Field to developers, and get it back on the tax rolls, we'll end up collecting more money than we're paying.

In fact, on Thursday, team officials predicted that even if developers built only HALF of what they have proposed for the Tropicana Field site, the public would already be collecting enough in property taxes.

This is music to my ears. Well, actually, it WOULD be music to my ears, if it were language actually in a contract somewhere. Right now, it's just a little hum.

See, everybody keeps saying that the developer can't and won't guarantee a certain level of property taxes. And the Rays certainly can't guarantee it either. The only "guaranteed" part of this deal is that the taxpayers would be on the hook.

So we're just going to have to proceed on faith, according to these folks. After all, I keep hearing, no developer would simply buy a big piece of land like this and just do NOTHING, would they? (Insert a long, sarcastic pause here.)

No guarantee, no stadium. Just one guy's opinion.

* * * * * *

There's a lot of spin and rhetoric and different yardsticks being used, but it seems to me the hard dollars work out this way, again using present-day totals:

* Team owners: $150-million

* Taxpayers: $245-million ($70-million Trop sale, and $175-million in  annual payments).

* Parking and other side deals: the remaining $55-million.

For the Rays to keep their original promise that no "new" tax dollars will be involved, the Tropicana redevelopment has to work, so that the taxpayers more than get their money back. Otherwise, we're simply talking about extending the taxpayers' annual payments for 25 or 30 years beyond the time they would have been finished -- and that's certainly a "new" tax.

Times photo of Rays executives Matt Silverman and Michael Kalt | Edmund D. Fountain

Poll: Rays stadium financing plan

Paying for a new stadium
Putting aside your other questions, how would you rate the Rays' financing plan?
Swing-and-a-miss (No chance)
Single (Problems apparent)
Double (Not quite convinced)
Triple (Almost there)
Home run (Build the ballpark)

A program note

Happy Thursday. I hope to post something at mid-afternoon, once the Tampa Bay Rays make public their proposed plan for financing a new waterfront baseball stadium in downtown St. Petersburg. To quote a variety of guys down through human history: This had better be good.

Thursday column: Heckuva job on that toxic plume, y'all

Here's Thursday's print column. I was going to start out with a little scene-setting description and an interview I did from the Azalea area of St. Petersburg. But the more I thought about it, the more urgent it seemed for the column to make the point as vigorously and quickly as possible -- it just can't be enough for the government just to sit around and wait for the next report, as it's been doing for 15+ years.

Hence the slapstick, visual image of the governor literally kicking the DEP secretary in the seat of the pants until he fixes it. Would that government worked that way at times...

* * *

Here is what I would do if I were the governor. I would march down to the office of my secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection and start kicking him square in the butt.

"Ow, governor!" DEP Secretary Michael W. Sole would exclaim, trying to protect the region in question from my gubernatorial brogans. "Why are you kicking me in the butt? Please stop!"

But I would just kick him in the pants again and say, "Not until you fix this toxic chemical plume in my hometown of St. Petersburg! Your department has been dillydallying about it like a bunch of $#%$%s forever!"

Then I would hand DEP Secretary Michael W. Sole a bucket and a shovel and tell him to get down to St. Petersburg, and not to bother coming back until it was fixed. And by "fixed," I would not mean, "Scheduled to receive another report."

Okay, my little fantasy is finished now. This is not going to happen.

Here, instead, is what is going to happen with the toxic chemical plume that we now know to be on the move, making its way through underground western St. Petersburg, migrating toward Boca Ciega Bay:

Nothing.

How about them Rays?

Hello and happy Wednesday. Check out Aaron Sharockman's story this morning about the Tampa Bay Rays' relatively poor attendance, despite their unprecedented success in the season so far.

My own thinking is that this will improve with time; you can't have an unbroken team history of 10 losing seasons in a row and expect fan support to turn on a dime. I certainly think it's too early to make any kind of declaration that the Tampa Bay area "isn't a baseball town."

I say this as somebody who spent my share of time sitting in a partially filled Tampa Stadium watching the old Bucs under an indifferent ownership, before they became a regular playoff contender (with a new stadium!) in the 1990s. And even the Bucs, at least, had reached the playoffs early in their history, before sliding into a 15-year slump of mediocrity.

The still-new Rays ownership has done everything right when it comes to building fan enthusiasm and community support -- including the most important ingredient, putting a competitive team on the field. I gotta tell you, this is the most exciting and promising Rays team ever. Even so, it wouldn't be surprising to see attendance stay below hoped-for figures for a while longer; the full effect of the team's surge might not even be felt until 2009. But it is hard to imagine the team remaining in the hunt after the All-Star break without seeing some improvement in the attendance numbers.

Now, does anybody besides me feel an emotional tug-of-war between supporting the team and being excited about it, and being skeptical of the Rays' proposed waterfront baseball stadium? I did get one e-mail this morning that made me laugh. It said, in its entirety: "Save the Trop. Go Rays." I am eager to see the team's financing proposal that is supposed to be made public Thursday, but I am worried about whether it will "work," in terms of not requiring tax revenues, or guaranteeing that the sale and redevelopment of the existing Tropicana Field will cover the taxpayers' share of the cost.

Here's the transcript of the May 13 chat

Hello, happy Tuesday, and welcome to the transcript of the weekly live chat here on TroxBlog. Today's chat started out with comments about the Rachel Hoffman story, the state Legislature and the presidential race, and ended up mostly focused on the proposed baseball stadium in St. Petersburg.

To read the transcript of today's chat: Just click on the "Comments" link of this announcement, a few lines below. You'll see a page with everything that's been said so far -- and at the end, a space for you to add your own question or comment.

Thanks to everyone who stopped by or took part in today's chat -- I hope to see you at the next chat on Tuesday, May 20!

Psst! Live chat Tuesday, noon - 1 p.m.

[Tuesday morning update: There's still time to "pre-file" topics or comments for today's live chat. A couple of folks have made interesting observations about the Rachel Hoffman case, for example. File a comment to this post, or come join the live chat at noon today!]

I hope you can stop by TroxBlog from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday for our regular weekly live chat. I'll be here live and (more or less) in person, taking questions and comments about current events in the Tampa Bay area and beyond.

To observe or take part in the chat, come back to TroxBlog at or just after noon and look for a new announcement with the headline, "The May 13 chat is OPEN." Click on the "Comments" link of that item, and you'll be taken to a page with everything that's been said in the chat so far, and a form for you to add your own questions or comments.

As always, if you can't be here live, you can "pre-file" a question or suggested topic in the comments link of THIS post, just a few lines below. And you can come back after the chat to read a transcript of what was said. Otherwise, I hope to see you at the chat!

Tuesday's column on Monday! Lawyers in space and other matters

Tuesday topics:

(1) While sifting through the bills passed by the Legislature this year I ran across this one: “An act relating to informed consent for spaceflight.”

Yep. From now on, if you’re a space tourist launching from Florida, you’ll first have to sign a statement acknowledging the danger involved.

And if you get hurt or killed because of the “inherent risks of spaceflight,” under Senate Bill 2438 you and your family won’t be able to sue. It’s sort of like the deal you sign when taking a bungee jump.

You might be thinking, “Wait a minute. There’s no such thing as a space tourist.”

Not yet. But everybody figures there will be one day, and Florida wants to be a space-industry-friendly state. After all, nine other states also have “spaceports” and are our potential competitors.

As for you space lawyers out there, don’t despair. There are still grounds for action if someone acts negligently, knowingly or with intent to hurt someone. You’ll always be able to sue the Klingons.

Best letter of the day so far (snail-mail category), although admittedly, it's early yet

This one comes in an anonymous envelope addressed to "Potty Mouth Troxler." Inside is a clipping of Thursday's column with a heavy underline beneath the word "podunk," which the author apparently considers an obscenity. The message, scrawled across the clipping in pen, verbatim except for my hyphens:

To bad you did not a good English class at the University of Tampa. Youre sh---y paper got my last 25 cents today

Best e-mail of the day so far, although, admittedly, it's early yet

A dissatisfied customer comments on Sunday's column:

* * *

SPT Libertarian:

"Civil marriage is nothing but a state-approved legal contract." That is quite a statement on Mother's Day, it isn't saying much for your mother, your wife if you have one!

If these same sex marriages are so great why ban bigamy among heteros. Why not let sisters have open, no holds barred sex, same for brothers, there won't be any procreation. Why not bestiality, both hetero and homo? Why not openly indulge in public places?

I remember several years ago seeing an editorial letter suggesting that those so pleased with homosexuality read a book called And The Band Played On authored by a homosexual

I did read it and it is sickening, I suggest you read it. With your attitude it would probably be more enjoyable for you than It Takes a Village. 

For normal people 'The Band' is abysmally rotten, describing the depths of filth and physical injury that those 'loving' people insist on. -- Laura R.

Sunday column: Aiming at Adam & Steve, or a lot more?

I had a hard time writing this column -- not on the underlying gay-marriage issue, but on the question of whether the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment might threaten health benefits or other existing legal arrangements among consenting parties.

I really do not want the supporters of the amendment to think I am just parroting the opponents' arguments. I would LIKE to hope that the supporters are right, and that the phrase "substantial equivalent" means only civil unions, or something close to the full panoply of martial rights and legalities.

On the other hand, I can see how a court could have the room -- as the Michigan court did -- to strike down existing arrangements as being "equivalent" to recognizing marriage. Such a ruling might be WRONG, but it's still possible. So I am afraid the opponents might have a valid concern. But I hope not.

* * *

Floridians have to decide this November whether to put a ban on same-sex marriage in our state Constitution.

Maybe you're thinking: "Huh? Didn't we already ban this in Florida?"

Yep. You bet. Our Legislature passed a law.

But the backers say the ban ought to be in our Constitution too. So they got enough petition signatures to put it on the ballot.

There are two levels of debate here, the first being simply whether you like this idea.

But the second question is whether the Marriage Protection Amendment — by accident or design — also might outlaw all sorts of other things, such as domestic partner benefits or legal arrangements made among long-time companions.

Come on and let me know: Should she stay or should she go?

Okay, this is sheer opinion on my part, not backed up with any actual journalism, but it's Friday so let's shoot the breeze about the Democrats.

(1) I still think Hillary Clinton would be a stronger Democratic candidate against John McCain in the fall than Barack Obama would.

Go ahead, call me an idiot; I'm used to it. But she's been around the block and all her negatives are known. Forty-two percent of the nation hates her and would never vote for her. But that is not 50 percent, is it? Besides, I have a standing bet that Hillary wins the White House IF she's the party nominee, so I'd like to see it play out.

Obama, even now, is still a relative blank slate to mainstream America. I also think he's a sitting duck for a brutal, full-scale attack, the kind that transformed John Kerry in 2004 from a Vietnam medal-winner to a French-speaking wimp. I can see it in the man -- the impatient feeling that "Look, I've already dealt with this childish nonsense," when the bulk of the nation has not even turned its attention to it. I still regularly get those "pass it on" e-mails about how he's a Muslim who took the oath of office on the Koran. Like all idealistic Democrats, Obama will not be able to fight back, will resent that he needs to, and he will complain about how unfair it all is. The question comes down to which candidate would be better in a knife fight.

(2) Regardless, Obama has won and it is time for her to quit and unify the party.

Despite point (1), Obama has almost surely won the party's nomination, barring a miracle/disaster or a rebellion -- even if you give Florida to Clinton. The "rebellion" would be the party insiders giving her the nomination no matter what, which seems unlikely. The miracle/disaster would be if Obama somehow blew up before the convention -- if they caught him on tape burning a flag, or he turns out to be a member of Al-Qaida, or some figure close to him even more explosive than Rev. Wright turns up. Maybe Clinton is hanging around waiting for this, but it's too slim a chance. She ought to quit -- and spend the rest of the year repairing the Clinton family image by being as gracious and supportive and happy a party warrior as she can be. Same goes for that guy she hangs out with, who really needs to do something gracious about now. If President McCain serves one term; the Dems get a fresh chance against Vice President Cri -- I mean, whoever the nominee is in 2012.

Like I said, sheer opinion on my part. The floor is open; I am all ears to hear what you think.

Thursday, May 8

Good morning and good Thursday to you. My print column today is about specialty license tags. I propose that before we create a new plate from now on, enough people have to pay in advance. I also propose that we set a fairly high requirement for minimum sales before plates are discontinued. Somehow I do not think the Legislature will rush to take these suggestions. This is hardly the most important topic in Florida but I do try to keep a mix and this seemed like something a lot of people would relate to. I have been thinking a lot lately about "mix" and resolve not to just keep writing columns that say, "Here's yet ANOTHER public issue we should be mad about."

The main story in the newspaper today was the shooter who got shot at the courthouse in downtown St. Petersburg. Congratulations to the bailiffs who reacted quickly and protected the public. It sounds as though the guy had simply gone south, mentally speaking -- not even, necessarily, a rage-filled spouse in a divorce case, which is sort of the stereotypical courthouse risk.

The guy's mother said she didn't think he intended to shoot anybody, but that is not very convincing since the man showed up at the courthouse with a gun in a knapsack, produced it and started firing. She also blamed his downturn on reading conspiracy-oriented web sites. But if web sites could make otherwise "normal" people nutty, we would have more nuts than we already do. It's a modern twist on blaming bad music for bad behavior, etc... or Socrates for rebellious kids in Athens, for that matter.

I did check out the web site the mother mentioned, www.freedomforceinternational.org. I did not see any open advocacy of violence, just the general accusation that much of the world is falling under "collectivist" power and that a minority of informed individuals in the world need to resist it. The group's Latin motto is, Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt, which translates more or less as, "The powerless cannot defend liberty." (Hey, that degree is paying off already.)

Elsewhere: my Sunday column was about St. Petersburg's attempt to annex part of Tierra Verde; the latest news is that the city has delayed today's hearing in response to the county's objections. But the article doesn't reflect much concern on the part of the city officials to reports of voter intimidation -- instead, it's portrayed as a routine delay in an otherwise apple-pie annexation that the city intends to pursue. I'd like to see a little more acknowledgment of these problems from the city, along with SOME expression of concern on the impact on Tierra Verde, instead of just, "Hey, the property owner wants in and we want to grab some land, so what's wrong with it?"

The Rays lost last night but are still above .500 this late in the season, and in second place in the AL East. The Orlando Magic aren't done yet. My puppy Louie, now almost four months old, is briefly wearing that medical device known in my house as "The Cone of Shame" to protect a couple of stitches in his belly where we had an umbilical hernia fixed. It's getting hotter and more humid around here, in other words more like a "normal" May.

Lastly, either you know what I mean, or you don't care in the slightest, when I say that I wonder if tonight we will meet Jacob. Does this mean I am hypnotized by the mass culture? Probably. Please forgive this stream-of-consciousness blog post. I am off to try to learn something new in the world, if that's possible, despite the claim of Ecclesiastes that there is no such thing. Maybe not, but maybe it will be new to me.

Thursday's column on Wednesday: God goes 1-for-2 in specialty license tags

God went only 1-for-2 in the Florida Legislature this year.

He did get a new state license tag bearing the slogan, “In God We Trust.”

But the Legislature did not approve a more Christian-themed tag featuring a cross, stained glass, and the slogan, “I Believe.”

“In God We Trust” now joins the game of tennis, the preservation of lighthouses, and the declaration that this is “Horse Country” as the subjects of Florida’s 110th, 111th, 112th and 113th specialty license tags.

In a way, I wish the Legislature had gone right ahead and given the cross its own tag too, which might help us get this business cleared up in court once and for all.

Either that or it also should go ahead and create tags for Judaism, for Islam, for Buddhism, and even for atheists (I am thinking of the slogan, “I Do NOT Believe,” and the rest of the design a blank.)

Or maybe — and I am just talkin’ kooky here — maybe a government-created tag for the purpose of displaying a valid registration is not the place for expressions of religious or political beliefs.

(If only there were some other place on the back of a car for expressing beliefs...)

Three letters

First, on the evolution debate:

Back in the 50s as a young teenager I asked Mom (Dad, the minister, wasn’t home at the time) how they felt about “evolution” vs. the Genesis story. Her answer has stuck with me all these years. “We believe the Bible tells us why we’re here, not how we got here or how long we’ve been here.” Another dear friend, a pretty conservative retired pastor, said he thinks it’s a waste of time for us to worry about how long we’ve been here – instead we should worry about we’re doing while we’re here. Hear hear! -- Paul Cooper, St. Petersburg

Dear Paul Cooper: Good words to live by. I always add the comment that God Almighty, creator of all things, maker of the Universe, etc., etc., certainly could have had dinosaurs if he wanted to, and if anybody claims to know what a "day" is to God, they know more than I do, and ought to set up shop.

Next, a question about conservation land and taxes:

I was wondering if you had heard any news about "A Sembler Bill.   I heard about it on NPR. In case you have not it is a land conservation bill our Florida legislature has passed or is in process of passing to preserve land or partial land (partial being the operative word) to save from development. When I heard the name of the bill I almost choked on my coffee!  I have been trying to find more information about it on the web but find nothing. Have you heard anything? Why would a big developer want to conserve land? Maybe it would make for good reading in the Sunday times? Thank you for listening! -- Julie Goode, St. Petersburg

Dear Julie Goode: I haven't heard it called "the Sembler bill," but there IS one thing going on that might be what you're talking about. We have to vote on it in November. It's a "conservation" tax break for land owners -- if they promise to set aside their land for conservation, they can be taxed less on it. Some people think this idea, which was passed by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, was meant to benefit big land owners like the St. Joe Co. If you think this is not what you were talking about, or if there's something else I don't know about (which would not surprise me), let me know.

Lastly, yet another question that reveals the extent of my personal ignorance:

THIS WEEK'S SWEETBAY HAS A BIG AD FOR GREEN PEPPERS--$1.49 PER POUND, REGULARLY $1.99 PER PD.  THE REGULAR PRICE MAKES A  HEALTHY PEPPER $I.OO EA. WHILE AT MY ME VEGGIE STORE, THEY ARE 2 FOR $1.00---WHY????? -- ROSE W.

Here's the transcript of the May 6 live chat

In this week's live web chat held earlier today on TroxBlog, we talked mostly about the just-concluded session of the Legislature. Our conversation ranged from evolution to truck uh, "decorations." Check out the transcript by clicking on the "Comments" link at the end of this post, just a few lines below.

Thanks to everyone who stopped by or took part in today's chat. I hope to see you at the next live chat here on TroxBlog! Stay tuned for  announcements.

Psst! Want to talk about the Legislature? Live chat Tuesday, 11:30 a.m. - 1 p.m.

I hope you'll join me from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Tuesday for the latest edition of our weekly live chat here on TroxBlog. I'll be live and more or less in person, taking comments and questions about current events in the Tampa Bay area and beyond. I figured a good Topic A would be the just-concluded session of the Florida Legislature, which debated everything from budget cuts to.... uh.... truck decorations.

To observe or take part in Tuesday's chat, come back to TroxBlog at or after noon and look for a new post with the headline, "The May 6 chat is OPEN." Click on the "comments" link of that announcement and you'll see a page with everything that's been said in the chat so far, and a space for you to jump in with your own question or comment.b

As always, if you can't be here live, feel free to "pre-file" a question or comment to THIS announcement by clicking the "Comments" link a few lines below. Also, remember you can always stop by TroxBlog afterward to read a transcript of what was said in the chat.

I hope to see you Tuesday!

Me, B.A., M.A.

Forgive me for horn-tooting. Here's me crossing the stage and shaking hands with USF President Judy Genshaft at Saturday night's commencement exercises in Tampa for doctoral and master's students. After four and a half years I finished my M.A. in ancient history -- you know, Greek and Roman guys wearing dresses and sword-fighting and all. [Photo courtesy of William Murray.]

My master's thesis was titled "Electoral Abuse in the Late Roman Republic." The general idea is that the collapse of the 500-year-old Roman Republic around the time of Julius Caesar, and the beginning of its transformation into the Empire under Augustus, were preceded by a dramatic rise in the stretching and breaking of laws concerning the Romans' annual elections.

You've got to be really bored or really interested, but... here's a copy: Download Thesis.pdf

Column: St. Petersburg's bid to grab island is a troubling sign

In case you didn't see my Sunday column on St. Petersburg's plans to annex part of Tierra Verde...

* * *

If you take the Bayway exit off Interstate 275 southbound in Pinellas County, head for the beaches, and then turn left toward Fort De Soto Park, you'll pass through the unincorporated island community of Tierra Verde.

There's a little village of marinas, restaurants and shops on your right just after you cross a drawbridge over the Intracoastal Waterway. I used to stop there at the Bait Bucket on my way to the park, back in the days when I pretended to be trying to catch snook or redfish.

But if the city of St. Petersburg has its way — and if the residents of Tierra Verde can't stop it — this northern end of the island will soon be known as, uh …

"St. Petersburg."

About those burglars...

I've been interested in the comments to my Thursday column about being tricked and burglarized the other night. Remember that here's the sequence of events:

(1) I'm working on my laptop on my back, screened-in patio at midnight when the doorbell rings. (2) I am suspicious and wary of the guy at the front door. He asks for directions, I give them, he leaves. This takes a few seconds. (3) During those few seconds, the second guy enters the patio and rips off my laptop and runs. I never see him.

Now, in response to all the folks talking about how they would have brought a gun to the door and shot somebody, that is all well and good. I am all in favor of shooting home invaders. I am of the opinion that breaking into an occupied house at night pretty much makes one's own life forfeit.

In this case, it seems a little hasty to start shooting through the front door until I know who's there, say, a neighbor needing help. Also, I coulda carried a bazooka to the front door and I STILL would have lost the laptop -- the mistake was leaving it out back in the first place. Lastly, once I realize I've been robbed and I run back out front and see the first guy still walking down the street a couple blocks away, I suppose I could have chased him and, if I was carrying, shot that guy in the back. Probably not quite as sympathetic a case before a jury, shooting a guy in the back two blocks from my house, but what the heck. Also, it occurred to me that since the first guy was a decoy in the first place, my trying to chase him down the street before securing my house, and making sure that the second guy was not still IN my house, seemed like the right call. I am all ears for what I should have done differently IN THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.

Yep, I have a dog -- 15 weeks old and I have high hopes he will be a good alarm in the future. Yep, I have motion lights, and you can bet they're getting a tuneup and maybe some new installations. And I do not plan on leaving any more valuables on the rear patio "just for a minute," no matter what.

Thanks for all the comments!

Welcome to Tierra Ver -- uh, to 'St. Petersburg'

My Sunday print column will be about the pending effort by St. Petersburg to reach across the Intracoastal Waterway and begin annexing parts of Tierra Verde, an unincorporated community at the southern end of Pinellas County. There's quite a lot of opposition in Tierra Verde -- but it doesn't seem to matter to St. Petersburg. The photo above, facing south across the waterway, shows the northern end of the 18.25 acres of land (along with 10.07 acres of submerged land) targeted.

A f