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?

Comments

[PS]

Where's the parking $$ gonna come from? I'll tell you where... during game days, all city parking will be $10 whether you're at the the game or at your favorite downtown hangout. I can't believe local restaurants, shops and museums would favor that.

[Make a Deal]

The local restraunts favor that when there isn't a game people will still come to St. pete waterfront for entertainment. If you live in Pinellas Park, St. Pete waterfront is a good idea for a Sat. night. If you have a business dinner in which ti impress clients downtown waterfront will be on the mind. And because of the waterfront stadium in will have been shown to millions of people as an option of how to send a day, night, weekend, vacation. It's not about the 81 nights of ball games.

[Reality]

Howard,

You’ve hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head with this, “If it pays for itself, then why won't you put that in the contract?” It this lay the crux of the matter.

This entire deal is governed by one word, “speculation”.

It is speculated that attendance will rise.
It is speculated that parking revenue will help.
It is speculated that environmental clean up will be minimal (sleeper issue).
It is speculated that tourism will not be affected by the current economic trends.
It is speculated that the current recession will be short.
It is speculated that if we build it, they will come (see Trop and Bay Walk).
It is speculated that the revenues will be there.
It is speculated that the Trop redevelopment will provide affordable housing (a current crisis in Pinellas). And in a housing market that has crashed, in great part due to “speculation”… to support this idea using the speculation principle is an extremely dangerous position for we taxpayers to be in.

What is not speculation is that once we’ve signed on the dotted line and drive that new car off the lot… we’ve bought it and we WILL have to pay for it… even if we have a perfectly good car already sitting in the driveway.

[PS]

People already go downtown! We already have great shops, restaurants, museums... and that number continues to grow without the stadium!

[Chuck]

I repeat words! I make points! I repeat words! I make points! Listen to me! Listen to me! I repeat for affect! I repeat for affect!

This meeting seemed pretty pointless except for the fact of the Rays willingness to pay for cost overruns. Of course since that blows the proverbial "half a billion dollars to taxpayers" argument out of the water we switch our conspiracy to "cost changes".

Whatever.

[Brad]

Thanks Howard for clearing through the clutter for everyone. Funny how your interpretation isn't echoed by many opposing the stadium who seem to come up with figures and math that is far from what you're representing as fact. Since I have faith in your reporting ability and ability to see both sides of the story, I'm likely to let you be my guide on this matter as to what we should do. Perhaps City Council should be made aware of your perspective because from what I gather, it's pretty dead on.

Shall definitely be interesting to see what happens but I'm quite sure that City Council will delay putting this matter on the November ballot due to too many unknowns at this point. I hope, however, that the idea will continue to develop and that the homework will be done so that ultimately the best decision for St. Pete is made.

[Life Time Saint Pete Resident]

You People are pathetic. Why are you against St Pete becoming a first class city??

It's weird to me - let's get this thing built. Have some pride! There already is a stadium there! Do you get that?

Stay home and complain, or better yet move away. Sleepy Saint Pete is waking up - and we need a new, younger attitude.

YES YES YES

[josh P]

Trox, I'm only 23, but I rememebr reading the Times back in the day when you were the young reporter who got stuck with all the crappy assignments, so I am more inclined to trust you. I am going to say first that i am in support of the stadium, and being my age, I am really one of the tax payers that will have to live with this for the next 40 years.

Here are my points:

1. The "new" taxes are really just a diversion of tax money meant for tourist advertisement and development.

Are these funds really necessary? St. Pete is already internationally known as a tourist destination.

2. Everyone needs to understand this: the tax money being talked about here, CANNOT BE USED FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES. That means this is not money being taken away from police, fireman, or teachers.

For those of you who complain about budget cuts, stop voting for tax cuts! The reason schools are closed and fire/police arent paid as much is because you people dont want to earmark more money for them!

3. I honestly can't understand how anyone could want another park in St Pete rather than a baseball stadium. I'm sure the rays would be more than willing to work with you by setting aside a small area as a park for before/after games.

As for needing more waterfront parks, that is just ridiculous! Look at a map of St. Pete! Starting where Coffeepot Bayou opens into the bay, the entire length of land all the way down Northshore Drive to the Vinoy is all open land! Then you have The Vinoy, 2 blocks of parkland, the Museum, another 2 blocks of parkland, a building (cant remember what it is) then another block of park! That is a park one block away from the proposed stadium! I honestly dont know what more anyone could want. Take a look at GoogleEarth, and look at downtown St. Pete, there's even a helpful dot where the Rays proposed ballpark will be. You can see that there's still PLENTY of available space for watefront parks.

My point is, this stadium is not part of a highrise office building waterfront It is right in the middle of a strip of natural waterfront, waterfront that abuts to greasy, disgusting water no one really wants to look at. So everyone that cries about losing waterfront to this park thinks that going an extra 3-4 block to the North for a park is too much.

Life Time Saint Pete Resident,

If you truly beleive that what is keeping St. Pete from being a "first class city" is this project, then you my friend... should be prevented from voting on anything... including American Idol.

Do you get that; Rex?

[PS]

Josh,
The Rays already have a stadium. The reason they want a new one is purely to increase the value of THEIR team WHEN they sell. Yes, lets not continue to kid ourselves, it's not our team. When the Rays get sold (not if... when) will they split the profits with the city?

[Carl]

josh P,

Regardless of how it's appropriated, tax dollars are tax dollars. What you folks don’t seem to get, perhaps intentionally, is that for many… the argument is not really about “building a new stadium”. The argument is about building a new stadium using tax dollars when:

Taxpayers are feeling overburdened as it is.
Taxpayers are told that jobs and services must be cut in order to “lower” taxes in any way.
We are in a recession, and “wants” should never out way “needs”.
We have a perfectly good stadium already.

You can spin it to your hearts content, but you simply cannot get around the obvious.

[guy]

The Times says "Its a good financial arrangement".
Thats why they're operating under chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code.

[Kris]

Why doesn't the city of St. Pete just buy the Rays? Rather than forking over $450M+ for the new stadium add in a few hundred million dollars more (I have no clue what the team would be worth/cost), and buy the team outright.

At least with this scenario there is guaranteed income, rather than speculated, and if the city is ever in a financial crunch they could sell off a couple million shares to local residents.

Likely to ever happen? Heck no... Well thought out idea? Nope, just the ramblings of a pipe dreaming bone head.

Have a good day!

[Iconoclast]

Questions-

Why should out-of-state owners be given corporate welfare?

Why can't St. Pete be a "first class city" without a bunch of "overpaid jocks" which it appears that only about 1% residents of the city/county, in which they reside, care to have anythng to do with?

Wouldn't be much cheaper to remodel or add to the Trop if it is currently unsuitable for pri donnas?

Trop has excellent highway access, won't ridiculous traffic problems downtown lower attendance?

I’m with Kris… I say we just buy the team and tell the Sacs boys to hit the road! Think of it, Sembler can hold the bond, Baker can play during the 7th inning stretch, and Bennett can be the batboy!

What do you say, Howard…. Skipper sound good to you?

[guy]

Apparently the owners of the Ray's and the old guard under Baker, have'nt the slightest idea how the people in our city, overwhelmingly oppose the whole concept of their plan.
My large family who attend most all the games and wear all the goodies, does not have any one person who supports a new stadium, and these are the best fans a team could ask for.
Baker is not familiar with Al Gore's new invention called the internet.
Right now it is running 13% for 82% against and 5% neutral.
It is about the same for closing Al Lang Field.

Guy,

These folks sold their souls to the devil a long time ago. They don’t even listen to their own conscience, let alone to those they profess to represent.

In Aaron Sharockman's blog posting on this meeting yesterday he said:

"A coalition of Pinellas beach elected officials this month voiced opposition to the funding plan, saying the money should be used to aid beach tourism."

This is that coalition's web site

http://www.barrierislandscouncil.com/mayors.html

This group includes the Mayors of St. Pete Beach, Madeira Beach, Treasure Island, Redington Beach, North Redington Beach, Redington Shores, Indian Shores, Indian Rocks Beach, Bellaire Shore, Bellaire Beach, CLEARWATER.

There is nothing in this for the Clearwater resident when they generate twice the revenue than we do from tourism. A new stadium will not generate new tourists (with the exception of one single promised All star game).

These folks HAVE THE BEDS THAT GENERATE THE TAX.................
This is a significant voter base and a host of influential community leaders that have already said NO. In addition, already voiced opposition at the county level has been recorded by the Council of North County Neighborhoods......which includes huge tax base areas such as East Lake, Palm Harbor, Crescent Oaks, Lansbrook and others.

http://www.cncnpc.org/.

Oh, and let's not forget that CONA has already said NO.

http://conastpete.org/.

Howard, YOU know that I have lots of connections and bases at county level through the efforts on Brooker Creek Preserve.........and get set for the SCREAMING to start point blank directed at the BOCC to GET OFF THIS TOPIC AND PULL THE PLUG. If you were going to be fair in your Sunday piece, you would mention that our unincorporated areas are ALREADY FALLING IN LINE TO FIGHT THIS NEW STADIUM based on the tax discussion AND the fact that this plan goes against the county's comprehensive land use plan AS WELL AS ST. PETE'S!!!

I already know of some county commissioners who are against this from going forward. Be fair to your north county readership, because they count, too. And frankly speaking, NO one at the Times is paying much mind to a LARGE PORTION of Pinellas County voters. But I predict that you will be FORCED to start reporting on their thoughts and needs soon........

Lorraine

[Carl C.]

Lorraine,

Have you aksed those same County Commissioners why they let the City of St. Pete issue an RFP on County-owned land in the first place? Why they've been so "hand-off" on this from the beginning?

Or how this relates to the infamous Latvala ordinance?

Don’t let your perceived level of influence cause you to lose focus.

Stay tuned, Carl.........meetings are getting arranged now........with many folks participating, not just myself......now is the time for discussion............some of your questions will be answered, perhaps. I'd advocate that ALL folks start emailing the BOCC with their opinions....with a Rays visit to them planned for next week, they are NOW paying attention.
Thanks for your good points....the Latvala Ordinance is long dead........it's now county charter amendment language on the table to protect.........the BCP re-mapping plan needs to be addressed as well.....that's in process and going to public discussion soon.

Lorraine

[PS]

I think the battle should focus on why a new stadium is needed in the first place. Once we start talking financing, the Rays are already one step ahead.

We should not concede that a new stadium is needed!

[Carl C.]

It’s campaign season for a few of them. For cognizance is a virtue, as in this lay the truth in discernment.

[Bored]

It's ALL about Lorraine, isn't it? Get over yourself already.

[Rodney]

Can't we all just get along... without a taxpayer funded stadium we don't need?

[Winston]

I agree with Josh on his comments about the waterfront "park" and about the greasy water in the area for filling.

A manatee would have to bring a lunch to cavort in these waters, and seagrass would never grow in an area so lacking in tidal flow. Yet the environmentalists are going to jump on this bandwagon.

Potential envronmental problems at the Trop site? Why not nail the former People's Gas for the clean-up, they put them there. Like all public utilities, they are sitting back from the public trough with a loud burp amid all their profits. Wish I had a business that returned, guaranteed, 1.11 for every dollar I spent, no matter what for.

Unbearable heat to watch a ball game? One reader posted that the Kids and Kubs play in that weather, and they are 75 yrs old. Many stadiums have no problem with attendence, despite the hot conditions. My concern is that Tampa-St Pete area is the lightening capital, and thunderstorms will come.

I can see that parking and traffic will be a problem, and I disbelieve that it will generate 55 million.

It certainly will be a plus to put the developed Trop site back on the tax rolls. The only loss of revenue at the Al Lang site is spring training, and that's gone anyway.

Check the money carefully.

Truth is not just the facts, but an absence of deceit.

Winston

[get-smart]

It is the owners of the Rays that are driving this nightmare. They are un-American, treasonous cretins. Just Google "goldman sachs treason." The whole point of a Waterfront Stadium is pure GREED and EGO. They are pumping up the value to dump it and then brag to their cohorts how smart they are. That is it! Nothing more! The owners don't care about our country or St. Pete. They are cut from the same cloth as the criminal ex-governor of New York. Go Rays!

[Make a Deal]

Does Mcdonalds share profits?
How about Starbucks.
How about Play it Again Sports that was bought cheap and grew into 200 locations. Do they split the profits?
It is American to dream big. This group of owners are thinking big. Can they do it? Can they do it in St. Pete?
If we build a waterfront stadium we will have baseball here for as long as baseball exist. Otherwise it's like buying a $6mil home but only taking the furniture at closing.

[Make a Deal]

Does Mcdonalds share profits?
How about Starbucks.
How about Play it Again Sports that was bought cheap and grew into 200 locations. Do they split the profits?
It is American to dream big. This group of owners are thinking big. Can they do it? Can they do it in St. Pete?
If we build a waterfront stadium we will have baseball here for as long as baseball exist. Otherwise it's like buying a $6mil home but only taking the furniture at closing.

[Don Mott]

To answer your questions Make a Deal, yes they do share profits. They share with people who invest in their companies. It's called stock dividends if you've never heard of it. Usually when someone invests money in a company they expect a return based on the companies profits. Economics 101.

[get-smart]

Make a Deal, I don't want the city, county, state or federal government making a deal with you on my behalf through the coercion of the tax code. If I want to make a deal with you I will make the deal, not some governmental agency. If I don't I won't. If I wanted to buy shares of McDonald's or Starbucks that is my personal business and at my personal risk.

The State Legislature is considering a change in the law that would remove land tax exempt status from all the pro team stadiums. Tell me Make a Deal, when this happens who is going to pay the taxes?

I am not against a new stadium. I am against the destruction of the beautiful downtown waterfront . The whole point of a Waterfront Stadium is pure GREED and EGO. This is easy math. They are pumping up the value to dump it and then brag to their cohorts how smart they are. That is it! Nothing more! The owners don't care about our country or St. Pete. They are cut from the same cloth as the criminal ex-governor of New York.

See! I'm reasonable.

[Don Mott]

Hi Lorraine, I look forward to your updates on this. I can't envision the BOCC being ready to jump on this bandwagon. First, the Rays have snubbed them since the beginning, which I don't understand but it must have been part of their plan because they're not stupid. Second, this area, especially the beaches have lost a ton of hotel beds in the last several years. Third, a majority of beach mayors have come out against the plan due to a loss of tourism dollars. And as you mentioned several of the Commissioners have expressed doubts.

[PS]

I've got two words to describe why this issue should never get on the ballot: BULLET TRAIN!

Sure it sounds good. How much will it cost to build it? I Don't know, Mr Spicoli!

Where will it stop? Don't know!

How much will it cost to ride? Don't know!

Who'll will ride it? Don't know!

But it sounds good! Let's vote for it!!!

[Jon McPhee]

We can all hope that Mr. Troxler continues to be a rational voice in all of this, who will look at and weigh and maybe explain to his readers all the "interesting" pieces of this transaction and how they relate. I am not sure that the other folks who are doing the Fourth Estate's work are as diligent and informed.

I also hope the panel of four financial people the Times has assembled, and which is reported over on the Ballpark Frankness spot, will likewise identify and try to honestly value all the costs and benefits of this series of complex and interdependent transactions. I say this knowing that there is almost an infinite number of ways to interpret all the projections and unknowns and actual data, and that bias is inevitable in any reading of the books.

Given the long history of, dare I say it, incompetent and/or wishful and/or venal city leaders, both elected and self-appointed, this all could be part of a great public civics lesson that will leave all of us with a better understanding of our own and our community's worth and values. It might also arm us against future raids on our collective wealth and well-being, and help us evaluate the kinds of "development" thWe can all hope that Mr. Troxler continues to be a rational voice in all of this, who will look at and weigh and maybe explain to his readers all the "interesting" pieces of this transaction and how they relate. I am not sure that the other folks who are doing the Fourth Estate's work are as diligent and informed.

I also hope the panel of four financial people the Times has assembled, and which is reported over on the Ballpark Frankness spot, will likewise identify and try to honestly value all the costs and benefits of this series of complex and interdependent transactions. I say this knowing that there is almost an infinite number of ways to interpret all the projections and unknowns and actual data, and that bias is inevitable at are sustainable and actually add value to our home.

Let's remember one fundamental. This area and the people in it represent a different kind of "black box," made up of all the transactions and exchanges that occur, from retail to Publix to home sales and construction and demolition. These all generate a difficult-to-enumerate but still finite amount of wealth, and the finite amount of taxes that get collected as our commonly agreed fund to pay for all the public benefits that government agenies provide (yeah, I know some folks argue endlessly about which expenditures and taxes and so forth are warranted, but the economic engine is still finite.) And the extent to which spending public wealth in one area or another might soup up the engine. That's in large part what the present debate is all about. Most of us remain oblivious to all of this, as we struggle to make ends meet.

It's obvious where I come down on this whole thing. I think the Rays owners are as described in the Times' own article back in November of last year, a bunch of selfish and self-promoting plutocrats who think this area's public funds are part of their own private piggy banks. I don't buy the Rays' numbers -- projections are just like the phantasms that show up on the Silver Screen. I don't believe the Mayor and City Council are capable of adequately identifying and representing the whole community's interest in all of this

Like one of the posters above offers, "Truth is not just the facts, but an absence of deceit." Like the posters responding to Make A Deal above did, in reminding us that at least publicly owned and traded businesses do in fact share profits with shareholders, we need to stay with the facts, but keep a weather eye out for slick tricks. We should remember that a lot of publicly traded companies are suffering due to the present state of the economy, yet their chief officers and directors pretty shamelessly "reward" themselves with huge paydays entirely unrelated to any benefits from their "leadership." And shameless outfits like Halliburton and KBR are busily ripping off the wealth of this whole country in Iraq and elsewhere, while their putative watchdogs either sit idly by or rip their own pieces off the carcass.

However ego-satisfying the flicking of snotballs at our "enemies" in this debate might be, and however they might tickle the hostility-generating part of our brains, they don't go far in trying to pull back the curtains and veils that conceal the real nature of these public transactions. One can hope that this time at least, the table won't be rigged, and the deck shaved and marked.

[Jon McPhee]

And Mr. Troxler mentions cost overrun "guarantees."

There's all kinds of anecdotal evidence showing how well public giveaways to business actually work. Here's just one: Back in the '80s, U.S. Steel was planning to get out of the steel business in Gary, Indiana. Their management told the city, the states of Indiana and Illinois, the EPA and the Steelworkers that if U.S. Steel could just get an agreement that labor would cut wages and the governments would give the company a pass on environmental liabilities, U.S. Steel would keep operating in Gary "forever." And what a surprise, when the company which had enough billions in cash to buy Marathon Oil Company and all its proven oil and gas reserves, reneged on all these ironclad promises and walked away.

So the Rays are "willing to cover any cost overruns" for actual stadium construction, as long as they control construction. Sounds so reasonable. But let's see -- if they control construction, they control the bidding and contracting and setting of costs. If the City and County are PAYING the costs, the Rays have no incentive to sharpen their pencils before the contracts are signed, so any bets on whether there would be lots of padding (payable by the citizens) in every contract, to protect against "overruns?"

And presumably as the contracting party, the Rays would also control how the inevitable construction litigation over whether the marble countertops in the executive bathrooms were a "change order," subject to City funding, or an overrun. And of course, since so much had been put into the deal at this point, what's a few hundred thousand more, which after all is coming out of the net general revenues from the 940,000 citizens of the Pinellas Peninsula, who are (trumpet flare!) gaining the immense intangible externality of having a Major League Baseball team here!

[Don Mott]

Interestingly enough, I was just perusing the Rays website and they listed their $150 million as a "private contribution". It is a prepayment of rental fees. Big difference. Another slick play on words. Sorta like the slick play with numbers they presented.

[kris]

This is such a hot button issue with many points of opposing debate through fact, and opinion.

I have registered the site RaysStadiumTalk.com and invite you all to visit and share your thoughts Pro or Con regarding this topic.

The site will be launched Sunday, 11:59pm, and I am looking for help. I want 6 bloggers (3 pro, 3 con), and 2 moderators. If you are willing to help I can offer an unlimited email account, gift certificates to local restaurants, and T-Shirts (once they are printed). If you are interested please contact me: kris@raysstadiumtalk.com

If you are as passionate about this topic as I, then I ask you to share your thoughts on the only local site dedicated to spreading knowledge and promoting an outlet for voters to voice their opions.

I look forward to seeing you there on Monday, May 19, 2008.
RaysStadiumTalk.com

Thanks,
-Kris

[PS]

Here's a better proposal...

My house need major updating. There's nothing wrong with it. I just want a better house. I'll pay 30% and the city can pay the rest. Sounds fair right? After all the city gains more property tax collections once the house is re-assessed! It will be the "crown jewel" of my street! Oh yeah, my share of the cost is a pre-payment of my future tax bills.

Don't worry about parking; I've already got plenty!

[Steve]

The Rays have tried to turn the entire stadium debate on the finances. It is not about the finances. What they have offered is a house or mirrors that no one can figure it out. I mean the Times today had four economic experts try to come up with the price tag and each of them came up with different numbers.

But, these experts did get one thing right. The "financial plan" the Rays submitted last Thursday before City Council was, in their minds, not a financial plan at all. It was a PR piece. In this they all agreed. We have waited since November to get the details and when the Rays submit their plan, does it have any details? Not a one according to these experts. We ended with a glossy PR piece. Wake up St. Pete.

This whole deal is about loosing our waterfront parkland to New York carpetbaggers.

It is about subsidizing rich boys.

It is about cutting our budget, this year, about 14 million. The City is darn near broke and they want to build a glitzy un-air-conditioned baseball stadium. Give me a break!

This whole deal is the about the police and fire departments working without current contracts. Our police department alone is down about 80 real officers. Down from 550 to 470. This is why crime is rising. And what is City Council doing about it? They are trying to take away the health insurance for new hires after they retire. If we can not even hire good police officers and fire department personnel, what they heck are we doing trying to build a second baseball stadium when we already have a perfectly good one already. I mean wake up St. Petersburg.

It is about the City cutting social services to the tune of about $820,000 this year alone.

It is about the Mayor hiding this idiotic baseball scheme from the public duing our last city election last November.

It is about our city lieing to us (over and over again).

It is about the most worthless city council I have ever seen since I came here in 1976.

It is about the Times selling the Rays down our throats because they stand to make advertizing dollars and possibly get the naming rights to boot. Oh joy!

It is about wrecking the environmental quality of the South Yacht Basin to a dredge and fill process incorporating about one acre of bay.

It is about Rick Musset lieing to the public.

It is about the North County N. A. agreeing with CONA to say no to this stadium scheme.

And lastly, for now anyway, it is about me not wanting my taxes going up, and your taxes going up and the County's taxes going up and the Hotel Industry's bed taxes being extended out for another 31 years.

I could go on, but heck, I'll stop and let the next guy have the podium.

Howard,
The "same payment on the car" rationale doesn't fly.

First point - If the car was not worth the price we paid in the first place - why would we want to extend the payments? Have you ever seen an economic impact report from the county CVB on what the team brings to the region? NO! Because they don't have one. This "investment" has not done what we wanted - why would we buy more of the same stock? Why would a person buy another of the same car if he didn't get the best gas milage from the first one?

Second point - why would any reasonable person extend their car payments if their car is running just fine? Why wouldn't they just bankroll the money and save it for the future - or at least not have it tied up in long term required payments on a car when they might have other household problems to attend to in the future, The city has ;png term probelms to attend to - like 20 years of projects to replace water delivery pipes, sewer lines all over the city, drainage projects, increase in sanitation and utilities costs, increases in PD and fire safety and training costs - just to name a few.

The Trop is proving it is fit for a winning team to play in - the car's running just fine - let's save our money. Its ridiculous to say let's spend our money just because someone dangled a shinning new babble in our faces - although I do see the resemblance in Rays ownership and some used car salesmen I have met.

What an extraordinary show of American over consumption to buy another PUBLICLY FINANCED STADIUM when we have so many real needs.

[Kris]

For those that care: The site is near completion, and I will now be able to offer a FREE year of web hosting including webmail to contributors.

Please contact me, or visit the site for more details.
kris@RaysStadiumTalk.com

See you Monday,

-Kris
RaysStadiumTalk.com

[Not a Fans fan]

The $150,000,000 is city money because it is reformed, paid early stadium rent. It is OUR city money! All the land in this deal is OUR ity land.

All the taxes are OUR money. All the building demolition, Trop clean-up, extended taxes IS ALL OUR CITY MONEY.

The stadium maintenance, police protection, staff management time is all OUR city money.

We, the citizens of St. Petersburg will be paying 100% of the cost for this new stadium that we did not even want. A bunch of cheap New Yorkers, billionaires all, want it.

The Mayor and Council are supporting this plan for reasons which escape me. Unless each and every one of them is just plain stupid.

I say recall them all.

I say protect our waterfront from greed and theft.

Wake up St. Pete.