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.

Comments

[Chris Jenkins]

I'll borrow a little construction lingo here...measure twice, cut once.

These guys want to rush into the first cut without even fully measuring once...then, they'll cut twice more, and wonder why it's STILL too short.

Half a billion dollars deserves a real plan, with none of the principals saying "Uh, I didn't know anything about that!". Unacceptable. Time to table the deal and call it a day.

[Chris Jenkins]

P.S. This would also be where I say "I told you so!" to all of those refusing to accept my warnings that as yet unexplored environmental concerns would likely have a substantive impact on the bottom line of the deal.

*victory dance*

[get-smart]

During a council meeting the city expert said the contamination was mitigated. That is all he would say, "It's Mitigated!, It's Mitigated!"

One of the council members asked the city expert for what uses was it mitigated. The expert said "All Uses." The city staff are a bunch of liars.

Not once did they bring up deed restriction. Who pays these guys? The Rays?

[Howard Troxler]

Chris:

Yeppers. In fact, I believe that some citizens specifically mentioned the DEP deed-restriction request in public comments to the City Council, and nobody got it or understood it. That includes me. It also includes, as far as I can tell, the St. Petersburg City Council.

[Rick K]

I must disagree with "Chris Jenkins."

These are professional developers and professional development staff of the City, all of whom have extensive experience in managing the multiple permits and approvals that are part of urban development projects.

A vote by the City Council to keep this ballot question alive would not constitute "rushing" towards anything.

Obviously, at any point when any possible problem arises which makes these paired redevelopment proposals impossible, impractical or financially undoable, that is the END of the projects.

It seems to me it makes no sense to kill the process before we've reached that point.

The poww people want the project killed. They will use any reason. Most of us are not persauded that the potential of possible environmental remediation issues, or issues involving sea grass, or traffic, or anything else, really, constitute reasons to prematurely abort this process.

Like many Times readers, I am very impressed by this creative, cooperative solution the Rays have come up with to solve some interesting community problems.

The Rays aren't jumping up and down, threatening to leave town. They aren't demanding a deal similar to the deal the Bucs or the Lightning got from the TSA, which are far more favorable to the teams at the expense of the public.

Instead, the Rays have come up with a vision that solves some community shortcomings that the Rays aren't obligated to try to solve. Sure, the team and its owners will benefit from a new stadium, but they didn't have to come up with such a bold, imaginative plan that keeps the team downtown at the same time it helps the City in other important areas.

[get-smart]

Rick K -

You are the consummate spinner. I should put you on the wheel of my car. I would never need to by gas again.

The city staff are professional by virtue of being paid.

All they are, are a bunch of hacks with jobs. They work for the city. They need to show the pitfalls of the proposal. They act like they are on the witness stand. Only answer the question 'yes' or 'no.' And being told not to volunteer any other information.

Who do these people work for?

The whole lot need to be fired. From the mayor on down! All of them!

-

[guy]

Mr Rick K.
You are entitled to be in favor of anything your heart desires.
But this whole issue smells bad.
There are hundreds of serious issues here, so many that you cannot convince any taxpayer with common sense to approve such a flawed deal.

[Bland]

Howard and to All,

Having previously worked as a financial advisor for formerly Florida Power, now Progress Energy, I have had some exposure to these unforeseen remediation situations.

It has been my experience they can never be accurately estimated as to their actual costs to correct. Many times the dirt has to be incinerated on site and the amount of cubic yards is always undeterminable until you dig the hole to pull it out. This costs millions.

The power company manages this situation by letting sleeping dogs lie. They don’t dig a hole unless it is absolutely necessary. The potential costs to clean up can be huge.

The DEP will not grant a residential and commercial build out of this site until they are assured the soil has been cleaned up (i.e. really mitigated). Folks, that has not happen yet.

I repeat, no one, the City Engineers, the DEP, etc. knows what this is going to costs to clean up to get the new permitting.

It is a big ugly sleeping dog not a red heron.

[Justin Elza]

So what happens if they break ground, unearth a stagnant toxic plume and realize it will take tens of millions of dollars or more to clean it up (can we say Raytheon Part 2)?

Is this really something we need as a public liability anytime soon?

This whole thing stinks and the fact that our own city officials are the last to admit it and/or least in touch with reality is very troubling.

[get-smart]

Bland - You are 100% correct!

Florida Progress is expanding a power sub-station on Central Ave and 50th St.S. . FL Progress purchased the entire block for the expansion except the corner laundry/dry cleaner. Fl Progress refused to buy that corner lot because of the liability associated with the soil contamination. The lot owner said it could cost from $70K to $200K to fix. So my question is, "How much will it cost to clean up the Trop acreage?" I know the city staff runs around doing their "It's Mitagated!" mantra.

Obviously, FL Power with all its millions, has the experience, expertise and knowledge to keep away from contaminated land, even if it's a small corner lot. To me this says alot for what we would be getting into with the Trop. I feel if this stadium deal goes through, the Trop will remain idle for years to come because of the environmental costs. In fact if you listen to the Rays' presentation to the city council, they bring up that possibility of an undeveloped Trop and still claim there is net benefit. Most residents are not against a new stadium; just not on the waterfront and no tax dollars. The midtown needs the development not the downtown, so build it there! I wish the Rays owner would act like Americans for once and do something right. Instead of the greedy corrupt takers, become benefactors and help us build the mid town.

-

You know, Mike Connors "marginalized" the contamination at the Trop site when he had to correct Rick Musset's "dis-information" campaign to citizens when neighborhood meetings with the Rays began. Musset was saying that "the Trop was clean and that there were no monitoring wells". Of course, Musset was WRONG.

Let's go back to the toxic plume............Mike Connors KNEW about the plume migration AT LEAST as early as 2005......YET, our CITY didn't tell those poor folks in the Azalea neighborhood! Mike Connors and Mayor Baker deserve AT LEAST the same level of condemnation on the non-disclosure to citizens of the plume issue as the DEP in my mind. And here we go again, DEP orders deed restriction to preserve the public from contaminated soil exposure, and Mike calls it "voluntary"??? ......and the JOKE is that Mike Connors is supposed to be the Mayor's GREEN GUY.
STOP THIS CRAZY MESS RIGHT NOW, CITY OF ST. PETE!!! Our government has behaved irresponsibly and has shown incredible negligence in protecting it's citizens in it's haste to fawn and fall over the Rays. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU ARE PAID TO DO......remember us out here???

Lorraine

[Practical Man]

To Justin Elza - if the Trop redevelopment proposal moves forward and major contamination is discovered later, it will be handled exactly the same as the discovery of major contamination anywhere else, such as City Parks, School Properties, the Airport, former utility properties, abandoned properties, et al.

To Bland - having previously worked as a commercial mortgage underwriter, I have had some exposure to estimates of costs associated with environmental remediation. A major lender I worked for performed an exhaustive, two-year study of loan submissions within our international company. They found that 98% of preproject environmental estimates were higher than actual expenditures. In the case of half the remaining two percent of cases in the study, actual remediatin expenditures exceeded estimates because the developers voluntarily exceeded miminum requirments of regulatory agencies.

[Howard Troxler]

Howard here. Since the DEP will not say on the front end (nor should it) what mitigation would be acceptable down the road, we just don't know.

Certainly, these problems are surmountable -- as a couple of people have noted, it's not like they've never come up before. You identify the problem, you produce a workable solution, and you figure out how much it will cost.

If it's fixable, and if the cost is acceptable.

The two issues that strike me this morning are (1) this has to be addressed in the city's contract with the developer, and I can't wait to see how it's done, and (2) we're just hearing about this NOW?

I am writing a draft of a column and have included these closing paragraphs. Here's your chance to edit me:

Let’s bend over backwards here. Let’s bend over all the way backwards for the city, and let’s suppose that this DEP letter is just a nuisance, something written by a low-level flunky. Let’s also suppose that it is an obstacle that can be overcome.

Still, you would think it is something that would have come up by now.

For eight years, the DEP has wanted a deed restriction on Tropicana Field – a deed restriction that says they can’t remove the parking lot?

And this demand was renewed last July – while the city was still keeping the stadium plan secret? And it was renewed again just three weeks ago?

And it never came up? The City Council didn’t know about it? Citizens kept coming to the council and asking about environmental issues at the Tropicana site, and it just never came up?

Really?

[Chuck]

I'm not sure if you guys have ever heard of something called the Sham-Wow, but I'm pretty sure it will clean up this toxic plume under the Trop.

Now, can someone please answer this question - why is a major POWW spokesperson in favor of teacher pay cuts?

[Lee]

I have many friends who work for the city and so I am reticent to appear as if I am slamming them. For the most part they do the best they can and are well intentioned. However facts are facts.
Original Dome remediation was projected to be 2 million dollars. The city put out bonds of 3.7 million to pay for that and some other items. The ACTUAL COST was 5.7 million. That's almost triple city staff's projections. I think Bland is exactly right when he points out it is very difficult to actually forecast the severity of the problem. I find it very curious that Practical Man is a commerical mortage underwriter and is pooh poohing this.
The last commercial loan I signed included a waiver stating that there was no gas station or dry cleaner within one city block of the subject property. If it's not an issue why make us sign these waivers?

[guy]

Don't forget to mention the class action lawsuit that was filed on behalf of the people who worked on the original Florda Suncoast Dome, against the City of St. Petersburg.
It was like $40 mil.

[Kevin]

Chuck, spare us the distractions, please. This is about the city not being forthwright to its citizens about this deed restriction, your attempts at marginalizing this issue are pathetic.

Howard, thanks for being the only true objective journalist that I've seen from the entire Times reporting of this issue. I've already cancelled my subscription to the times for the glaring lack of coverage of the last City Council meeting, but will continue to follow the news online, especially your columns. Kudos and NO WATERFRONT STADIUM.

[Chuck]

So...I guess that means you can't answer my question.

Howard,

I would love this tag added......

GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE?......WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING FROM US AND CITY COUNCIL!

Lorraine

[Rick K]

Howard:

I am not convinced, despite your apparent conviction, that this is "just coming up now?"

I imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of details that come up in the daily work of professional city staffers, which details never make it to the level of being noticed by the City Council.

If it turns out that this "issue" is nothing, then it makes complete sense that City Council members don't know about it.

Your position seems to be that City Staff must provide the City Council with every detail of every matter of business the staff is involved in, even when their experience teaches them that the detail is likely to be very small.

Just because some people (poww) HOPE this issue kills the deal doesn't mean it will.

I hate to say "I told you so"... but... "I told you so"

Hey Rick K... how little an issue is poison?

... and just think! most of this council will run for mayor!

Is “Rick K”, Rick Kriseman?

[Justin Elza]

The fact remains, we have NO IDEA how much contamination there really is and NO IDEA how much it will cost to clean it up.

True, it COULD be marginal (although given the history of that area, that's doubtful) but it also COULD be very, very costly to remediate.

And the question becomes not HOW they will clean it up, but who will pay for it and just where that money will come from.

Wouldn't it make sense to have an independent, reputable environmental firm give us a solid estimate of what we're dealing with so we can figure out the MAXIMUM the taxpayers will be responsible for BEFORE moving forward with this project?

[Chris Jenkins]

Hey Rick K...a deed restriction on property which requires sale for this deal to work is not a "little detail". Eight years of requesting and being stonewalled is not a "little detail".

Go 'head, Rickster, spin your spin! You aren't slowing down the glee train. The longer this process goes on, the more I will be proven right over and over and over again, and the more wild eyed and desperate your spin will become.

Go ahead, I've got a roaring appetite...feed me a spin sandwich!

[Carl C.]

Howard,

This is the same problem that exists with the proposed Toytown re-development. What lay beneath of each of these site is the real problem with both of the plans. And if anyone thinks any developer will assume full liability… I have a stadium to sell you.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… this deal was shut down months ago. It’s become a political campaign rouse.

[Jan]

Those who wish to educate themselves about the remediation issues related to former gas plant manufacturing sites may wish to visit this website, maintained by geologist Dr. Allen W. Hatheway:
http://www.hatheway.net/

[The Big Picture]

It seem to me that a very intelligent, articulate and I must say good looking member of the P.O.W.W. steering committee held a press conference which talked about all of these very issues on March 27th of this year.

This information was covered by all of the area tv stations, several radio stations and the Tampa Tribune. Oddly the Time, although invited (Aaron Sharockman) was conspicuous by it's absence.

So NOW this is an issue?

Go figure!

It was c

[Reality]

From a taxpayer-funded stadium we don’t need, to making a former toxic dump the “golden center” of Pinellas… is there any further evidence one needs to support a total house cleaning in our halls of local government? You simply can’t make this stuff up. But we can move toward correcting it on Election Day.

[Chuck]

By the way, I learned all of my marginalizing tactics from POWW.

Chuck, get back in your cubicle before I call Stu.

[guy]

Howard,
Do you think the Ray's could be interested in my new invention that turns pee pee into either drinking water or gasoline????.
Trouble is, it uses a lot off sea grass.!!!

[Chuck]

Sorry noname, not a Rays' employee, just a member of the VAST MAJORITY. Better luck with your next pet project.

[Justin Elza]

Yawn.

[Justin Elza]

Yawn.

Chuck, that's an insult to the "true" Vast Majority.

[Justin Elza]

I can understand how some people might be for the stadium, but I can't understand how anyone could be FOR rushing into this deal and not making sure we cover our asses.

Brushing glaring issues aside as if they're no big deal is just...well, I can't even understand it.

[Carl C.]

Because it is not intended to actually make the ballot, Justin... It's rouse.

[Rick K]

Justin:

What you see as "rushing," most of us see as "taking a year and having so much debate that it borders on too much."

Most of us think is that development professionals deal with this stuff every single day of their lives, and we trust in their competence to perform due diligence and protect the public interests.

If you don't, that's fine.

But don't expect the rest of us to share your irrational paranoia.

[Chuck]

What are we supposed to think about this, believers??

So the area is contaminated. This isn't news. It speaks hypocritical volumes that you're okay with just leaving the pollution as is as long as no one threatens to build a waterfront stadium. Why aren't you pushing for cleanup immediately? I'm supposed to believe that because a slab of asphault sits on top of the pollution that it makes safe for everyone?

[Justin Elza]

Rick, that you put blind faith in "development professionals" really makes me chuckle.

And not wanting to help foot the bill for millions and millions of unforeseen costs is not irrational paranoia. Just ask the taxpayers of NYC:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/nyregion/25parks.html?ex=1212379200&en=66573a9ded3dfbb8&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[The Big Picture]

Chuck, YES!
with the monitoring wells in place to make sure that the ground water and contamination are not moving and are not seeping into Booker Creek (because the head walls are in place. And because the site is currently a commercial / Industrial use and the contaminated Coal tar layer is capped with asphalt( and therefore no able to come into contact with people).

BUT... as we have all seen, the developers plan to remove the head walls from Booker and have beautiful sloping banks leading to a lovely lake with people canoeing and Kayaking around a stage in the middle of the lake fed by Booker Creek. They also want to reinstitute the City Grid system, this will require that the city(at the cities expense) dig new sewer systems (storm & Sanitary) and install utilities in soil that is still not met the standard for an industrial site.

After that is finished the developers will build at least 1173 residences. The residential cleanup standards are (depending which chemicals you are talking about)from 5 to 10 times more stringent that the standard not yet met on the site.

[Rick K]

Chuck:

Slow down.

Every proponent of NOT KILLING these deals right now shares my view that we ought to fully and properly deal with any and all environmental issues which come up.

Being in favor of letting the professionals do their jobs so that the process continues on is not the same as being in favor of killing babies with cancer causing chemicals, so please relax.

[Rick K]

Big Picture has slipped over to fiction.

There is no factual basis whatsoever for his claim that a developer of the Trop Field site will require the City to build streets or accompanying public utilities in the new development.

In most developments, the developer builds the infrastructure to the city's specs, then gives it to the CITY.

No one has proposed that the City spend it's money as BigPicture is describing.

Got carried away a little bit.

[Justin Elza]

Do you have that in writing?

[lb]

Chuck, there is very big difference between asphalt-capped soil that has had an acceptable level of mitigation to allow parking, and soil that may have contaminants that seep into houses, and yards where kids play, and the dirt they roll around in...

[Chuck]

Rick,

What are you talking about? I said the site will need to be cleaned, obviously. I didn't say anything about babies with cancer.

It just seems hypocritical to only worry about site contamination when we're talking about building a new stadium.

[Kay]

Rick K you make me chuckle. Thanks for the laugh. You write very eloquently but what you say, really, is not logical at all.
I read the city staff report in it's entirety and don't recall any mention of the request for a voluntary deed restriction. It is possible that I missed it, but I doubt it. This is a big big problem. You may not think so Rick but I don't see you offering to foot the bill either. If you really think it can be overcome, then you pay for it my friend.
I was at the game Monday and I think the low attendence is a way of people making a statement. All the free tickets that the Times gave out (including my two) and they couldn't even fill my section. Pathetic.
Hey but I got around that $10 you are now charging for parking Rick. I parked in my monthly spot over by BayWalk and hoofed it. That's right and thank goodness it's only May.
Word to the wise, there are lots on central between 9th and 16th that only charge five bucks!
Kay

[guy]

yuP RICK
Your absolutely right.
Let the Pros do it.

[The Big Picture]

The RFP respondants have stipulated that their offers of 50 and 61 million are based on the remediation, infrastructure and demolition of the trop site being paid by the city.

This of course is subject to negotiation (as is the price)

[Chuck]

So what's the point I'm hearing from everyone here?

In its current state the area is of no danger, correct? Move some soil and now we're talking about a problem, correct?

Realistically, how many more years do you envision the Trop being on that site assuming the stadium proposal falls flat?

It's going to have to be cleaned up at some point. Why not now?

[The Big Picture]

Chuck,
You are correct,
The city will at some point have to remediate the site! And the sooner the less expensive it will propbably be.

But, if the stadium issue is no longer in the picture, and the revenues created by the developed site are not pledged to build a new stadium, then the cost of remediation and development makes sense.

So if the Rays would find a site not on the waterfront and pay for their stadium themselves...

[Justin Elza]

I'm eventually going to have to put my kid through college as well. Why not do it now, since college is cheaper?

Um..because she's not ready, I don't have the money right now, and there is no need at this point in time.

[Justin Elza]

None of the RFP respondents have agreed to assume responsibility for remediation, nor should they.

However, it is currently an expense we cannot afford. We should clean it up over the years to come, but not as part of a costly project where not doing so in an expedited manner will make overall costs rise significantly.

[Chuck]

Well the city either pays for the cleanup themselves or the cost is deducted from the eventual sale price. The Rays didn't create the problem so you certainly can't expect them to pay for it.

All I'm saying is that I don't see how you can use the site contamination as an excuse to not build a new stadium and at the same time ignore the contamination until a later date.

This is your chance to shine. Press the city to clean up the site immediately and become environmental heroes. Your boy Hamilton would probably be against the cleanup however because it would require tax money, .000000000000000001% of which he paid personally and he doesn't feel it's the city's right to spend his money without first receiving proper harrassment.

[Justin Elza]

Chuck, I respect your opinion but question your logic.

First of all, I am not saying the Rays should pay for it themselves.

Second, as it stands right now, the contamination is contained and all is well. If however, we tear up the area to start laying foundation and moving huge quantities of substrate, we will inevitably be forced to do a major clean up. That cleanup could cost $1 million, it could cost $100 million.

If the cost is in the tens of millions, it could easily be more than the actual income we'd be receiving by selling the land.

At that point the project would be delayed while the taxpayers paid to clean the area up. This could, as at Raytheon, be an extracted process that would make the overall project much lengthier and more expensive than anticipated.

This is especially salient considering that the city is already facing severe budget cuts and the overall economy is shaky at best (with no signs of improvement anytime soon).

[Chuck]

No signs of improvement?

I thought Obama was the cure. Have some faith my man.

[Justin Elza]

Like George Micheal, I agree that you gotta have a-faith-a-faith-a-faith.

However, you also have to be realistic and prepared. Even if you want the stadium, you don't want to see a scenario where the project costs millions and millions more than anticipated (which can and does happen with these types of things ALL THE TIME, e.g. Raytheon, Yankee Stadium, etc).

[Chuck]

In the words of Winston Wolf - Let's not start sucking....well nevermind.

I suspect the contamination is similar to the contamination that exists under hundreds of older gas stations in the area (on a larger scale of course). Most importantly I'd want to see a report that outlines possible consequences for NOT cleaning up the site.

[Justin Elza]

Agreed, and that's an excellent point.

However, I'd like for all of these details to come out BEFORE the referendum process is started as opposed to afterwards or not at all.

[guy]

Fellow bloggers,
Whats a few minor problems?,
Seagrass,
No Parking,
Radiation in the soil,
No Parking,
No wind for the sailors,
No Parking,
Filling in a freshwater well,
No Parking,
Sunshine and Humidity,
No Parking,
90 Degrees on the field,
No Parking,
Poison water wells,
No Parking,
Thunder and Lightning,
No Parking,
Noise,
No Parking,
Screwing withh my taxes,
No Parking,
Doing business with liars and thieves,with liars and thieves
repping us.
And Did I mention??
No Parking.

[guy]

And No Parking for Obama either

If I were a member of POWW and had the opportunity to read through the posts on this and other blogs - I would be embarrased by those who seem to represent my side.

While there is plenty of dirt to throw around (and both sides throw their share) it seems to me, in the vast majority of cases, the first personal attacks come from the POWW side.

These personal attacks are a real turn off for someone who comes to these sites to get information about this issue.

Frankly, I'm inclined to vote for the stadium given the tenor of the "anti" side of the equation. If I don't respect you, I have a hard time respecting your position.

[Justin Elza]

Dear 1:46. And what about this type of behavior:

http://www.stpetepoww.com/rays-trespassing.jpg

Do you respect that?

[Justin Elza]

Fact is, there's a lot of unsavory behavior on either side of the issue. You should decide where you stand based on facts, however, not on who seems nicer in Howard's blog.

:)

[Steve Lange]

First, a seven hundred foot circle of contaminated land under the Dome was never cleaned up by the City. The city was fined $10,000 and let off the hook. Concrete walls were built on either side of Booker Creek to keep the existing, left behind contamination, from entering the creek through daily seepage. You do not build concrete walls unless there is an ongoing contamination threat. Also, the parking lots were capped off with pavement and now we learn that the FDEP feels strongly enough to want the pavement to remain via a deed restriction in order to cap off the remaining contamination. Over the years the city and tenant have cut holes and landscaping islands into and through this pavement protection cap. As I understand it each penetration is an FDEP violation. (Howard and Aaron you should check this out also.)

This means originally that the City did the absolute minimum to clean and build on this site to begin with and have violated the protection barrier (pavement) many times since.

What remains underground and in the public records could shock us all.

You see, back twenty years ago the City thought it could minimize the contamination clean up efforts and cost "because they had a game plan".

They were building a Dome and a parking lot that would be there for a "very long time". Now the body is going to be exumed and many who made the decisions back then are still around. Like Mr. Musset and his team. Like the legal department as well as many others.

Surely they all have reasons to keep this whole thing under wraps.

I believe the facts will come out now because the team of POWW researchers, combined with Mr. Troxler and Mr. Schockman's efforts, will bring them out.

And they will be brought out before the referendum election. This will surely aid in convincing the public which way to vote.

I believe we are on the verge of a project ending discovery. Maybe it will be the amount of contamination we eventually find.

Maybe not.

Or maybe it will be the depth of public corruption which brings this thing down.

All I know is that the more we dig, the more we learn.

Howard and Aaron, please keep helping us to learn what is hidden while sharing it with every single citizen of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County.

Thank you.

[Buzzard]

More butt covering going on there than at a Pampers test lab. Oh, what a tangled web.

[Matthew]

I am not a member of POWW but I post my comments here that question the sanity of the stadium scheme. And I throw NO insults. Those that do are merely immature and cannot let god logic speak for itself. I respect the work of POWW but understand that many that write here are not members of it or of the Fans group but merely people who are expressing their views

Rick's a political hack and a developer's puppet, what do you expect.

[The Rub!]

I’ll lay 10-1 odds right now that it never makes the ballot!

[guy]

I'll Take 10 to 1 on mostly anything

[Chuck]

The Rub!,

Put me down for $1,000.

[guy]

Steve Lange,
Thanks for making people aware of the true picture here.
Where can I get one of those red shirts???

[Reality]

Try to keep things in perspective folks. Good, hardworking taxpayers are losing their homes at an alarming rate, near 26%. This is primarily due to incompetent government leadership – both local and state – in the areas of taxation and insurance regulation. I suspect the very last thing one can expect from a citizenry that is close to being taxed and insured out of their home… is to vote to pay for a new home for the Rays. Particularly when the Rays have a perfectly good one right now.

[guy]

I will support POWW and everything they are trying to do.
They are making use of a valuable tool the Ray's didn't count on "The Internet"

[Buzzard]

Enough of the POWW commercials already. Quit begging.

[Chuck]

Someone needs to put the truth-o-meter on Reality. 26%??? What are you trying to represent with that number?

[Reality]

Mr. Chuck,

I stand ready for, and accountable to the challenge. Try to step outside your bubble and think of the global surroundings. There are far too many factors impacting societal tracking. Gas prices, job loss, over taxation, inflated insurance premiums, and yes; a 26% foreclosure rate in Florida alone, brings about an anticipated and expected result in such initiatives. It’s worse in other places around the country.

I recognize that you’re passionate about this proposal, if not absolutely for it. But in reality, it’s bad timing and all the players know it. I tend to agree with Carl; this game has been over for some time now, and it makes no sense to continue. Therefore, one must consider why we are in fact, continuing.

[Winston]

What I can't understand is how did People's Gas get out from under the clean-up of this site?

[Chuck]

From the Tampa Bay Business Journal:

"The state had 32,447 properties in some form of foreclosure last month, according to statistics provided by RealtyTrac. That was 7.5 percent higher than January and a nearly 70 percent jump from February 2007. It represented one foreclosure action for every 254 homes."

Now I'm not really sure what you're trying to say but it sounds like you're saying 26% of all homes in Florida are currently under foreclosure. Is this correct?

[Don in St. Pete]

I believe there were also several gas stations and a Dry Cleaner's under the land that is now Tropicana Field. No telling what they'd find under there. When di Jimmy Hoffa disappear again?

[Paul]

Here's what the FDEP sent to our City.

The May 8th, 2007 letter states on Page 2, Section 1 the presence of:

Acenaphthene

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:JOfEUj0QNaQJ:www.epa.gov/wastemin/factshts/acnphthe.pdf+what+is+acenaphthene&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

The above is also referred to as 'PAH's and here's a link to what they are:

http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/pah.html

Then in the same May 8th letter on Page 3, Section 1 it states the presence of:

Florine

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-fluorine.htm

Then in the July 27 letter the FDEP points out the PAH levels are unacceptable.

Take a look. Both of these toxins seem dangerous. Not sure about you, but I'm not thinking you'll be stepping on any unpaved surfaces over the by Trop anytime soon... especially those of you with little kids. Ohh, sorry that's right, this has all been mitigated so we need not be concerned. Carry on then. No problems here, I mean its not like the FDEP is up in arms over this.

... although they do end the last letter with 'continued failure to comply... will result in enforcement action.'

Now that would not be so good for our Green City, now would it, Mr. Mayor... uhh, Mr. Mayor? Mayor... ? ahh, right, he' not saying squat about anything cause he's only the Mayor.

Not all birth defects are bad. The monkey's had birth defect and had humans. How may times you wished or needed a third hand? See! With the right amount of DNA contamination your children or grand children could be the next genetic move in human evolution.

It's all good.
I am learning how to spin. It feels good.

[Paul]

Hey, that's an article right there, 'Green City Ignores FDEP Requests for 8 Years... and tries to sell contaminated property against publics' wish'.

[Reality]

Mr. Chuck,

You nailed me on a technicality; I cede the point. 1-in-4 is either in foreclosure or some level of default. That was my error; I should have been more explanative. Nevertheless, it is an ominous economic environment for this plan, and the factors I mentioned are, and will continue to play a role in this situation. As I noted; “I suspect the very last thing one can expect from a citizenry that is close to being taxed and insured out of their home… is to vote to pay for a new home for the Rays. Particularly when the Rays have a perfectly good one right now.”

Furthermore, as this wages on, we seem to open one ethically, legally, or environmentally questionable door after another. I suspect we will soon reach a point when it becomes politically expedient, if not downright legally advisable, for those involved to shelve it for another day. Simply put; this will not happen without someone(s) committing either or both political and/or legal suicide.

[Albany]

The map of the Trop site shows the following in the area east of 16th Street:
1) the gas plant
2) an asphalt plant (major hydro carbons)
3) a dry cleaning plant
4) 3 gas stations
5) many underground tanks
6) a maintenance facility for city vehicles, including degreasing facilities
7) Municipal incinerator (the ash was spread over the surround field, including toxic metals)
8) coke storage
9) fabrication shop
10) paint warehouse
11) meatpacking plant
12) lumber yard

Think we have any candidates for pollution in that list? Keep in mind that most of the site was not assessed for environmental issues at the time.

Don't know what we had west of 16th.

[Floyd]

Howard,
It seems to me that the city cannot be trusted to tell the citizens of St. Pete the truth.
RE: the toxic plume in the Azalea neighborhood. This fact was withheld for many years from residents.
Kind makes one wonder what other really nasty situation they are withholding.

[None of the Above]

To Rick K...

Have you lost your mind, seriously, have you.

Let’s Review…

Possible Serious, Costly Environmental Issues…and more obfuscation (of Course)…

Matched against…

NO Real Need for a New Stadium;

NO True Support (or Means in the amount necessary) to Fund It;

NO Open and Honest Brokers for It on the Affirmative Side;

NO Reason Whatsoever to Go Forward, at This Time, On this Timetable, During This Economy, for Project Ridiculous.

Might I suggest that beginning in July, all those fine folks who say that an outdoors stadium, in Florida, in the middle of Summer, will be just wonderful to watch a game in, do the following:

Get your group together, take an umbrella, and “attempt” to sit in the stands at Al Lang during the current game times at that time.

How much you wanna bet it’ll take less than a month of actually trying this for the sanest among them (if there are any) to realize just how much this is to become “Baker’s Folly”.

Not to mention what to do with it if the Team leaves.

[Chris Jenkins]

An Open Round Table Discussion on the Proposed Waterfront Stadium
Hosted by Chris Jenkins and Gary Grooms

Where: The Globe Coffee Lounge
501 1st Ave N
St. Pete, Fl. 33701

When: Saturday, 05/31/08
7:00PM

What: It's time for the residents of St. Pete to get out from behind their computers and get together in person to talk about the future of our city. We've decided there's too much animosity in the conversations online, and it's time to act like civilized human beings, and have a real conversation about the issue, over snacks and drinks. Munchies will be provided, and there will be no formal structure. This isn't a televised debate; it's a casual evening of conversation and exploration among fellow citizens. The evening will begin at the Globe Coffee Lounge in St. Petersburg, and will include a walking tour similar to what might be expected on actual game days if the proposed stadium is built. This will allow us to meet the people behind the ideas, see the areas we are talking about in person, and get a feel for the businesses and spaces that would be affected by the proposal. Appetizers will be provided at The Globe, and beer, wine, sangria, and various non-alcoholic coffee type drinks will be available at the bar. Please come out and join your fellow city residents in a real conversation about this very important matter.