Tuesday's column on Monday! How to mess up the next time, too

Here's most of Tuesday's column -- I still will put some sort of a top on it related to Monday night's game. But the main point of the column is a post-mortem of what I claim were the two key failures of the stadium push.

* * *

... But booing the Boston Red Sox is not today’s topic. The topic is the Rays’ now-dead proposal for a waterfront baseball stadium, and what we ought to learn from it.

The real failure of the stadium idea, after all, was a failure to win public opinion. If the public had overwhelmingly loved the idea, we’d be voting on it in November. All the problems would have worked out magically.

Instead, there were two key failures that poisoned the deal and made it a political no-go.

The first failure, and the most damaging, was the initial secrecy.

The Rays and the city of St. Petersburg exploited a loophole in state law to sign a secret agreement in April 2007. The loophole allows secrecy for matters concerning “economic development.”

But even if such a loophole were justified, using it for seven months to keep the taxpayers in the dark about the single biggest, most important decision facing the community in decades was simply unconscionable.

And it’s not like the city simply signed the deal and keep quiet — it went out of its way to deceive the public, to try to talk voters out of their silly idea of preserving the waterfront site as a park, and to make sure that didn’t happen.

The city even thought it necessary to keep the secret during elections for a new City Council — the same council that would be making the stadium decision. No sense worrying the voters’ pretty little heads with an actual issue!

So when the deal did finally become public in November, right after the election, it already was crippled politically.

The second key failure was the appearance of a bait and switch on the financing.

The stadium deal went public in November as a set of pretty pictures and little more. The Rays glibly asserted that the development of the old Tropicana Field site would pay for the new stadium. As for the pesky financial details, those would come later.

Only months later did the hard facts emerge — both the city and the county taxpayers were expected have to stay on the hook for another 30 years or so of debt. And no, there could be no guarantees that the Tropicana redevelopment would pay for it.

So now the deal is dead, wisely killed by the Rays themselves. We will start a new stadium process, with more involvement and leadership from the area’s business community. Good.

I hope they think twice about the secret-deal angle. If they wanna keep secrets, keep 'em as short-term and limited in scope as possible. Do not engage in active deception of the citizens. Remember the political cost on the back end.

And it might be a good idea, when they do come up with a new plan, to treat the public like grown-ups and say up front what it’s really going to cost us. Get the sticker shock out of the way on the front end; we’ll all sputter and yell — and then we will see whether enough of us calm down and get used to it.

Comments

[Hammer]

Fair enough. Don't forget to remind Chuck he owes me 100K... ;-)

[guy]

We haven't heard from chuck since

[Don in St. Pete]

Or Rick K.

[henry berger]

Asking the public to pay millions of dollars to ruin their waterfront and downtown.... Well no wonder they would keep it a secret.
henry

[Lee]

Tampa is drooling.
They want and can taste it: The New Tampa Stadium for the Rays !

--I agree about the secrecy and condescending treatment of St Pete's voters (eliminating the chronic whiners, of course). Maybe with a new location and an open discussion of downtown's ability to be the chosen site, we can get to an accomodation that keeps MLB here. That airport has some nice waterfront and lots of space.
Let's hope the developers have a forgiving heart and an open ear, and we can do the same.

[Simon]

I completely agree with you. I would have been more willing to support the stadium if not for the clandestine dealmaking. We already have a federal government working without any consideration for what the people want. Remember Dick Cheney's, "So what?" We don't need that locally as well.

[John]

Howard,

There has been little to no coverage (that I've seen) about where this leaves Archstone and the whole RFP process. It was based on the Rays securing financing and winning the referendum, wasn't it? The Rays got neither.

Does it start over now? Have they (Atchstone) said anything?

[Hammer]

This puts Archstone and Bear Creek in a pickle... with respect to potential sites and recuperative funding. Whatever it will be, it will be fun to watch. Don’t count on complete integrity and Sunshine.

[Kathleen]

Seventh inning Rays are up 4-2. Thunder and lightning outside would have resulted in a rain delay.

Unfortunately, neither the Rays nor City Council have much credibility at this point. Baker does not have the authority to decide to renegotiate the lease. It is already flawed.

[Matthew]

Howard, You wrote:

We will start a new stadium process, with more involvement and leadership from the area’s business community. Good.

The Business Community? They'll just droll and slaver over the Rays and give them whatever they want. What about representation from us little people? The taxpayers. How about representatives from POWW, an environmental group, someone from the arts council. Some people who will tell the truth and make intelligent decisions for the average guy. And, most importantly, someone who is good at numbers. I hope to God we are not treated to another six months of "we'll get back to you on that" from the slick New Yorkers.

[Howard Troxler]

On the Archstone question, I thought the entire thing was contingent on the stadium going forward, and so there is nothing outstanding vis-a-vis the developer. The city's original RFP as I recall made it abundantly clear. Kathleen, anybody else, do you know any different?

[Don Mott]

I believe Aaron mentioned that in one of his columns. Neither the Rays nor the city would be liable for the developers costs to deliver bids. I also recall reading that Archstone would be willing to develop around the Dome or a new stadium on the property. I'm sure they are not happy campers right now.

[Chris in FL]

Its ironic how you 'spouters' sided with the claims about players feeling sick from the Ground Pollution. Yet now that they are record setters not a word? Come on, well I for think that perhaps the Chemical Waste may be to blame for their success?

Guess you all were right, 'It was the stadium afterall!'

[Jim Johnson]

Howard you cant be more wrong.

What killed the deal is the impending economic crisis that promises to swallow us whole. The stadium was the Siren's Call to disaster. The blind can smell it coming. Do you seriously believe fans will use expensive gasoline to drive to St.Pete?

[Bryan McGuire]

Howard...Right on, you're the best! The Rays need to hire you as PR man with the "Straight Talk Express".

Bryan McGuire

[John]

Howard,

RE: Archstone saying they'd be "happy" to develop part of the Trop instead...

That wasn't what the RFP was for. It was for the whole kit and kaboodle. As I see it, the whole RFP for redeveloping the Trop is dead.

What if Sembler or Hines also wish to re-bid on "partial" redevelopment?

Seems to me the whole thing is back to square one. Archstone has no deal to redevelop squat, since the RFP as proposed, is no mo.

If I were the President of Archstone, I'd be a little miffed at the Rays right about now. They've dropped a small fortune to scope that site out.

[make a deal]

Howard -

The mistake made by the Rays was hiring independent political consultant Bernie Campbell. He in my opinion was lazy and consistently gave bad advise.

He only accomplished getting Gov. Crist to say a few times he thought the waterfront stadium was good for St. Pete.

Let me ask this...Considering Stu Sternberg (and other investors) purchased the team just 2 and half years ago, how could they have presented a new stadium any other way? Their interest is to make the Rays ball club as successful as possible as soon as possible. It was purchased for this purpose(I assume).

I for one was relieved we had some deep pocket, forward thinking investors take interest in the Rays. I took no pride in having a losing baseball team in a stadium that looked like a water treatment facility.

Is it not true that if all the public knew before the Rays had even one parking study done or one draft of financing completed, that there would be more content for not having any answers.
And how would they have been able to get the information to us any faster. First, they needed to get a descent proposal together that would be taken seriously. Right???
If there wasn't a snowballs chance in you know where, then the Rays wanted to know that so of course they had to ask the city council.
They got a lot done in 2 and half years. From the inside out to even the future.

It's impressive and I'm ashamed St. Pete gave them the cold shoulder!

[Kathleen]

Howard,

City staff made a big deal about these items being two separate items. Thus, the Council's June 5 resolution authorizes city administration to proceed with providing notices to certain owners for a referendum for the long term lease of AL Land field had no reference to the Archstone redevelopment proposal. Council's June 19th resolution selecting Archstone Madison as the preferred developer has no reference to the Al Lang Field referendum (although it references a June 13 report that talks about having enough money from the sale of the Trop site to retire the stadium debt) but delineates conditions for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which includes a requirement for an ultimate master plan with 4 to 5.5 million sq ft of building density. This necessarily includes demolition of the existing dome to have the land necessary to come up with that sq ft. But, that will not happen if the dome is not demolished. The Trop will not be demolished if no new stadium is built. Nonetheless, the City did notify the Rays and the County of the RFP process and the developers agreed that they could partially redevelop the Trop site, i.e. the parking lots, so, in my opinion, both the referendum and the MOU are still out there awaiting further council action. Also, the mayor is obligated to execute contracts previously approved by City Council, like the current stadium use agreement. Absent direction from council I just do not see where the mayor has any authority to go off and negotiate a new stadium for the Rays on his own. In fact, since he lacks that authority, I think he is acting on his own. Or is it misuse of public office to benefit another?

[Susie Q]

Good one Kathleen.

[ed]

HOWARD-this is one of your best columns except for your comment that involving the business community is good-they are only interested in the business community--not THE WHOLE COMMUNITY!!

[Pella]

User fees! Let the baseball fans pay for the new stadium. End of the dilema.

[since1962]

Howard,
I believe Rays will try engaging St Pete and BOCC in a "bidding war" over stadium location and subsidies.

Voters will scream foul again regardlesss of referendum requirement and we'll be back to square one.

[Rick K on this NONSENSE about the Mayor]

Kathleen, who posted above on July 1 (5:39 PM), has tried this in a few other places.

It is such a typical dishonest tactic by POWW and their ANTI bretheren who are, by repeatedly resorting to dishonest and dishonorable tactics, becoming a growing cancer in this City.

Civic participation is fine.

What is NOT fine is fabricating lies out of whole cloth and attepmting to present those as legitimate questions about public issues.

Section 4.01 of the City Charter dictates that the Mayor shall be responsible for the administration of ALL City affairs placed under the charge by or under the charter. (Emphasis mine)

Section 4.04 of the City Charter dictates that the Mayor shall appoint City officers and Department Directors and delegate responsibilities to them. The Mayor shall establish and define the duties of any City Departments. The Mayor shall prepare and submit the annual budget to the City Council. And, the Mayor shall see that all laws and acts of the Council are followed. The Mayor is also obligated to ensure that budgeted funds are spent on the activities for which they were budgeted.

Because the City's Annual budget and ordinances which enact it designate monies to be spent by the Department of Development, the LAW requires that the Mayor direct City Staff to perform the specific funtions of that Department, as spelled out in the City Budget.

According to the City Budget:

The City Development Department plays a lead role in sports franchise negotiations and development projects downtown.

Under LAW, this is the JOB of that department, which job is to be performed under the Mayor's direction.

The City Budget charges the Development Services Department with responsibility for all plans, regulations, review and inspection of all PYSICAL GROWTH in St. Petersburg. The DSD is also charged with "meeting with property owners and developers to review their development goals and identify the process to achieve those goals."

The DSD is charged with ensuring that construction plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all other ordinances and code provisions.

So, Kathlene is Clearly wrong.

The MAYOR is REQUIRED by law to negotiate with the Rays and people seeking to develop property Downtown.

That is his JOB.

It is simply insance that some of these ANTI-Stadium kooks will stoop to any trick, no matter how ludicrous, to try to distract people, distort reality, or create "issue fatigue."

It's just insane.

[Sara]

I know Rick, just insane. I can't stand it, can't stand POWW either.

But I have even less patience for our pathetic local government and the never ending attempts of the rich to fleece the rest of us. Skirting the law or using a technicality to their obscene advantage. Just makes my stomach turn.

Well, those who stick up for the shysters and defend them to their dying breath are pretty nauseating too.

[Kathleen]

There is a contract in place between the Rays and the City. Baker is obligated to enforce that contract. Baker does not have the authority to renegotiate a new contract on his own nor does the mayor have the authority to delegate the renegoatiation of an exisiting contract. The decison to renegotiate and existing contract is a policy decision that requires City Council authorization vis a vis a City Council Resolution. Moreover, the current agreement forbids the Club from discussing a move. Now if folks just want to chat on their own. Fine. But, if you ask for public money or public assets or to seek to get out of a current public contract then only the City Council and Board of County Commissioners have the authority to make those policy changes. Anyone else who harms the business relationship or interferes with the business relationship between the City and the Club (the Rays) who is not a party to the agreement is arguably tortiously interfering with either the contract or the business relationship and should be responsible for the damages caused.