The Friday stadium discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks nice. where's the warranty?

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

The key question is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * *

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

* Team owners: $150-million

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

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

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

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

Poll: Rays stadium financing plan

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

A program note

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

New stadium blog!

I just wanted to mention that the St. Petersburg Times is starting a new blog devoted exclusively to the proposed Rays baseball stadium in downtown St. Pete. The name of the blog is Ballpark Frankness, and here's a link:

http://blogs.tampabay.com/ballpark

Ballpark Frankness is hosted by my colleague Aaron Sharockman (right), and it will be a good place to check for the latest developments on the stadium front. In fact, the details of our editorial board's meeting today with Hines Senior Vice President Michael T. Harrison are already on the blog. That first blurb comes from a question I asked him -- is Hines willing to guarantee that the project will pay for the baseball stadium? No way, he replied.

As for me, I'll still be holding regular chats and putting up posts here on TroxBlog, but I'll cross-post anything related to the stadium over there as well. Not that I'm suggesting you hang out in his place instead of mine, see.

Two stadium environmental documents

Lorraine M. posts:

I have just asked Mr. Troxler if he would get two documents in my possession up on this blog......first, a 2003 SWIFTMUD report on the artesian well about 1,000 foot off the seawall of the proposed project. Also, the pre-agreement BETWEEN THE SWIFTMUD AND THE RAYS. Note that there ARE sea grasses, manatee and several other issues requiring mitigation. I don't know if Howard will do this......but you might find it interesting if he'll humor me.

Sure. The documents to which Ms. M. refers:

Download StPeteMarinawell.pdf

Download premeeting.doc

Here's the transcript of the April 22 live chat

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

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

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

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

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

The city staff's stadium memo

Don't forget today's two-hour live chat on the stadium proposal, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. here on TroxBlog. Come back and look for a new post with the headline, "The April 22 chat is OPEN." The full chat announcement and comments with "pre-filed" questions can be found two posts below.

In my column this morning, I made reference to a 45-page memo from the St. Petersburg city staff finding some problems with the Tampa Bay Rays' site plan for the proposed waterfront stadium. Here's a copy of that memo: Download citymemo.pdf

I hope to see you at today's chat!

The CONA vote on the stadium

Here's the link to our news item about last night's vote of the St. Petersburg Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA) vote AGAINST the stadium proposal. The vote was 19-3.

Here's the report that the full CONA board voted on: Download cona_report.pdf

Column: Nuts, bolts of stadium finances

Well, here's today's print column, in which I am trying to lay out the way that I think (based on a bunch of conversations) the financing of this stadium deal might work.

I understand if you think the parking, environmental or aesthetic considerations make the whole idea ludicrous. For me, the threshold question is whether the thing hurts the taxpayers in the first place -- if it does, there's no need to go any further; otherwise let's have the debate.

In case you missed it, check out the vigorous comments to yesterday's post on this topic -- 55+ last time I checked -- with all points of view well represented.

* * * *

Let's talk about the baseball stadium in St. Petersburg, and what that financial deal needs to look like as it gets hammered out over the coming critical weeks and months.

The Tampa Bay Rays have proposed a $450-million stadium on the city's downtown waterfront.

The Rays say they will put up $150-million, and that they will cover any cost overruns.

That leaves $300-million or so. The city's starting (and final) conditions for taking part in this deal ought to be:

(1) Not a penny of tax money is diverted from any existing use.

(2) There's no additional risk to the taxpayers.

So, then, how do we pay for it? In theory, the money is supposed to come from selling and redeveloping the 86-acre site of Tropicana Field.

Time for some details on stadium

I am not overly impressed with this vague harrumphing by the St. Petersburg City Council over not liking the deal for a proposal baseball stadium. We already know that it does not matter what the council says, only what it does, and there is plenty of time still to roll over for the Tampa Bay Rays.

More interesting to me are the precise terms of the business deal, which are yet to emerge. I am getting the feeling that the proposal will NOT "pay for itself" from the redevelopment of Tropicana Field, as was originally promised. In fact, I am betting that the proposed deal ends up keeping taxpayers on the hook for both the county tourism tax, and the city sales taxes, now being paid on the Trop. The argument will be, "Well, you were already paying that much anyway, so it's not a 'new' tax." But it was GOING TO BE PAID OFF eventually on the Trop... so it sure as heck IS a 'new' tax if we have to keep paying it.

Bottom line is that if the Tropicana redevelopment agreement does not guarantee the city's share of the cost of a new stadium, then it is a bad deal, and the council should reject it -- and now, I am all ears for hearing from folks who disagree. What say? At any rate, this is Topic A for a Thursday column.

Pretty pictures, indeed

The three proposals opened Tuesday for the redevelopment of Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg contained many graceful and attractive artist's renderings. All three proposed some graceful mix of retail, office, residential, green space and public use.

This is all well and good. I'm not a naysayer trying to stand in the way of "progress," as some folks characterize the plan's skeptics. But I HAVE spent my entire career watching cities get carried away with pretty drawings and promises in projects such as this without doing their due diligence.

Two points have to be stressed over and over:

(1) By themselves, these proposals mean nothing. Zip. They can promise all the neat stores and X number of jobs and X dollars in economic impact that they want. What matters is the contract that the city enters into. What teeth will the contract have? What guarantees will there be if the goals of the contract are not met? The contract itself is not the guarantee. And neither is a simple "reverter" clause saying that as a last resort, the city can taken the land back. That is a "nuclear option" that does the city little good, as a practical measure.

(2) None of these ideas pays for a new baseball stadium -- not yet, anyway. And that is the entire purpose of this project. The Hines proposal is for a purchase price of the site of $50 million, and even that phased in with dribbles and drabs -- much less than any sale figure I've heard bandied about. The Archstone-Madison proposal is not even for a sale, but just a lease. As for the Williams Quarter proposal -- pretty drawings now, we can talk about those pesky little business details later. All of the grand estimates of tax revenues that will be generated might work, but again, there have to be guarantees.

On top of this, the Archstone proposal calls for the taxpayers to pay for the destruction of Tropicana Field, which I thought was pretty much the purpose of hiring a developer. Both the Archstone and the Hines proposals say the taxpayers will pay for any unexpected costs of environmental cleanup. That is a reasonable position for the companies -- but it will be UNreasonable for the city to agree unless it is entirely sure of what it is doing.

I will be curious to see whether the city continues to take these proposals at face value for as long as possible, choosing one of the developers and only then getting around to the nitty-gritty business details.

Here's the St. Pete City Council video

Here's a video of the St. Petersburg City Council's discussion on Dec. 20 in which the council re-confirms its intention to include the designation of Al Lang Field as a park when it next amended the city's land-use rules. The discussion takes about six minutes.

This past Thursday, the council finally passed that amendment -- but without the Al Lang designation. Citizens who supported the park idea were upset and said that the council had gone back on its word. But some of the council members deny it. So, I thought it would be useful to show the video.

Note that Bill Foster starts by asking his colleagues -- haven't we already agreed to do this? Am I crazy? Are we going back on our decision? Council chairman James Bennett assures him that the Al Lang issue will be "number one" in the ordinance. Others agree, and member Herb Polson says that anything else would be contrary to what had already been said.

But that was then, this is now... my Sunday column asks whether the council has yet something else up its sleeve for Al Lang, even if the idea of a waterfront stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays falls through.

St. Pete passes ordinance -- without Al Lang

I love government.

As expected, the St. Petersburg City Council this morning completed the process of breaking its word to the citizens about the future of Al Lang Field.

After months of saying that the "number one" priority in the land-use ordinance passed today would be protecting Al Lang Field, the council passed an ordinance without it.

Here is why I love government -- because of the way that government thinks. The council actually thinks that in breaking its word to the public today, it came up with an acceptable alternative.

Council member Jeff Danner offered a resolution to the effect that the city should now conduct a "visioning" process on Al Lang's future.

Visioning! That is a government and consultant word. The idea is that everybody should "vision" about what they want to see at the Al Lang site in a bunch of yak-yak sessions.

So, you see, last year's public hearings that discussed the Al Lang site, where the public said it wanted Al Lang protected as a park, do not count.

And the City Council's repeated statements dating from last August that it would make Al Lang the "number one" priority in today's ordinance do not count either.

So instead of doing what it said it was going to do, the City Council has delayed everything for months to come. And this "visioning" nonsense is just one more way for the city to "keep its options open."

* * *

Council member Leslie Curran, a few moments ago, tried to cast doubt on my column in this morning's newspaper about my representation of what the council said about Al Lang in its Dec. 20 meeting. I am not sure how she can deny what is on the video of the meeting. As I said in the column, you can see the discussion for yourself on the city's web site. The Al Lang discussion starts about 3 hours and 42 minutes into the recording.

* * *

Update, 11 a.m. -- actual closing quote from council chairman James Bennett:

"I think that this council has been very prudent and has taken its time and been deliberative on this issue, and open. This is a very fluid event, and I think we're doing very well."

St. Pete Times pro-stadium conspiracy!

In doing more research on the Rays proposal, I now understand why we've not heard more under cover work about the real scoop re the Rays. Clearly your hands are tied with respect true, open reporting. According to Forbes magazine the Times is one of the major corporate underwriters of the Rays. Can we say conflict of interest? I am sorry for you ... I am sure you would like to be able to tell the true story -  to get to the bottom of what is "rotten in the state of Denmark." Used to be we little people could count on the Times to look out for us - to tell the whole story. But...... well, you guys gotta make a living. I understand. I'll send all the new, juicy stuff I uncover to the Tribune. FIA, Florida sunshine law, injunctions, power brokering - you know.  But you wouldn't touch it anyway. Just one problem of a newspaper underwriting a sports team. C'est la vie. -- Willie Doyle

Dear Mr. Doyle: I appeal to the record. I began my first stadium column with the words "No, no, no, no, no." I wrote columns accusing the city of St. Petersburg of being a liar, and accusing the city of conducting a fraud against the citizens by keeping this plan secret for most of 2007. I have said repeatedly that the city ought to conduct new elections for the City Council to replace the sham elections that it conducted last year while keeping this secret. I wrote that the City Council was rushing into issuing the RFP, and accused the City Council of breaking its promise to protect the waterfront Al Lang site as a parkland. I keep saying there is no way the city should ever, ever enter into this deal without ironclad guarantees that the taxpayers will not be at risk. I don't give a hoot in hell about who the Times' advertising or marketing partners are and I think that this track record proves it.

Blog note: new category

I figured that since we've had so much talk on TroxBlog about the proposed baseball stadium for downtown St. Petersburg, and since we'll be talking about it a lot more this year, it deserves its own category in the archives. You'll see it over there in the left-hand column with the heading, "Baseball Stadium? What Baseball Stadium?"

The archive includes every blog post, chat transcript and collection of reader comments so far that pertains to the stadium. I imagine the topic will be the subject of more live chats as well -- unless, of course, the St. Petersburg City Council opens the proposals in March and says, "Nah, we've changed our minds." Fat chance!

The RFP, Part Two

Well, that didn't take long. The St. Petersburg City Council convened at 3 p.m. and was finished by about 4 -- and the first half of that was about matters unrelated to baseball stadiums.

By a vote of 7-1, with Herb Polson dissenting, the council approved the city's invitation to developers for proposals to redevelop the site of Tropicana Field. The Tropicana project is supposed to help pay for a new waterfront stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays.

There weren't many folks from the public there, maybe in part because of the advance statements that there wouldn't be any public comment. Tax protester and City Hall critic David McKalip tried to speak, but was ruled out of order by council chairman James Bennett.

The next major step occurs on March 18, when the city will unseal the proposals that it gets in response to this invitation.

The RFP, Part One

It took the St. Petersburg City Council a little less than two hours to get through its workshop Thursday morning on issuing an invitation to developers for how to redevelop the Tropicana Field site. The council will convene in its regular session at 3 p.m. today to take a formal vote.

The council considered reversing course and allowing public comment this afternoon, but then decided against it since it was short notice & wouldn't be fair to the folks who had already decided not to come. Instead, the council will hold a series of public hearings over the spring -- but heck, they will already have issued the RFP, which is what people today wanted to comment about!

More later.

St. Petersburg City Council: rushing the RFP; breaking a promise

On Thursday, the St. Petersburg City Council will meet to hold its first -- and only -- discussion of the request that the city will send out to developers about the future of the Tropicana Field site.

The city's "request for proposals," called an RFP, is already drawn up and ready to go. The city intends to send it out on Friday.

It is not clear to me exactly why we need a City Council at all, actually.

Remember, this is the other half of the deal for a new waterfront stadium. The existing Tropicana Field would be sold and redeveloped. The sale proceeds, and future property taxes, would be used to help pay for the new stadium.

The council will hold an informal workshop on the RFP in the morning, and then formally approve the document in its afternoon meeting that starts at 3 p.m. There is no public comment during the workshop, and no public comment listed on the afternoon agenda. Isn't that a heck of a sentence?

* * * * *

Also, please take note of this important story in this morning's Neighborhood Times by my colleague Cristina Silva.

The story says that the City Council is breaking its repeated commitment that it made to the citizens last year to re-designate the old Al Lang waterfront site for a park, when it re-mapped the city.

The City Council promised to re-designate Al Lang in August, when it approved the new citywide rules. It repeated that pledge in December. Some of the council members repeated the statement to me, to my face.

But it was not the case. Now the city will leave Al Lang available for whatever purposes that City Hall chooses down the road.

It is true that if the plan for a baseball stadium did go through, then park designation wouldn't matter anyway. But it matters NOW. And it matters if the new stadium is not built after all.

The City Council said it was going to do it. It made that promise to the citizens. How can the citizens believe anything the council says about a new stadium or anything else, if it can so easily break its word?

* * * * *

Please do not misunderstand these criticisms. Unlike some of my friends who have made up their minds for other reasons, I am not opposed to the idea of the waterfront baseball stadium. This is entirely about the process leading up to it -- for the voters to approve any deal in November, this has to be 100 percent public, and handled well by the city.

So far it hasn't been on either count.

Here's the (Tropicana) pitch...

Heres a copy [Download RFP-Trop.site.PDF]  of the city's of St. Petersburg's request for proposals (the "RFP") to redevelop the site of Tropicana Field. The City Council will review at its Thursday meeting and then it is supposed to be sent out on Friday.

The RFP is vague or silent on the specific financial requirements the city is looking for -- although in theory, whatever happens at the Trop site has to help pay for a $450-million baseball stadium down on the waterfront.

I'm getting copied on several citizen e-mails asking the City Council to delay (or even defeat) the RFP. Defeating it would, of course, kill the entire deal right away and that is not going to happen. The city will move ahead on the theory of "we're just gathering information here." The question is how far down this road the city goes before it then argues, "We've gone too far to turn back."

Here's a baseball e-mail from a dissatisfied customer

You think there's any chance at all that the Times can or will say something positive about the proposed stadium ?? The e-mail that I sent a few days ago I originally intended to send to the Times - but I decided instead to send it to the Mayor and the Chamber of Commerce.  My reasoning was that they might not be quite so biased. It would be nice to see the Times mention that our Chamber of Commerce web site has a picture of the proposed stadium - along with quite a bit of "positive" information.  It might also be helpful to provide a chart or graph showing how the Rays' proposal stacks up against other cities stadiums - or give your readers the websites of those other ball club's stadiums. What I didn't mention below, but will here is that a major league city deserves a major league newspaper, not one that pushes it's bush league attitudes on it's citizens. -- David Good

Dear Mr. Good: Speaking for myself, I have described the proposed stadium as beautiful and exciting, and the concept of the new "downtown west" on the existing Tropicana Field site as "gracious." Indeed I also have been critical of City Hall for keeping the proposal for a new stadium secret for most of 2007. I also have expressed the opinion several times that any deal needs to provide iron-clad protection for taxpayers on the front end. If this is a "bush league attitude," then so be it.

We have lots of information about the proposed stadium, renderings, virtual tours, etc., and related topics gathered on our web site in a single location.

Lastly, as I said in a reply to a reader the other day, it is kind of refreshing to be accused of being a negative nabob, since most of the time the newspaper is assume to be in the tank for City Hall, in bed with boosterism and so forth...

Assorted other baseball comments

On Wednesday night's public input session on what to do with the Tropicana Field site IF it were redeveloped: [Times photo | Edmund D. Fountain]

My wife and I attended, as well. We were separated, sent to different tables. Probably a good thing, because we came away with two totally different experiences. At our table, there was adamant expression of our frustration with the guidelines for the meeting – that nothing should be said regarding the “new” stadium... The gentleman next to me called the entire process “a scam” because we were playing right into the Rays’ hands by proposing development ideas based on the stadium being razed. That’s why we were united in our recommendation that any new site development include a stadium. Ain’t St. Pete politics fun? -- Paul Cooper

Most of the tables I visited included "keep it as a stadium" as an option. But, even that was a little rigged, since "keep stadium" was only ONE out of all the options that got "votes." But really, that's the first decision to be made -- keep it as a stadium, or build a new one? Then and only then do we decide what to do with the Trop! So, it was kind of a fake weighting of the "keep as a stadium" option. If they try later to claim the event was some sort of proof for support for change, I think we should blow the whistle big-time. But I suppose until then we should have good faith that they would simply include the public comments as the "what if" the way it was pitched.

Like it or not, I suspect you are being anointed as the Keeper of the Castle when it comes to protecting the taxpayers from the owner and management of the Rays.  To say that the Rays would love to pull the wool over the taxpayers eyes, would certainly be a major understatement. -- John Garner, Treasure Island

I don't know if I am cut out for being keeper of the castle, though. Really, all I keep saying is that I want to see the numbers up front, and for the taxpayers to have iron-clad protection. Without that iron-clad protection, there ain't no way the city should enter into this deal. On the other hand, there are lots of other folks are opposed to the stadium because it's waterfront, outdoors, because of environment, parking and all that kind of stuff  -- I'm not. Heck, I'm a fan, I'll go if it's there.

So now this losing franchise wants a shiny new stadium. The owners haven't put a winning (or even a substantially improved) team on the field for ten years now yet they pine for this new stadium which will hold only 34,000.  I suppose if they must watch a loosing team at least the yuppies pushing for this stadium will enjoy the waterfront view. This is not about honoring a commitment to produce a competitive team, this is about procuring a new toy to solve a problem. -- J. Blomgren

And also, along those lines:

Why don't the owners of the Rays take the money to be used for the stadium and buy some good athletes like George Steinbrenner does? Maybe if the Rays would win some games and become contenders for the World Series, people will start going to the games at the Trop! Then they could talk about a new stadium and the public would embrace the idea. -- Jim Thurmann

Well, sure, that's ONE way...

If the Trop's for sale and worth potentially $300M+, then theoretically 1/2 of the site could be sold for $150M+ we could PAY OFF the Trop! The premise of the downtown proposal is voluminous parking is not required - therefore, 1/2 of the site is extraneous and can be sold. Now, the benefits - we keep baseball, the City and County budget requirements and public subsidy are eliminated, the Trop with considerable remaining value is preserved. -- Dave Shanks

I dunno, Dave, whether the magic wand that is supposed to make the parking problem nonexistent would still work west of, say, 4th Street...

Column: Let's just SAY the Trop's for sale...

There was plenty of reassuring talk to open Wednesday evening's public meeting at Tropicana Field.

First, the moderator stressed, the meeting was only about an "if" - what the public wants to do with the 86-acre site of Tropicana Field if there's a new, waterfront baseball stadium.

The mayor of St. Petersburg, Rick Baker, spoke next and said he wanted to make it clear the city has not committed to a new stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays.

The chairman of the City Council, James Bennett, promised the 300-plus citizens there: "We're going to have as many meetings as it takes to be open and flowing and open to the public."

(Flowing?)

And by the way, Bennett added, the city has not taken a position on a new stadium.

There also were a few words from a spokesman for the Council of Neighborhood Associations. As it turns out, he said CONA has not taken a position either.

And so, once everyone had agreed they had taken no position on a new stadium, the meeting got down to the business of what to do with the old one. [link to entire column]

Baseball stadium, Amendment 1 dominate the Jan. 8 chat -- read the transcript

Hello, happy Tuesday, and welcome to the transcript of the weekly live chat held earlier today here on TroxBlog. Today's chat was dominated by two subjects, the proposed baseball stadium for downtown St. Petersburg, and the merits and demerits of Amendment 1, the property-tax cut that's on the Jan. 29 ballot.

Readers also asked about the Times' recent editorial critical of St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker, the status of The Pier, and why insurance rates haven't fallen. There also is a rare Rod Stewart reference. I even tried to debunk urban myths about Barack Obama and the new U.S. dollar coin.

To read the transcript of today's chat, click on the "Comments" link of this announcement just a few lines below. You'll see what folks have had to say, and there will be a form for you to add your own comment.

Thanks to everyone who took part or dropped by to observe today's chat, and I hope to see you again next week!

Meanwhile, these baseball stadium comments (#1)

Here's an excerpt from an e-mail being circulated among members of the Alliance for a Livable Pinellas, St. Petersburg Preservation and Suncoast Sierra, suggesting talking points and urging them to ask the city of St. Petersburg to delay issuing a request for developers to redevelop the Tropicana Field site. I'm not saying I agree with every one, just that it's an interesting list:

1.  Are you ready as taxpayers to pay $450,000,000 for a new stadium?  (the Ray's figure and the most compelling for voters)
          a.  $450,000,000 up front from taxpayers
          b.  Rays will pay back only 1/3 of this through rent ($100,000,000 from $10,000,000 per year for the ten year contract balance)
          c.  $100,000,000 balance still owed on present stadium.
2.  The RFP must be stopped due to the lack of public input.
3.  The secret process continues to be rushed.
4.  This process is contrary to Vision 20/20.   (Public waterfront is sacred)
5.  The project requires filling of the Bay which is environmentally unacceptable.
6.  Parking is inadequate and will create gridlock.
7.  This public land will remain closed to only baseball fans.
8.  This violates the sacred waterfront preservation tradition of St. Petersburg.
9.  This will detract from the decades of building downtown small businesses due to the siphoning from the new redevelopment.
10. Pollution will drastically increase in air, light and noise.
11.  The reason of improved attendance is unproved and unsubstantiated.  ("Build it and they will come" mentality)
12. What is the value of baseball in St. Petersburg?

Meanwhile, these baseball stadium comments (#2)

In the man-bites-dog category, here is a boiled-down version of my exchange with a gentleman who complains that I and others at the Times have been mysteriously soft on the Rays and the stadium proposal:

While many of my friends in St Pete are cheering your stand on the lack of transparency by the Rays with the stadium deal. It would seem the facts show you to be just a tad disingenuous... Why have there been few or no follow up stories on issues such as the bay fill-ins that are required. What about the incredible obstruction that this new stadium presents to the line of sight for downtown. The skyscraper condos already effect the wind currents for those who regularly sail out of the downtown marinas...the stadium will only make this worse. Do you honestly think the FAA will allow the Albert Whitted Field to remain with this stadium back up right behind it? ... I think the St Pete Times owes the citizens of St Petersburg a serious comprehensive series of unbiased investigative articles into the history, background, motivation and justification of new downtown stadium. -- Michael Wickersheim

Dear Michael Wickersheim: It is a little refreshing, I will admit, after writing columns that have been extremely critical of the handling of this stadium proposal so far, to be accused of going too soft on it... When the idea was first floated publicly back in May I wrote a column back in May laying down the idea that it should never be accepted if it put the taxpayers at risk. We also had several articles along the way about the city's curious refusal to designate Al Lang as a park.

Since the thing became officially public in November, we have had pages of coverage about it, including a front-page article on the very point that you raise --  explaining the complexity and difficulty involved with dredging and filling the bay. In case you missed it, here's the link to that article in our archives. Here, as well, is an article discussing the many hurdles and considerations, including the FAA issue that you raised:

I promise you that I will be writing columns throughout the upcoming process, raising heck because I do not believe they are going to issue a particularly specific RFP and that they are plunging ahead with a "we'll figure the numbers out later" kind of attitude.

Mr. Foster reports that his hair is still safe

In response to my post earlier today, departing St. Petersburg City Council member Bill Foster just called to say that at the end of last evening's council meeting, he did in fact bring up this new memo. Foster asked for confirmation that the council had committed to designating Al Lang as a park.

The video is not up on the city's web site yet, but Foster said that the other council members agreed that designating the Al Lang site as a park was the plan... if so, then either the city staff will have to go along with the council's firmly expressed wishes, or else the council will have to be, you know, persuaded otherwise.

Foster told me that as far as he was concerned, the council HAS been through a public process, and the public said it wanted Al Lang as a park.

City staff: Don't make Al Lang a park

If you're following the proposed baseball stadium saga in St. Petersburg, here is a most interesting memo that came out yesterday from Rick Mussett, the city's economic development director, addressed to the City Council. [Click the images to enlarge]

The gist of the memo is to tell the City Council NOT to designate the Al Lang waterfront site -- the site of the new proposed stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays -- as a park under the city's new land-use plan.

Now, designating Al Lang as a park would not block baseball from the site -- the voters could still approve the stadium in November 2008 -- but it WOULD make it impossible for the city to do anything else with Al Lang if baseball fell through.

First in the memo, in the time-honored fashion of bureaucrats everywhere, Mussett says there have been plenty of times over the years that the citizens COULD have asked to make Al Lang a park, such as in past "visioning" sessions. He lists several examples. The implication is that the more recent input is Johnny-come-lately stuff that somehow counts less.

Mussett goes on to say the City Council should not "arbitrarily" designate Al Lang as a park, just because citizens ask for it. Even if it turns out not to be suitable for baseball, Mussett said there still should be a "broad based public consensus-building process" before deciding the ultimate use of the site.

(Hmm, I wonder if this means city has signed ANOTHER secret deal as a backup plan? After all, when the stadium deal was still secret and the citizens were asking to make Al Lang a park, it was Mussett who kept calling for "keeping our options open"...)

When the City Council passsed the new land-use map in August, it said would come back and make Al Lang a park site as part of a follow-up amendment, just as the public had requested. The City Council repeated this intention as recently as its Dec. 6 meeting. And just the other day, when I mocked the city for keeping the stadium proposal secret during these important decisions, outgoing council member Bill Foster called me to chide me for not giving the council credit for its promise. If the council doesn't do what he said, he told me, he will shave his head.

Well, now the City Council has its new marching orders from the city staff. Can anyone convince me that the City Council will not do whatever the mayor's staff orders it to do?

I have just the barber for Mr. Foster....

Here's the Dec. 11 chat -- read the transcript

Hello, happy Tuesday, and welcome to the transcript of the weekly live chat held earlier today here on TroxBlog. As has been the case lately, most of the questions and comments dealt with the proposed baseball stadium in St. Petersburg.

To read the transcript of today's chat, click on the "Comments" link of this announcement, just a few lines below. You'll see a page with what's been said already, and a form for you to add your own comment. Keep refreshing the comments page to see the latest.

Here's a program note: There will be no live chat on Dec. 18, and the following two Tuesdays are holidays, so we'll pick up our weekly chats in January 2008. But I'll still be here on TroxBlog for the rest of this month, making daily posts and reading and answering reader comments.

The fake baseball deadline, and other topics

Good morning and happy Monday. Sorry about the Bucs.

There was a story over the weekend by my colleague Aaron Sharockman about the city of St. Petersburg setting an "aggressive" timetable for moving toward a new baseball stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays. There was a quote from City Council chairman James Bennett that rubs the wrong way. Bennett said the city is "working with the time frame the Rays gave us."

I would suggest politely that the CITY should be giving the timetable to the RAYS. This is EXACTLY the kind of fake decision-making momentum that has taken the City Council down past boondoggles. Listen: There. Is. No. Deadline. The city doesn't have to do anything.

According to this schedule, the first City Council discussion of this plan occurs on Jan. 10 -- and eight days later, the city issues a request for proposals to developers for taking over the site of the existing Tropicana Field! Developers then have two months to reply, with the city supposedly picking one by May 1. Then the City Council calls an election for November...

Rays executives will be answering questions from the public from 2-3 p.m. Tuesday on my sister blog, http://blogs.tampabay.com/rays. Here's a link for an announcement of the session, and with the e-mail address for sending in questions.

Other quick topics:

* Tuesday is the day that Bright House Networks moves government access, along with educational and public access, off its lowest tier of channels around the Tampa Bay area. Customers now gotta pay $1 extra to see them. This is a Bad Thing. Our democracy ought to be on channel 2, not channel 1000, and it ought not cost extra. Bright House, nee Time-Warner, built its business on the public right-of-way with a public franchise...

* How come it took a state report for Pinellas school officials to swing into action with emergency meetings about having a low graduation rate? Didn't they notice until then?

* This guy has issues, but not nearly as many problems as the %##s who made those videos.

* The Stairway to Heaven has now been equipped with an escalator, wheelchair lift and frequent rest stops for those of us with prostate issues. In related news, Jimmy Page shakes his fist at pesky neighborhood kids and tells them to get off his lawn.

* Live chat here on TroxBlog at noon Tuesday.

Here's the Dec. 4 chat -- read a transcript

Not surprisingly, the top two topics in today's weekly live chat here on TroxBlog were the proposed baseball stadium in St. Petersburg, and the gambling pact between Gov. Charlie Crist and the Seminole Tribe.

We had spirited and widely different takes on the stadium deal, ranging from "a joke" and a parking disaster, to an exciting centerpiece of a new downtown. As for the governor, several readers agreed with him, and disagreed with my column this morning. If the Legislature is so all-fired opposed to this deal, they ask, how come it didn't lift a finger to stop it?

To read the transcript of today's chat, click on the "Comments" link of this announcement a few lines below. You'll see what everyone has had to say so far, and a space for you to add your own question or comment.

Thanks again for all the great comments in today's chat. I hope you'll consider coming back next week!

Column: Nice art, but can we please see numbers?

The color drawings are very pretty. They show an exciting new baseball stadium on St. Petersburg's waterfront.

They show a gracious new "downtown west" that would rise on the site of the existing Tropicana Field.

And if color drawings were enough...

Oops, wait a minute.

That is exactly the trouble. In St. Petersburg, color drawings and slogans and sweet talk are enough. They've always been.

We're talking about a city that is a tad weak on the meaning of "due diligence." Let's put it this way: To balance this year's budget, St. Petersburg is still waiting for that prince from Nigeria to send the cash he promised. [entire column]

Very pretty, but...

I'm just back from the Rays' big unveiling of their plans for downtown St. Petersburg. The biggest news is that we can't just call the plan "a new ball park" because this is really TWO major ideas -- the new waterfront ballpark and the redevelopment of the old Tropicana Field site.

They had lots of pretty pictures. As a baseball fan and a downtown booster of course I am interested. But I will be even more interested to read the black and white of the details.

Nothing seems exactly as stated. The Rays say they're putting up $150-million of "their" money for the stadium, but it's more of a two-step: they'll pay more rent to the city, then the city issues more debt to cover that $150-million... the Rays also stress that no "new" tax dollars or tax increases would be involved... which fudges the fact that some existing revenue streams would be extended, and that the whole shebang involves public resources.

Then there's the whole redevelopment of the Tropicana Field site, which is supposed to generate the rest of the new ball park's cost. The city of St. Petersburg will have to issue a request for proposals for developers, etc.... to convert the Tropicana site into a big mixed-used community, retail, residential, greenspace, etc...

The team owners say they'll be responsible for any cost overruns for the stadium. As for many other details -- insurance? who's on the hook for revenue shortfalls? -- all is yet to be made clear.

No doubt the St. Petersburg City Council will scrutinize the whole deal with its customary fine-toothed comb... [insert long, sarcastic pause here]

More in tomorrow's print column.

Tuesday column: Lie of omission? More like just a lie

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

No to the city of St. Petersburg.

No to its government. No to its mayor. No to its deputy mayors and assistant pooh-bahs.

They do not get to run the government like this. They just don't.

For much of 2007, the citizens of St. Petersburg, also known as taxpayers and voters, believed that they were taking part in actual democracy.

They thought they were taking part in a public process to decide the future of the city's waterfront.

They showed up, they signed up to speak, they testified, they pleaded. The city pretended to be listening.

We now know it was a sham. Since March 2007, the city had a signed confidentiality agreement with the Tampa Bay Rays concerning plans to use the waterfront for a 35,000-seat, $450-million baseball stadium. [rest of column]

Field of secrets?

Hello and happy Monday. I'm back from three weeks away and eager to catch up. First on the agenda has to be the proposed baseball stadium for downtown St. Petersburg, which the Tampa Bay Rays are going to make public on Wednesday.

I think this will be my first column topic in tomorrow's newspaper. The shocking thing  is that the city of St. Petersburg knew about the stadium idea from early 2007, but kept it secret from its own citizens -- even as those citizens were taking part in a supposedly public process on deciding the future of the downtown waterfront! And of course, there was no sense in letting such a major secret be part of the city elections, so it stayed quiet until after that as well.

How many other secret deals does the city have in place, then? How can the voters EVER know that their dealings with the city of St. Petersburg are being conducted on the up-and-up, and that the city hasn't already signed some sort of secret document saying what's really going to happen? This has been a sorry, sorry start to this process. It might be sorry enough to kill the whole idea. [Times photo | Skip O'Rourke]