The Big Story: Redeveloping the Trop
January 10, 2008 at 10:33 am by Wayne Garcia 
The writing on these signs was the sentiment of many of the 330 people who turned out for a snoozerific three hours last night to discuss what could become of Tropicana Field in St. Pete IF, (SHOULD, MAYBE, PERHAPS, LET”S JUST SPECULATE) the Rays score a new ballpark on the waterfront. (I only echo the general tone of city and Rays officials statements to the crowd last night as they tried to head off growing skepticism of residents who think things are moving too fast.)
The Times characterized the three-hour urban planning session this way:
For the most part, people were cautious about replacing Tropicana Field, which opened in 1990. But many were at least open to the idea.
The Tribune’s take was inaccurately titled “Public Debates Dome’s Fate.” Let’s be clear; the exercise held by the city last night allowed for no “debate” and was carefully structured to both quiet angry residents who really want to express their opposition to the waterfront ballpark idea and to placate the daily newspaper neighborhood activists who were upset at the lack of public input into the Trop redevelopment plan. This kind of “consensus” exercise may look good on paper and satisfy those with MA’s in urban planning but provides little real public input to elected officials and — more importantly — makes for really dullllllll news stories. And beyond that, there is nothing to debate yet: No finances are on the table beyond a $450 million price tag for the new ballpark. The Rays aren’t saying yet what public $$$ they want, beyond a request for $60 million from the Legislature that they already dropped in the face of no support at all from the local legislative delegation.
The Trib story’s nut graf was only slightly less off the mark than the headline:
By the end of the 2 1/2 hour meeting, the crowd reached a consensus on three types of land uses: residential development with affordable housing, retail services and cultural and entertainment uses.
Uhhh, not so much. That may be what the exercise’s facilitators came up with at the end, but it doesn’t reflect what I heard and saw. Actually, as I wandered from table to table, I saw more redevelopment-option lists that featured such things as “Leave As Is,” “Rebuild on same site” and “baseball stadium new.” Other popular choices for the Trop’s future included recreation, green space, entertainment and affordable housing. Interesting (if not fiscally possible) options were and R&D park and a convention center/hotel site. When housing was listed, it was either identified as “affordable” or “moderate.” Those groups that wrote down retail almost always had the word “limited” next to it.
Clearly, there was little enthusiasm for the kind of high-intensity redevelopment that would be necessary to make a Trop-for-waterfront-ballpark swap financially possible, the kind of urban village envisioned (in the rendering on the right) by the Rays and their chosen redveloper, The Hines Co. of Houston.
“The project is not nearly a finished product,” Rays point-man for the deal, Mike Kalt, told the crowd. “There’s a lot of opportunity to develop this site ….”
He’s right; that kind of acreage in an urban area in Florida is gold. But redeveloping it in a way that will spin off enough profit to finance the new ballpark and bring real change to downtown St. Pete seems to be something that local residents aren’t warmed up to — at least just yet.
Send to a friend:
January 10th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
You want quality of life and development?
How’s this for a land-intensive, capital-intensive, labor-intensive, for-profit venture that might TRULY benefit the community: MASS TRANSIT!
I ask you, when was the last time you heard a metro commuter crawling through rush-hour traffic say, “Gee, what’d I’d give right now to watch a crappy ball team in the July sun and visit a new shopping district.”? Can you say NEVER!
Hell, filling-in over a half-acre of the Bay – ALONE - should nix the entire madness. And how about my favorite bit of insanity: A stadium designed for the lightening capitol of the nation featuring…a massive metal mast on the center field wall! On the positive side, it could make for wild Las Vegas wagers on how far the electrical arch would carry during a summer storm - my money’s on zapping the second baseman.
This entire fiasco smacks of “Flori-DUH”.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
i friggin’ hate baseball, so i could care less as to where they play, but…
a new stadium on the waterfront is not the answer.
it will not turn the team into winners.
it will not help attendance at games (thought the proposed stadium is said to have fewer seats, so the percentages will up, but not real numbers).
and is there anything really wrong with the current field? i’m sure it’s hella cheaper to spruce it up a bit than to build a whole new one. and as a recent transplant to the burg (from tampa),
i would hate to see my tax dollars stolen and squandered as they were in tampa.
thats all i got for now.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Wayne,
The City of St. Petersburg has a contract, a legal obligation, to provide a stadium for the Devil Rays to play baseball, which it is doing. The Devil Rays have a contract to pay the City for this stadium which it is doing. Bonds were issued to the City to finance construction (and renovations) of the baseball stadium with the expectation that annual payments from this major league baseball to the City would be used to satisy bond repayment obligations of the City.
City Council was not asked to amend the Contract. Instead, Rick Baker and Rick Mussett, without aurthorization from City Council, met privately with Devil Ray representatives about what is essentially a significant amendment to a contract. Neither of them, in my opinion, had the authority to do so. Certainly they were obligated to immediately notify City council and city attorneys when the Devil Rays made its proposal to amend the contract, to “exchange sites” so to speak.
In my opinion, Mussett’s and Baker’s actions are in violation of their obligations to the City under the City’s contract with the Devil Rays and under their obligations under the City’s contract with its bonding agent. In my opinion, it sounds like malfeasance.
The arrogance of the Devil Rays organization in ASSUMING that any proceeds from the sale and redevelopment of the current stadium site (their estimate $450 million)is theirs to use to build a new waterfront stadium (especially in light of the current property tax and insurance crises) boggles the mind. Baker’s duplicity and collaboration (in light of family history of screwing taxpyers-remember his father and two brothers are convicted felons for their conduct related to defense contract fraud) with this corporate welfare scheme is not hard to understand. That’s how his family does business!! Remember? (Thank you John Sugg!)
Newcomers to City council don’t know where to start to evaluate what is really going on here. Other council members are being used as puppets for Baker and the Devil Rays. The Council of Neighborhood Association (CONA) is being used as a tool by Baker and the Rays, also. That was glaringly apparent last night. In my opinion, we have several elected public officials who may be misusing their office and public employees who are guilty of misfeasance. Considering how close some elected officials are to the end of their terms perhaps the state attorney should investigate for misuse of office. This is how the feathering of nests occurs for public officials getting ready to leave office, in my opinion. There is absolutely no reason for the City Council to issue an RFP for redeveloping the dome site, NONE WHATSOEVER. In fact, the mere act of doing so could be misconstrued as “anticipatory breach of contract” by the City, giving the Devil Rays an “out” on the contract or helping the Devil Rays to establish damages or mitigate damages, all of which is irresponsible conduct on the part of every city official and elected official involved, in my opinion.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Merger, Scheme, Scam and Acquisition
This is the Mantra of the Carpetbaggers
Look at the surrounding area North by Northwest by West of the current Trop site and what do we see.
North
A police station soon to be demolished and a new police station possibly located to,,,,, much cheaper land and Penny for Pinellas pays to build the new building. If this DEAL were to continue the city could give or trade the site for something else or just sell the site and just build on property already held by the city,
Northwest
Conventional wisdom tells us that if this DEAL continues values climb and that which was never conceived of previously is now POSSIBLE. FUNNY how MONEY will do that. Who will be RELOCATED this time and where will they go?
West
Again conventional wisdom tells us “FUNNY how MONEY will do that.
Who will be RELOCATED this time and where will they go?
Scheme
Are we about to see a bait and switch take place?
Is it possible that the City will take back the Trop, spin off 66 acres or so on east side and merge the current police station site on the north, acquire land to the northwest and merge the western properties into a NEW Trop site and then sell it back to the County?
Anything is possible. FUNNY how MONEY will do that.
We are not anti-development or anti-growth.
We are however anti-scheme, anti-scam and anti-TAXATION. We are for affordable housing, medium housing and retail mixed use. The live work and play concept is a good one, as long as it PAYS FOR ITSELF.
We applaud all voters and citizen activists that demand “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth†when it comes to our City, our Cities Lands, our Cities waterways and how our tax dollars are being spent.
W.J. Morris
Public Liaison, United Neighborhood Alliance
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
http://www.thewpbc.com/una/una1.htm