It seems like part of the justification for the Rays proposal is that it will benefit other businesses in the area like restaurants. But that is just a red herring—no one has bothered asking restaurant owners if they want to have a baseball stadium nearby and there is no groundswell of support from downtown businesses wanting a baseball stadium nearby. In any event, the Rays will try to capture any ancillary spending in the same way they and every other sports team do. Except when trying to get support for public subsidies, professional sports teams view nearby restaurant, souvenir shops, etc. as competition.

But the better question to ask is if the city was going to spend $450 million to benefit and improve the city, how would that best be accomplished? Does anyone believe that a baseball stadium would come anywhere near the top of the list?

But instead of a $450 million stadium that is likely to become a white elephant in 15 years like the Trop evidently has, why not spend a much smaller amount creating something on the St. Petersburg waterfront which is truly unique like the Gateway Arch is to St. Louis? Maybe something linking to the Pier. It is ridiculous that the St. Petersburg city leaders are looking to baseball team owners to provide them with city planning ideas and it is even more absurd when you realize that these particular baseball team owners are the worst around in doing what they are supposed to do which is field a competitive ball team. If you ask a baseball team owner how to achieve economic development the answer is always going to be a new publicly-funded stadium but economic study after study have shown that is money poorly spent.

Scream,

David Goodwin, the city’s economic development director, signed a one-page confidentiality agreement in March at the team’s request.
The agreement enables developers and government officials to unfairly keep residents in the dark about tax breaks and other incentives.

This is not the formula for negotiations…

pilot_in_fla - 30 November 2007 06:18 PM

It seems like part of the justification for the Rays proposal is that it will benefit other businesses in the area like restaurants. But that is just a red herring—no one has bothered asking restaurant owners if they want to have a baseball stadium nearby and there is no groundswell of support from downtown businesses wanting a baseball stadium nearby. In any event, the Rays will try to capture any ancillary spending in the same way they and every other sports team do. Except when trying to get support for public subsidies, professional sports teams view nearby restaurant, souvenir shops, etc. as competition.

But the better question to ask is if the city was going to spend $450 million to benefit and improve the city, how would that best be accomplished? Does anyone believe that a baseball stadium would come anywhere near the top of the list?

But instead of a $450 million stadium that is likely to become a white elephant in 15 years like the Trop evidently has, why not spend a much smaller amount creating something on the St. Petersburg waterfront which is truly unique like the Gateway Arch is to St. Louis? Maybe something linking to the Pier. It is ridiculous that the St. Petersburg city leaders are looking to baseball team owners to provide them with city planning ideas and it is even more absurd when you realize that these particular baseball team owners are the worst around in doing what they are supposed to do which is field a competitive ball team. If you ask a baseball team owner how to achieve economic development the answer is always going to be a new publicly-funded stadium but economic study after study have shown that is money poorly spent.

Hey mister Restaurant owner in downtown St. Pete.  Would you like me to drop 20,000 people past your front door 81 times a year?  Stupid question. 

Hey mister private property owner in St. Pete.  I see you have a nice parking lot there.  we could probably put about 100 cars there.  Would you mind if you made $81,000 dollars a year for charging people $10 a pop to park at your site 81 times a year?  Also Stupid Question.

Finally the big one.  Can we build the Gateway Arch instead?  Folks, I have been to the Gateway Arch.  I have gone inside.  Do you know what it is?  a complete waste of time.  You go, you climb, you sit in a really small vertical tram car, you look out.  you say now high you are, you climb down and look at a museum full of assorted dead things.  And you are done.  I swear to god, if you go to the arch twice, you either have amnesia or are stupid.

The problem with all of this people seem to have an issue with the Rays not being a winning team.  That is exactly the attitude which keeps this city from becoming what it should.  If you feel that way, then let’s kick the Rays out, tear up the lease, blow up the dome and go from there.  Won’t we be happy then?  I swear to god, if the Rays ever put it together, and they will sooner rather than later, you guys will not be welcome.

Bottom Line:  St. Pete is a major league city.  No team without a major league baseball team is truly a major league city.  We are better than Jacksonville, orlando, Tampa, and Fort Myers.  Why?  Because we are a major league city and they are not.

Stop thinking so Minor League

Scream,

You imply that a lot of folks attending games are going to have the time, inclination, and additional money to be patronizing restaurants near the stadium.  Maybe so, maybe not, but the possibility of that is not a very good justification for spending $450 million of public money and, as I indicated earlier, there seems to be no great groundswell of interest from that sector in a subsidized stadium.

Some parking lots will certainly be able to collect windfall profits since downtown parking is in short supply but, again, that doesn’t seem to be a good justification for spending large amounts of public money.  If anything, high game day parking rates and low availability of spaces will encourage folks who have options to simply go elsewhere.

I’m sorry that you were bored by the Gateway Arch.  They do draw about 1,000,000 people per year and, if your comment about not wanting to go there twice is valid, one would conclude most of those are unique visitors and I suspect they are likely to spend money on restaurant meals and other items that benefit that local economy.  I don’t think that the Rays attract anywere near 1,000,000 unique visitors per year.  Also, the Gateway Arch brings in people year round not just during a short part of the year.

I’m not suggesting another Gateway Arch but am merely suggesting that the city consider innovative ways of using the waterfront space to achieve a more dynamic downtown if that is what is desired.  The Gateway Arch cost $30 million so creating something unique and interesting need not cost as much as constructing yet another taxpayer stadium.

The fact that the Rays are consistently the worst in their sport doesn’t really directly affect anything.  It is simply poor public policy to use taxpayer money to subsidize private profit-making businesses.  The Rays do show quite a lot of chutpah, however, to demand a new taxpayer-financed facility given their failure to meet previous goals, their abysmal performance record on the field and their apparent lack of interest in making any substantive changes to improve their performance.

Maybe having a baseball team, being a “major league city” in your words, was something significant to a city 30 years ago but it doesn’t mean anything today.  Washington, D.C. did without a team for many years and the fact that the taxpayer’s there spent over $600 million on a new stadium while schools built over 100 years ago are falling down is a disgrace.

St. Petersburg has the right to expect the Rays to honor their agreement at Tropicana Field which is, in fact, very very favorable to the team.  If the Rays want something better or just different, it should be at their expense.

pilot_in_fla - 30 November 2007 08:05 PM

Scream,

You imply that a lot of folks attending games are going to have the time, inclination, and additional money to be patronizing restaurants near the stadium.  Maybe so, maybe not, but the possibility of that is not a very good justification for spending $450 million of public money and, as I indicated earlier, there seems to be no great groundswell of interest from that sector in a subsidized stadium.

Some parking lots will certainly be able to collect windfall profits since downtown parking is in short supply but, again, that doesn’t seem to be a good justification for spending large amounts of public money.  If anything, high game day parking rates and low availability of spaces will encourage folks who have options to simply go elsewhere.

I’m sorry that you were bored by the Gateway Arch.  They do draw about 1,000,000 people per year and, if your comment about not wanting to go there twice is valid, one would conclude most of those are unique visitors and I suspect they are likely to spend money on restaurant meals and other items that benefit that local economy.  I don’t think that the Rays attract anywere near 1,000,000 unique visitors per year.  Also, the Gateway Arch brings in people year round not just during a short part of the year.

I’m not suggesting another Gateway Arch but am merely suggesting that the city consider innovative ways of using the waterfront space to achieve a more dynamic downtown if that is what is desired.  The Gateway Arch cost $30 million so creating something unique and interesting need not cost as much as constructing yet another taxpayer stadium.

The fact that the Rays are consistently the worst in their sport doesn’t really directly affect anything.  It is simply poor public policy to use taxpayer money to subsidize private profit-making businesses.  The Rays do show quite a lot of chutpah, however, to demand a new taxpayer-financed facility given their failure to meet previous goals, their abysmal performance record on the field and their apparent lack of interest in making any substantive changes to improve their performance.

Maybe having a baseball team, being a “major league city” in your words, was something significant to a city 30 years ago but it doesn’t mean anything today.  Washington, D.C. did without a team for many years and the fact that the taxpayer’s there spent over $600 million on a new stadium while schools built over 100 years ago are falling down is a disgrace.

St. Petersburg has the right to expect the Rays to honor their agreement at Tropicana Field which is, in fact, very very favorable to the team.  If the Rays want something better or just different, it should be at their expense.

Fine.  One question.  If the Rays were coming off of a 99-63 season with a World Series Appearance, would that change your mind?  I bet it would for a lot of people.

I am not advocating doing anything.  Just listening and negotiating.  it is ridiculous to draw any conclusions based on the teams initial proposal.  Let’s see the numbers, and then decide.

Fine.  One question.  If the Rays were coming off of a 99-63 season with a World Series Appearance, would that change your mind?  I bet it would for a lot of people.

As indicated previously, I don’t believe it is good public policy to subsidize facilities for privately-owned businesses so the field performance of the Rays would not affect my position on the question at issue here.  I agree that a lot of folks would be more inclined to back a winner but that is not the situation we see here and now.

Some folks appear to believe that a new facility (or even a promise of one) will somehow result in better field performance.  I don’t see it that way.  Providing a facility with 100% of the financing and risk assumed by the taxpayer removes all of the risk from the team owners and makes it impossible for them to lose money no matter how bad the team performance is.  Even if a new statdium leads to increased profits, there is no guarantee that those additional profits will be spent on team payroll—should an extra $10 million or so be spent on a couple of players or distributed to the owners as additional profit?

In the Sternberg era, Rays management has focussed on a redesign of the team uniforms and obtaining public financing for a new stadium.  Given that the Rays are not just marginal performers but the worst in the sport year after year, one might assume that field performance would have had a higher priority but this does not appear to be the case.

In professional baseball, it has been financial pressure on the weaker teams that has led to the minimal reforms such as the luxury tax implemented to date.  George Steinbrenner knows as well as anyone else that people will be bored if the Yankees win 100% of their games—if there are no credible opponents, there will be no fan interest and no money to be earned by anyone.  A professional sports league is much more like a partnership than a set of competing businesses.  Public subsidies that remove the financial risk to team owners will simply extend the current situation with substantial inbalance in team payrolls (and abilities and performance).  While it may seem ironic, the most likely outcome from building a new Rays stadium with taxpayers money will be continued abysmal field performance. 

I am not advocating doing anything.  Just listening and negotiating.  it is ridiculous to draw any conclusions based on the teams initial proposal.  Let’s see the numbers, and then decide.

What is there to listen to?  There is an lease in place with another 20 years to run.  The city leaders should make it known that they will require the Rays to honor their lease at the Trop.  Doing so will either lead to a new focus on team performance by current Rays ownership or new ownership who will focus on performance.  If the Rays want to break their lease, it should be at their expense not that of the taxpayers.

The city should issue a request for proposals relative to the Al Lang site not the Trop site and see what comes in.

In the Sternberg era, Rays management has focussed on a redesign of the team uniforms and obtaining public financing for a new stadium.  Given that the Rays are not just marginal performers but the worst in the sport year after year, one might assume that field performance would have had a higher priority but this does not appear to be the case.

For the record, in the Sternberg era, the team payroll has doubled, as has the number of wins the Rays have by the end of the first quarter of the season.

Secondly, I’d venture to say that the vast majority of you people opposing this stadium have either never been to a Rays game, or not read a damn word of the proposal issued by the Rays.  For one thing, they’ve promised to keep the team in Pinellas whether or not the new stadium is built.  In addition, the proposal alos calls for NO NEW TAXES.  YOU WON’T BE SPENDING AN ADDITIONAL PENNY more than you are spending right now.  I get that you cynical types tend to discard anything that you hear from anyone in a position of power, but so far, the Sternberg era has come through with every promise they’ve made, and quicker than promised.  In case you haven’t noticed, the Rays are EIGHT GAMES over .500, and not showing really any signs of slowing down.

As for putting a new stadium in Tampa, you can give up on that.  The team has a lease with Pinellas County through 2027, and isn’t going to pay the large amount of money it would cost them to break that lease by moving out of the county.

I personally don’t see one good reason to oppose this stadium.  You people must really hate the sport.  But even then, I don’t see how you can sit there and say you don’t think a new, beautiful stadium (have you seen the plans?!?) would be a boon to a city that is struggling to find it’s identity.  Give up those small town ideas.  St Pete is a major league city, and no longer the quaint little town that you people want to make it.  Those days are long gone.  Accept it, already, and get some enjoyment out of the beautiful waterfront CITY that it is.

Why should any business that makes millions of dollars a year be subsidized by the public? It really makes no difference if the subsidy is in the form of new taxes, continuation of existing taxes that were supposed to end, or sale of publicly-owned assets for private benefit.

The Rays owners are very wealthy individuals. If a new stadium was a good economic deal, they are certainly in a position to fund it themselves.

There are a long list of major businesses in Florida and across the USA that receive tax breaks and financial incentives as motivation for them to operate in a desired location.

This is not about “baseball”.

It is about a major business operation expanding it’s impact on the St Petersburg downtown area, something that very few major businesses have done during the now ten years I’ve lived in Pinellas County.

Keep the Dome Home!!

SteveInClearwater - 24 May 2008 02:53 PM

There are a long list of major businesses in Florida and across the USA that receive tax breaks and financial incentives as motivation for them to operate in a desired location.

This is not about “baseball”.

It is about a major business operation expanding it’s impact on the St Petersburg downtown area, something that very few major businesses have done during the now ten years I’ve lived in Pinellas County.

I don’t think you will find any investment of public money that has a worse rate of return than subsidizing a professional sports team. In the instant case, Rays owner are from New York and profits they currently earn from running the team leave the area. As far as job, there are a bunch of part-time minimum wage jobs and a few jobs paying a few million dollars per year—hardly the mix that taxpayers should be subsidizing.

So, while the Rays are a major business in terms of money removed from the local economy, they are minor league when it comes to concrete benefits to the area.