New stadium: still a shitty idea

05 Jun

Posted by The One in the In the News department.

That’s right, despite the fact that we’ve been pretty quiet over here regarding the stadium of late it is time to once again point out the bum deal the new stadium developers (and the Rays) are trying to hand us. And just in time for today’s City Council vote!

Howard Troxler (swoon) has an excellent piece on the bait and switch it appears the people of St. Petersburg are being handed with regards to the deal originally proposed in November and the deal as it looks now:

Here was the deal when it first became public late last year:

(1) No new taxes.
(2) The public’s share will come from selling and redeveloping Tropicana Field.

Here is the deal today:

(1) The taxpayers have to extend well into the future the annual payments they’re making now.
(2) There’s no connection, and no guarantee, between what happens at Tropicana Field and paying for the new stadium.

Interesting, I’ve heard of this sort of thing happening before… hmm, what was it last time? Hmmm…. ah yes, Tropicana Field!

I am going to go out on a limb and say that today’s vote will result in the measure passing to a second vote. Bakernuts “will remain conspicuously undecided” according to a fluffy piece on the vote today, but really the dude has already been clear as glass shit which side of the fence he falls on.

5 Responses

Amy

June 5th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

“clear as glass shit”

that’s a new one.
Patrick L. Kennedy

June 5th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

You are clearly misconstruing what Troxler wrote. All he said was that were valid arguments to vote either way on the stadium matter, and that there are pros and cons to the project. In fact, had you continued quoting just two paragraphs below, you would have seen this:

“Now, make no mistake. There also are good arguments for going ahead today and launching the referendum process.

Here is the first argument in favor of a “yes” vote: It merely keeps the city’s options open, with the final decision in August. Besides, it’s a safe vote — a St. Petersburg Times poll says 60 percent of the voters want a referendum.

Second argument: Even if the original terms have changed, this is still a good deal. So what if taxpayers have to extend their existing annual payment? We get a new stadium and all the other potential benefits.

Third argument: Forget this silly talk about “guarantees” at the Tropicana site. Without a doubt, we’re talking about big-time developers who will generate many benefits (and tax revenue) for the city.

Good arguments! ”

While he goes on to say he would vote against it, he clearly recognizes that there are legitimate reasons to support the proposal, something you have not done in any one of your ranting, often factually-challenged posts regarding the stadium proposal.

Still, St. Petersblog is a great site, stadium posts notwithstanding. Keep up the great work with your deliciously profane take on current affairs!
Justin

June 6th, 2008 at 9:08 am

There are probably good reasons to tear down all of downtown and build the world’s largest Walmart, complete with indoor amusement park, but I think rejecting such a plan without hearing said arguments is perfectly fine.

You are correct, however, Howard does not absolutely reject the idea of a new stadium, just the overall plan (financial aspect especially) as it exists now versus how it was billed back in November.

But whether Howard likes the plan or not, 68% of area residents don’t, so that’s pretty much that. Put it on the ballot if you must; but rest assured, most people are looking forward to voting it down.
Casey

June 6th, 2008 at 9:14 am

Hmm, let’s see here. I quoted him, actually used “bait and switch” from his story, and I didn’t quote the 3 points you did because he goes on to prove them false. So, uh, what did I do wrong?

Also, we just added “Deliciously profane!” to the random taglines up top, thanks!
Patrick L. Kennedy

June 6th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Casey, how does he go on to prove them false? He points out that the Times poll said that people want to vote on the matter, albeit just to kill it. He didn’t refute that first point at all, he merely pointed out the opposition evident in the poll. On the second and third points, he provides a counter-argument that is soley based on his personal preference, but it doesn’t “prove them false” by any stretch of the imagination.

Justin, obviously we disagree on the merits of the stadium plan, but I’m assuming that you don’t mind the stadium matter being placed on the November ballot? In that case, you should want to see the Rays have the most time possible to finalize the proposal financially and logistically so that voters are looking at a complete product when they vote on the matter. That way no lingering arguments can occur regarding the ultimate intent of the voters. If you feel this way, you should have no problem with the council vote in the Rays’ favor. From what I can glean from Troxler’s column, neither does he, definitively.

And as for the poll results, they are what they are. Numbers don’t lie, and obviously the Rays have their work to do if they want to see the matter pass. We still have five months to go before the election, and that is quite a long time. It is certainly long enough for the election to swing. From my perspective, I can only hope it will.