Fill out this form to email this article to a friend

Your name		Your email
Recipient email	You may enter up to 20 multiple email addresses, separated by commas.
Your message
Validation Code	Hear validation code
	Enter validation code

We were unable to send your email.

Click here to try again.

'No' is a legitimate stadium vote today

By Howard Troxler, Times Columnist
In print: Thursday, June 5, 2008

Story Tools E-mail this story Contact the editor Print this story Comment on this story Social Bookmarking Digg Facebook Stumbleupon Reddit Del.icio.us Newsvine

ADVERTISEMENT Related Links Join the discussion on TroxBlog Keep up with today's council action on Ballpark Frankness Complete coverage: Ballpark by the bay Loading Video...

Here's a perfectly good reason for the St. Petersburg City Council to vote today against holding a November election on a stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays:

Because it's not the same deal that started all this.

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.

Mr. Bait, meet Mr. Switch.

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!

But on the first point, about keeping options open, the same poll found that 68 percent of the voters are opposed to the stadium. The main reason they want an election is to make sure they get to kill it.

On the second and third points, I am stubborn.

The Rays said there would be no new taxes and that the Tropicana project would pay for it. So that's the deal I want.

In fact, just a few weeks ago, Rays money guru Michael Kalt told me this:

If we sell Tropicana Field and only half of the planned stuff gets built there, that would still generate enough taxes to pay for our share.

And I thought, that's great! I will take that deal. Just show me where it says that in the contract.

But that's the catch.

If you ask for any guarantee that the Tropicana project pays for the stadium, you get a big lecture about how "there are no guarantees" and that's not how the real world works and so forth.

And yet, there are guarantees in this life.

Here's one: If the taxpayers take on another 30 years or so of debt, then it is a lead-pipe guarantee they will have to pay it off.

Every day in this world, people sign contracts in which they make guarantees.

Except in St. Petersburg, apparently. Nope. The taxpayers here are supposed to go in debt, sell off a public asset, commit the waterfront, and just pretty-please cross their fingers that the Tropicana thing works out.

So, go ahead, call me a nitwit and a rube. Tell me that I do not understand How Business Works. Call me a small-town fool.

Just don't keep promising me pots of gold in tax revenue from Tropicana Field at the very same time that you're telling me you can't possibly guarantee it.

That deal from November? I'd vote today to pursue it.

This deal? No.