The surrogate
It begins with a woman who yearns for a baby and another who is willing and able to give her one. You can imagine the motives of the prospective parents. But what about the woman willing to carry a baby, give birth and then walk away?
Friday Night Rewind It doesn't matter which team you cheer for. We've got video previews of every high school football program in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Hernando County.
The politics of a proposed new baseball stadium in St. Petersburg are racing ahead of the business details, and that's no way to make an informed decision.
An increasingly vocal antistadium group calling itself Preserve Our Wallets and Waterfront is pressuring City Council members to accelerate the stadium schedule with the clear intent of killing the project. It is filling a vacuum while the Tampa Bay Rays crunch numbers and city staffers evaluate development plans. Council members ultimately may reasonably conclude the stadium deal is not worth putting before voters in November, but they don't yet have nearly enough information. Neither does the public, and the city's own schedule doesn't anticipate concrete answers about financing or a master developer until next month.
So there is no need to rush to judgment and prematurely write off the Rays' vision. Let's see if the big numbers add up first instead of assuming they won't and killing off ambition with a thousand smaller cuts.
From the start, Tampa Bay Rays owners knew they were facing an uphill struggle with their plan to build a new $450-million open-air stadium at the site of Al Lang Field along the downtown waterfront. They also knew they would have to win the blessing of voters, which is no small feat in a city that still bears the political scars from the fight over Tropicana Field more than two decades ago and is not as desperate to woo developers as it once was.
POWW itself is a reminder of that distant battle, and it appears to be gaining strength during the necessarily tedious process of evaluating which of three bidders might buy and redevelop the 86-acre Tropicana Field site. Advertising for bids and culling through the results takes time, and neither the city nor the Rays can put together a viable plan without knowing the results.
That said, the Rays cannot afford to ignore the antistadium yard signs and the understandable angst of council members. City Council Chairman James Bennett challenged the Rays on Tuesday to put more team money in the project, and it appears that may well be necessary. A more straight-forward financing plan that paid off the Trop, created more property tax revenue from the redevelopment and built the new stadium without any more public money than is being spent on the Trop now would erase a lot of doubts.
That may not be possible. But the sooner the Rays provide a more complete financing plan, the better their chances of success. They may be generating some excitement with Kevin Costner videos and fliers they hand to fans at home games, but they will need a much a broader campaign with much greater detail to convince voters.
Financing is not the only missing ingredient. Voters will want to be assured that any new development on the Tropicana Field site is consistent with community goals, and that sufficient parking is available for a waterfront stadium. Environmental regulators will have to be assured the stadium won't unduly harm the boat basin it will border.
Key steps remain and important voices have yet to enter this debate. A diverse review committee appointed by the Chamber of Commerce, for example, is not expected to release its recommendations until the end of May. Council members need to keep an open mind until all of the facts are on the table — and the Rays need to be mindful that they risk being nitpicked to death on side issues if they don't readdress the central question of financing soon.
[Last modified: Apr 20, 2008 12:45 PM]
Comments on this article
by Barbara
Apr 18, 2008 11:52 PM
There is NO WAY that the area can handle the volume of traffic that'll pass through. It'll be a nightmare for downtown residents. Better to put it in south St. Pete, near Bayboro.
by Brian
Apr 18, 2008 10:01 AM
The current Park looks great....would love to see a new park but Im happy with with we got now. Better than most parks in the us.
by tim
Apr 18, 2008 9:58 AM
"Wait till the facts are in?" We've been waiting. Unfortunately the Times has thus far refused to admit that the citizens, and citizens only will be paying for the $450+ million palace to a dying sport.
by Cornelius
Apr 17, 2008 3:17 PM
I say " the devil with it " Is that why the Devil was taken out of Rays. I guess the Ownership thought it would be blessed.
by Con
Apr 17, 2008 2:13 PM
I say focus any tax payer money on the shortfall of revenues facing local and state government. Saving a human from social suffering is more important than replacing an adequate facility.
by kitty
Apr 17, 2008 2:07 PM
Another Fan, if the City caves to the rays owners, they would fill in several acres of Tampa Bay in order to make the stadium fit, so technically the name Tampa Bay would be appropriate.
by Cornelius
Apr 17, 2008 11:53 AM
With shrinking local and state revenue, this is not the time to continue the support of social golden welfare tax break parachutes to multi billion dollar sport franchise owners. St.Antony's Hospital, medicaid,food banks needs money more. Gameov
by Another Fan
Apr 17, 2008 11:53 AM
St Pete needs to look even at the name of the team...not even St Petersburg Rays. Make all tampa bay area foot the bill if that's what they want.
by Darth Vader
Apr 17, 2008 11:38 AM
The stadium should not be on our waterfront. I am not opposed to the appropriate redevelopment of the Trop site with the Trop or a new stadium on it-if the Rays pay for it. Financing is not the issue when it comes to the waterfront. Character is
by Chris
Apr 17, 2008 10:33 AM
Times Ed Board has drunk the Kool-Aid:
"...diverse review committee appointed by the Chamber of Commerce" HA! That'll be the day.
by kitty
Apr 17, 2008 10:30 AM
If it's an open-air stadium they want, why not take the roof off the dome? Renovation and retrofitting makes much more sense economically and environmentally than tearing down the current structures on both sites and starting from scratch.
by James
Apr 17, 2008 10:26 AM
Here's hoping it's continues as a "Field of Dreams", and not one of reality.
by David
Apr 17, 2008 10:11 AM
Had Costner lived here thru any of our storm seasons or sat in full sun during our summer,he wouldn't have made a vidio promoting an open air stadium with a big sail. For fan's sake, foot the bill for a roof, Oh yeah, we already have one wi
by David
Apr 17, 2008 10:11 AM
Vinoy basen was once public property, now it is a private marina for millionairs. The Ray's owners want to do the same thing with Al Lang and the adjoining bay. Of course it makes financial sense to them, but there is nothing in it for us. Nothi
by Dave
Apr 17, 2008 10:11 AM
Make it a working water front with the shrimpers and commercial fishing boats. Add a boardwalk, stores and restaurants and you would have a busy, productive, fun place that people would flock to and enjoy. Baseball can find other land.
by Bob
Apr 17, 2008 10:11 AM
Excellent story with a real grasp of the issue, while disregarding the emotional game playing of those who have other agendas. There is a business track and a political track attached to this issue and the two should not be confussed.
by KG
Apr 17, 2008 10:11 AM
a new stadium is the latest of example of a corporate stick-up. the citizens pay the costs, the team owners keep the profits. it's called coporate welfare. why do people still fall for this old scam? just say 'no', St Pete.
by Ball Fan
Apr 17, 2008 10:11 AM
But it's ugly. St. Pete's downtown is so nice, why put such a monstrosity in it. Not to mention the already operating taxpayer funded stadium that is just a few years old. Why treat privately owned professional sports franchises as public u
by Andrew
Apr 17, 2008 9:52 AM
Thank you for looking at the big picture. POWW will continue to focus on the minor issues just because they dont want to be disturbed in their condos. This project is not about a stadium, its about growing as a city, making it the St. Pete/Tampa area
by Willi Rudowsky
Apr 17, 2008 8:55 AM
I am confused. Based on the headline and first two paragraphs, this is an editorical against POWW. After that, it supports what has been arguing for months. One caveat: it is equally incorrect to assume that the numbers will add up.
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.