Today's paper | eEdition | Subscribe
The Truth-O-Meter
Latest print edition
St. Petersburg Times
Special report
  • 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?
  • More special reports
Video report
  • 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.
  • More video reports
Multimedia report
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
A Times Editorial

Upstart muddies the waters


In print: Thursday, June 5, 2008


Social Bookmarking
Digg Facebook Stumbleupon
Reddit Del.icio.us Newsvine
ADVERTISEMENT

Karl Nurse, who was appointed to the St. Petersburg City Council less than two months ago, has wasted no time becoming a divisive force. On the eve of an important council vote — one that could help determine Major League Baseball's future in the city — Nurse has insulted his more experienced colleagues by trying to undermine their debate today on a ballot question proposed by the Tampa Bay Rays to build a new waterfront stadium.

The council is to take a vote to start the procedures to schedule a November referendum so voters could decide if a $450-million stadium should be built on the site of Al Lang Field. As part of that plan, the Tropicana Field site would be sold for residential and retail development and returned to the tax rolls. This is just the first step in a multistep referendum process, and it is a reasonable move to enable negotiations to continue to progress over the summer. Council members have until August to make a final decision on putting the stadium question on the November ballot, and there is no reason to prematurely end the discussion now.

Now Nurse wants to muddy the waters and confuse voters. He said he would introduce a competing, and potentially conflicting, referendum question today. Nurse is acting at the urging of former council member Virginia Littrell, a vehement stadium opponent who lost her 2005 re-election bid. She wants to rezone the Al Lang site, which has been used for baseball for decades, and restrict development on it.

So if the council lets Nurse and Littrell succeed, voters could be faced with two questions that could cancel each other out. It is an underhanded effort to thwart a straight-up decision by council members and voters. There is no doubt that the Rays need to explain their proposal more fully and that more work needs to be done on the financing of the project, parking and other issues. A vote today to begin the process to put the issue on the ballot would give the Rays and the city time to nail down specifics and St. Petersburg voters time to reach an informed conclusion.

By opposing such clarity, Nurse is reneging on two assurances he gave city residents when he was appointed to the District 6 seat vacated by Earnest Williams after his unsuccessful run for the Legislature. Then, Nurse denied any involvement in antistadium efforts and vowed to help residents understand the Rays' complex proposal. His actions break both promises.

According to a recent poll by the St. Petersburg Times, city voters oppose a new waterfront stadium at the moment — but they also want an opportunity to vote on the issue. It would be a straight-up vote, for or against the stadium, without Nurse's interference.

Both council members and city residents need to keep a clear head when defining the issues in front of them. The outcome is of utmost importance to the city's future. Should the city make a long-term commitment to the Rays, and at what cost to taxpayers? Will development of the Trop site pay the way for the new stadium? Is Al Lang a good spot for a landmark structure?

Those are issues that need further public discussion, and the council can provide that opportunity by moving forward with plans for a clear referendum. Nurse wants to confuse voters with a sneak attack, and he should not get away with it. The council would be foolish to let this upstart take their eye off the ball.



[Last modified: Jun 09, 2008 01:52 PM]



Comments on this article
by Tommy Jun 5, 2008 6:53 PM
Karl, do not get discouraged. Excluding Polson, the rest of the council will soon realize that they should have followed your lead. I am ashamed of Curran, Bennet, Newton, Danner, Dudley, Kennedy. What a bunch of non thinkers. Why not a 2nd ballot?
by Vicky Jun 5, 2008 3:14 PM
If an amendment like this is not allowed then you can't expect this type of shady dealing between city leaders and big business to stop. The people had said they wanted Al Lang as a park and look what we're having to endure.
by Edna Jun 5, 2008 3:07 PM
I have lots of respect for Nurse, who is a tireless & thoughtful civil servant for our city. That said, thank goodness that his amendment was shot down today. The original amendment on the stadium hopefully will be on the ballot & let voters decide.
by Dave Jun 5, 2008 2:41 PM
Nice hack job.Karl Nurse appears to be the only one doing what most of the citizens elected all of those council members for.To watch out for our wallets and our waterfront.You are the divisive party.The St Pete Times is showing its true colors.
by Steve Jun 5, 2008 2:41 PM
Booo Karl Nurse. He is very bad for this city. He should step down immediately. Glad his whimpy suggestion was shot down. We don't need any poww moles in the Council. BUILD THIS BALLPARK NOW!!!!
by Native Jun 5, 2008 2:41 PM
it is amazing how many of you have cancelled your subcriptions years ago but continue to read online???? Your subscription does not pay for the paper adverstisers do, does it matter how they reach the audience?
by ron Jun 5, 2008 2:41 PM
250 characters is not sufficient for a response.
by Dave Jun 5, 2008 1:38 PM
Exactly what type of discussion is the Times looking for? One where we are told that we are paying for a stadium we don't want to replace the ugly one we didn't want despite our objections?We spoke..NO..Isn't your purpose to simply reflect this fact?
by ron Jun 5, 2008 1:37 PM
The Times is certainly not lacking in chutzpah. First you never present a clear accounting of the proposal by the Rays, you are not clear about the Times' conflict of interest and you never honestly evaluate the effect on the community.
by Dave Jun 5, 2008 1:32 PM
This is the same city council who voted to give themselves a 40% pay increase during the end of a long meeting at 1am.Do you really think they care about your money?
by Truth Jun 5, 2008 1:31 PM
Hey Keith, please please please punish me by taking the Rays out of town. I don't deserve them. I'm not worthy. And punish me with extreme wealth while you're at it.
by Dave Jun 5, 2008 1:30 PM
Just remember St pete Times, when you jump in bed with greedy pigs, you are going to get really dirty.
by Lee Jun 5, 2008 12:00 PM
This is absolutely IMMORAL! You are for allowing New York Investment bankers to have access to the ballot but not your own citizens. Thank God you are losing influence in our community thanks to the internet. Straub is turning over in his grave!!!
by Steve Jun 5, 2008 12:00 PM
Cancelled my subscription years ago because of crap like this. The times sickens me. Karl keep up the work which the majority of this town want. If the more "experienced" council had voted the glitch ordiance in we wound not be in the MESS. Go Karl.
by Bill Jun 5, 2008 11:59 AM
This is a low point in a paper that I once admired. First, they finally succumb to the Ray's scheme and publically admit it. Second, they slag one of the few visionary Council members as an "upstart". We need more upstarts to quell the incompetents.
by REBA Jun 5, 2008 11:59 AM
OUTRAGE that Nurse would be considered an upstart. He has a long history of community service. The Times has really disappointed me. I thought you were more progressive. When will you admit your financial conflict of interest with the Rays?
by Keith Jun 5, 2008 11:59 AM
The fact that someone like Nurse is on city council shows what a small-time, small-minded town St. Pete really is. Most of the comments on this blog offer further proof. This "debate" convinces me more each day that St. Pete doesn't deserve the Rays
by Truth Jun 5, 2008 11:59 AM
Shame on the Times but it doesn't surprise me. This is why we quit our 15 year subscription 2 years ago. You're just a lapdog for Rick Baker. We want a chance to vote on what the council has robbed us of. Karl Nurse is to be commended.
by Matt Jun 5, 2008 11:59 AM
My how far this paper has fallen. I guess any opinion but thiers will get you shredded. St pete Times you are a desperate group.
by Don Jun 5, 2008 10:45 AM
You should never have two referendum items that can cancel each other out. If one is approved without the other you will have a legal disaster. Both sides should be against this.
by Ned Jun 5, 2008 10:45 AM
Add me to the list of subscription cancellations. This editorial is a shameless sellout to the Times' biggest advertiser, The Tampa Bay Rays.
by Bill Jun 5, 2008 10:45 AM
Let me guess . . . if and when the referendum goes to us, the SPT will recommend we vote yes. They really have to, as their name is plastered all over the Trop.
by Paul Jun 5, 2008 10:45 AM
Nurse is getting back what the citizens and council all agreed to, giving an option to limit the scale of Al Lang redevelopment. How quickly we forget Council's 'glitch ordinance' that they NEVER fixed. Liars, liars, pants on fire.
by Mike Jun 5, 2008 10:45 AM
Al Lang field has been under public consideration as a protected site for a long time. The council failed to do their job the last time and now it is only fair to take this to the voters to prevent the council from another failure.
by Abbi Jun 5, 2008 10:44 AM
Nurse an Upstart?? Did this reporter just move to St. Pete? Nurse has been around for years!! This also ensures the Al Lang site is safe from more structures that blight our waterfront. This reporter needs to keep their day job.
by Bland Jun 5, 2008 10:44 AM
It would appear Councilman Nurse is more in tune with the majority of citizens wishes then the "experienced" council members and the editorial staff of the Times.
by Sal Jun 5, 2008 10:44 AM
This is just the beginning ; This person is flawed . Why do you think he has never won an election ? Several more qualified indivuals we passed over to select him . He and those who selected him need to be gone ! The man is a nut !
by Mandy Jun 5, 2008 10:44 AM
Muddies the waters? More like, speaks on behalf of the people (for a change). I wish the SPT would just keep their mouths shut on this from now on. You are clearly biased because of your close business relationship with the Rays. Disclose it!
by Pablo Jun 5, 2008 10:44 AM
Nurse is hardly an upstart. He was a strong candidate among the nine or more who ran in the mayoral primary when JEB inappropriately endorsed Baker. Nurse speaks for many people in and out of his district.
by Faith Jun 5, 2008 10:44 AM
You speak about "sneak attack." How about the Mayor and staff sneaking around behind citizens backs for over a year planning this scam? How about reniging on the 20/20 visioning to keep Al Lang as park. You are point the finger at the wrong person.
by Allan Jun 5, 2008 10:06 AM
St. Pete Times ed board: totalitarian enemies of basic grass roots democratic government in the interests of the agenda of the possessing and propertied ruling classes of St. Pete.
by John Jun 5, 2008 10:05 AM
My goodness, what are you afraid of? Such a personal attack on a man of the people, for the people, by the people. He is not letting the SPT or the Rays run roughshod over us. He is merely giving us a chance to say NO, not now, not ever!
by sabine Jun 5, 2008 10:04 AM
Are you one of Aaron's bloggers? This is more a personal attack than an argument about an issue. For shame! And, there is a process in place so the ballot measures will NOT cancel each other out. You know better!!
by Ralph Jun 5, 2008 10:03 AM
Sounds like the Editors of the Ray's biggest advertiser/supporter are awfully scared of something to write such vitriol about a man who is just trying to help St. Peter save its most precious resource - the waterfront
by Justin Elza Jun 5, 2008 10:03 AM
This is such an insulting, blatantly biased piece from the "official paper of the Tampa Bay Rays" that I am ashamed to be a subscriber. The council would be foolish to fall for this editorial nonsense.
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.

Email Newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

 
ADVERTISEMENT