Janelle Irwin Taylor
A majority of Pinellas County voters want the city of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County to work with the Tampa Bay Rays on a stadium deal to ensure the Major League Baseball team stays put, and that majority is willing to vote against any elected official who takes action to the contrary.
A polling memo obtained by Florida Politics shows that 65% of voters surveyed favor city and county governments working with the Rays to build a new ballpark at the current Tropicana Field site, now commonly referred to as the Historic Gas Plant District.
Of those, 35% said they strongly favor a deal, while 30% said they somewhat favor one. Only 24% of respondents oppose a partnership, while 8% said they weren’t sure or didn’t want to answer and 3% said their answer depends on the details of the plan and cost.
The numbers are consistent across party affiliation, data that refutes a recent article in the Tampa Times outlining bipartisan opposition to the deal from a local Democratic and a Republican club headed by leaders seen by some as on the fringe of their respective political parties.
Those leaders are Republican Barbara Haselden, who became prominent in local politics during the Tea Party rise in the 2010s, and Democrat Jim Donelon, who is the St. Petersburg Democratic Club Treasurer and past President. Donelon also once attempted to have former St. Petersburg City Council member Darden Rice disqualified from the ballot, along with a Republican challenger, over a residency accusation that was never upheld.
The survey found that 67% of Democrats favor some sort of deal, as did 65% of Republicans and 59% of independents.
Those choices were largely motivated by voters’ perception of the Rays’ importance in Pinellas County. The survey explained that the Rays “are currently working with the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County to partner on the construction of a new ballpark to replace Tropicana Field after their lease expires in 2027,” and asked “how important it is for the Tampa Bay Rays to remain located in Pinellas County for the next several decades.”
A total of 82% of respondents indicated it was important, with 56% saying it was very important to keep the team in the county and 26% saying it was somewhat important. Only 16% of respondents said it was not important, with 3% not providing an answer.
The survey also dove into plan details, including public funding and the impact on local taxes, and asked voters whether the information provided makes them more or less likely (including somewhat likely and somewhat unlikely) to support building a new ballpark.
It’s worth noting that the information provided to voters did not include an overall price tag, which is about $600 million (though critics argue that number will ultimately be much higher when considering lost revenue, interest on debt service and other factors).
On public funding, the survey informed voters that the public portion “will come from tourist taxes and economic development funds specifically designated for projects like this.” It added that the funding structure “ensures that funding cannot be diverted away from other priorities like law enforcement and education.”
Given that information, 80% of respondents said they were more likely to support a new ballpark, including 47% who said they were much more likely.
On the impact to local taxes, the survey said public funding would not come from property taxes, and that there would be “no new or increased taxes on residents or businesses.” Here, even more respondents said they were more likely to support a new ballpark (86%), with 63% saying they were much more likely.
Similar support was found when explaining the current deal’s cost splitting plan, with the Rays pledging $700 million, plus any project overruns, and $600 million from the city and county. On that information, 76% of respondents said they’d be more likely to support a plan.
Support was also strong for the current plans community use components, including public use of the stadium on non-game days (88%), and redevelopment of land surrounding a proposed new ballpark (79%).
Asked again after the informed questioning section of the survey whether they favor or oppose “Pinellas County and the city of St. Pete partnering with the Tampa Bay Rays to build a new ballpark on the current Tropicana Field site,” 79% were in favor.
But perhaps the most important number for the Rays comes by way of how voters would translate their support for the project — or lack thereof — to the ballot box.
Asked if a County Commissioner or City Council member voted against the plan if they would be more or less likely to vote for that official in the next election for which they are on the ballot, 65% said they would be less likely.
The question, and the responses, may provide cover to elected officials who will be tasked with voting on the current proposal in the coming weeks. St. Pete City Council is already expected to take up the issue in committee meetings next month.
“We are pleased with the results and believe they are a reflection of the wide support for the franchise as we have become part of the fabric of our community for more than 25 years,” said Rays co-President Brian Auld.
The survey comes after the St. Pete NAACP announced it was backing the proposed redevelopment plan, noting that it had the “potential to catalyze opportunities for future generations, with a special focus on empowering the African American community and businesses in St. Petersburg.”
The survey was taken March 13-19 among 500 active registered voters in Pinellas County. It has a margin of error of +/-4.4 percentage points.
15 comments
Bob Waha
April 16, 2024 at 6:23 pm
“500”?! Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Probably includes her husband, children and two dogs.
Karyn Mueller
April 17, 2024 at 3:16 pm
It’s too funny right?! I guess they’re hoping that people only read the title and not the very last line that says only 500 people were surveyed!!
Peter Schorsch
April 17, 2024 at 3:28 pm
You clearly don’t understand how survey research works.
Karyn Mueller
April 17, 2024 at 9:36 pm
The League emailed 32,000 voters and 800 responded and 80% were against the deal.
To say the public wants to get a deal negotiated is one thing but when people find out how much it costs then, they quickly are against it.
This survey is biased and they have no room to criticize the other survey since it is a push poll.
rick whitaker
April 18, 2024 at 8:43 pm
karyn, let the rich fund their own projects. that is the majority position.
rick whitaker
April 18, 2024 at 10:01 pm
PETER, i understand that polls are commonly used as a poor tool to display a result that is commonly ambiguous to the end user. like most tools, i can beat you over the head with it, or fix something with it. the fixing would be an accurate objective poll, and the head bashing would be a subjective inaccurate or deceptively worded poll. which kind of poll was the one mentioned in the post?
Karyn Mueller
April 17, 2024 at 1:26 pm
Of course most people want to work out a deal with the Rays to stay but to do that means a complete overhaul of the existing deal.
As it stands, the Democrat Club voted unanimously against the billion dollar plus stadium subsidy and land giveaway and the Republican Club voted 17 for it and 26 opposed at last week’s meeting. “One thing St. Petersburg Democrats, GOP agree on: No to Rays stadium deal” Story by Colleen Wright, Tampa Bay Times • 1d
City Council and Commissioners, vote NO on this massive corporate welfare proposal! This is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility. The current development terms include giving the 60 acres of publicly owned land away to the Rays/Hines group for only $105,000,000 and then gifting them $130,000,000 in infrastructure (funded by taxpayers). Hines just bought a warehouse on October 11, 2023 in Tampa for $46,000,000 but $105,000,000 is a fair price for 60 acres of prime real estate?? (“Hines Buys East Tampa Warehouse” TBBJ)
In addition, to pay for the $287,500,000 for the stadium subsidy and $130,000,000 gift to the Rays/Hines for infrastructure, we have to take out debt in the form of bonds. The bonds have interest and result in a total cost of $704,000,000 to taxpayers to pay for these developer subsidies. To pay the bonds back, we have to take 50% of the property taxes from the Intown CRA, which includes the most valuable real estate in the city, the high rises on Central Ave and Beach Drive, and obligate those taxes for 30 years to pay for the stadium.
When property taxes are siphoned off to become TIF money, it leaves a hole that other taxpayers have to make up. Right now we may have enough in our general fund to cover our budget. However, as costs rise and 50% of the taxes in the Intown CRA are already obligated, it’s very possible that property taxes will have to raised in the future to meet the budget.
In addition, the property tax revenues from the development that the economic impact study promises are based on full build out. Currently the developer has very vague performance requirements on the development of the mixed-use site. Rays/Hines is prioritizing the stadium build to be completed by 2028 while the rest of the site as reflected in the development agreement has very weak minimum development requirements. In the 10/26/23 Committee of the Whole meeting, Michael Harrison with Hines said that they would not pay property taxes until buildings were put into service.
In addition, the Economic Impact Study assumed full attendance at all games and 30 non-game day events a year. We know this is not realistic, however, there are no contract provisions such as claw back provisions to have the developer pay the City taxpayers back if they don’t meet their estimations.
The Stadium project is well planned, coordinated, financed and managed by the Rays, but the non-stadium development is not, leaving the City in the dark. This directly impacts the amount of property tax revenue projections, making the rosy scenario of 100% build out much less likely. We could very easily end up giving the Rays a substantial stadium subsidy and then not getting the build out and tax revenues we were expecting and not having any control over the site.
Write City Council and County Commissioners today and tell them to vote NO!
Ray Tampa
April 23, 2024 at 6:31 am
Karyn, I believe you made a very strong case in support of your statement, “this represents financial irresponsibility.” Therefore, if the law says these public officials, city and county, have fiduciary obligations to look after the best interest of the residents, what am I missing? As so many others have said, I want the Ray’s to stay, I really do. However, my desire for their permanence is NOT at all cost. The deal should be renegotiated.
Don LaGrone, MD
April 22, 2024 at 4:50 pm
Karyn Mueller’s post is accurate, while the article in Florida Politics is a total distortion of the facts. The FP push poll has no validity, being based on a tiny selection of respondents, while the League of Women Voters Poll was carefully crafted to avoid leading questions.
We love sports and the Rays, but do not want to see St. Petersburg taken to the cleaners to build a stadium we do not need at a cost that is outrageous.
Ray Tampa
April 23, 2024 at 6:36 am
Karyn, I believe you made a very strong case in support of your statement, “this represents financial irresponsibility.” Therefore, if the law says these public officials, city and county, have fiduciary obligations to look after the best interest of the residents, what am I missing? As so many others have said, I want the Ray’s to stay, I really do. However, my desire for their permanence is NOT at all cost. The deal should be renegotiated.
Ray Tampa
April 23, 2024 at 7:08 am
Polls too often reflect the desires of the sponsors. Unfortunately, this article failed to identify the person or organization that sponsored or conducted the poll. Janelle simply said they received a “polling memo.” The numbers mentioned in this poll are very suspicious. They seem to directly contradict the polling conducted by the highly regarded LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS. The mystery people should come out and take responsibility for this disastrous poll. Yes, I referred to the poll as disastrous because of how the numbers are reported and how much they.seem to be polar opposites to the respected organization’s poll. Even Stevie Wonder can see that there is some funny business going on here.
Ray Tampa
April 23, 2024 at 7:04 am
Polls too often reflect the desires of the sponsors. Unfortunately, this article failed to identify the person or organization that sponsored or conducted the poll. Janelle simply said they received a “polling memo.” The numbers mentioned in this poll are very suspicious. They seem to directly contradict the polling conducted by the highly regarded LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS. The mystery people should come out and take responsibility for this disastrous poll. Yes, I referred to the poll as disastrous because of how the numbers are reported and how much they.seem to be polar opposites to the respected organization’s poll. Even Stevie Wonder can see that there is some funny business going on here.
SONIA R Sonia Castillo
April 26, 2024 at 5:31 pm
I love the Rays stadium to stay in St Petersburg please.