With the Rays stadium project now in focus, many will be peeved, but they should instead be pleased

Image via Rays/Hines

The development team spearheading a new development at the site where Tropicana Field is currently located — the Tampa Bay Rays and Hines — and the city of St. Petersburg have released new documents outlining additional details on the project that show more affordable housing than originally suggested, but also some losses for the group tasked with making recommendations to ensure adequate community benefit. 

The documents outline how the 65 acres surrounding the existing stadium would be transformed from a sea of parking into a cohesive Historic Gas Plant District, paying homage to the African American community displaced with Tropicana Field was first built and establishing a series of community amenities that, in addition to housing, includes hotel space, parks, offices, a new African American history museum, retail space, restaurants and more. 

While the new information will be crucial as St. Pete City Council prepares to discuss the plan at a workshop May 9, perhaps the most impactful part of these new details is the opportunity it creates to move forward. 

As with any deal, there are wins for the city, and there are concessions. The wins in this case far exceed the losses made through negotiations that are inherent in any deal, whether public or private. 

The documents show the Rays/Hines team has added 50 proposed affordable housing units than originally expected, bringing the number to 1,250. Affordable housing was a top priority for Mayor Ken Welch in any deal, so you can bet he had a hand in sweetening this particular pot. And while the latest iteration doesn’t include some recommendations from the Community Benefits Advisory Council tasked with evaluating the plan — such as increased penalties for not starting certain phases of the project on time or an accelerated timeline for some of the units — it is an overall win. 

So much of the focus on this deal has been centered on the potential that the city could part with valuable land in its urban core for less than market value, and the subsidy required to bring the entire thing together. On the surface, these concerns are valid. But they ignore important nuance and fail to consider the price of progress. 

As I’ve written before, arguments that local governments don’t receive a return on investment from stadium deals are short sighted. They rely only on numbers. But benefit boils down to more than just bottom line, and the sense of place that comes with having a major league sports team — whether it’s baseball or any other sport — is difficult to quantify. There are media impressions on home game days, there are visits from tourists, there is a robust market for team swag, and so much more these analyses ignore. Not to mention, most stadium deals critics point to are more singular than the sweeping project proposed here — rather than including just a new, swanky stadium, it includes an entire district meant to be its own community and a draw to anyone looking for an afternoon or evening out. 

We should also remember our history as we move forward with decisions on this project. Look no further than the St. Pete Pier, which has won major accolades and is a draw for residents and visitors alike. Yet it almost never was. 

Why? Because a vocal group of naysayers bombarded City Council meetings for years. Voters rejected one proposal at the ballot box and spent months in what ended up being a years-long process to build a new pier, costing not necessarily dollars, but lost access to an important community gathering space and attractive amenity.

Now we’re faced with another group of naysayers bombarding City Council meetings — and no doubt their email inboxes — with any number of lamentations all amounting to really just one argument — “corporate welfare.”  

I get it. Handouts to wealthy corporations aren’t always the best look. But this project is not corporate welfare. It’s the cost of doing business with a private partner that can do what a local government cannot. 

To parcel the Trop site out piece-by-piece would never result in the type of cohesive district planned, even if it would net the city more money in the short term. To play hardball with the Rays/Hines team too much would kill the deal. 

The clock on this has ticked, and ticked, and ticked for as long as I can remember. All eight years of the Kriseman administration were spent trying to make a deal happen. Even former Mayor Rick Kriseman’s predecessor, Bill Foster, and his predecessor, Rick Baker, were in talks. The city finally has a commitment from the Rays to remain in St. Petersburg. That’s worth more than balance sheets can quantify. 

And at the end of the day, critics also seem to forget that this project will not raise property taxes and, at least the county’s portion, will be funded largely by tourists through bed tax revenue. 

And one final thought, this one to members of City Council. How you vote may make or break your political career in this town. Remember that the only scientific survey conducted regarding this project — the League of Women Voters survey was not scientific and was sent via Survey Monkey — found elected officials vote against the deal at their own peril. 

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% of respondents said they would be less likely.

The discussions on this have been had ad nauseam. It’s been debated, debated again and then debated some more. We’re in the bottom of the ninth. The bases are loaded. It’s time to knock it out of the park … in a new park.