Anti-Rays stadium group touts flawed push poll, continues to mislead

The main opposition group behind the proposed redevelopment plan for the current Tropicana Field site has released a new poll showing majority support for the current plan, until respondents are fed misleading information to change their mind.

In a classic example of toeing the line between legitimate survey and loathed push poll, respondents were first asked how familiar they are with the redevelopment proposal that includes “building new apartments, condominiums and offices … and the construction of a new baseball stadium for the Tampa Bay Rays” before being asked whether they support or oppose the plan.

Under that question, 51% of respondents indicated they supported the plan, with only 36% in opposition. That means that even with the 13% of respondents who indicated they were undecided, the opposition would still be in the minority.

But the poll was not done. It went on to provide respondents with several additional “details” about the proposal that present only the opposition’s talking points.

Given that the poll’s first two questions centered on respondents’ familiarity with the project — with 25% indicating they were not familiar and nearly half only somewhat familiar with the project broadly; and 64% unfamiliar with the project’s proposed financing plan — it’s clear the poll sought not to establish legitimate public sentiment, but push opposition talking points onto those who may not be paying particularly close attention.

To be clear, residents should be informed about major decisions affecting their city. And they should have easy access to any information needed to ensure they are able to educate themselves on a plan of this magnitude.

So while this poll provides plenty of information about why opponents feel the way they do, it offers zero information about benefits. This is a disservice to the public at the behest of a small faction of naysayers bent on further prolonging progress on a project that is already years overdue.

The first question that provides respondents with additional “information” centers on the established selling price for the Rays and Houston-based developer Hines at $105 million. It notes that “some real estate analysts estimate the sales price to be significantly below market value” before asking whether the city “should or should not get an updated and independent appraisal of the land’s actual value before selling the property.

Who would say no to that under that wording? Very few, is the answer, as evidenced by the 86% of respondents who said the city should indeed seek such an appraisal.

What that question ignores is the colossal amount of time it would take to do that — time that has already been squandered through several failed attempts at deals over the past decade or so. It also makes unrealistic assumptions about how the land should be valued.

While the question does not get into specific numbers, the group No Home Run, which commissioned the survey from Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy, has said the land is worth $700 million. A developer, Jay Miller, contends the actual market value is more like $174 million. Reasonable people can disagree on either of these numbers, but Miller’s estimate shows his math, a benefit the No Home Run survey did not offer respondents.

As Miller points out, to get to the opposition group’s $700 million figure, the city would have to dabble in the world of developer — something it has neither the resources nor the expertise to handle. It’s why public-private partnerships are a thing.

Additionally, Miller pointed out that the city would have “come up with its own plan for developing the 86-acres, construct the required infrastructure and then oversee marketing and sale of smaller development sites at retail value.”

But No Home Run doesn’t stop there with the leading question. In another, it states that the Rays “will not pay real estate taxes” because they will lease the new stadium. It then asks respondents whether “the city of St. Petersburg should or should not require the Rays to pay rent that is at least equal to what the real estate taxes would have been if they owned the stadium.”

Again, who would say no to that given such limited information? It’s like asking someone if they want $1 million but then not telling them they’d have to give up a kidney to get it.

That’s perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s relevant nonetheless. What the question — most of which is more of a statement — ignores is that the Rays have been leasing Tropicana Field since they became a team and that while the city could certainly require higher rent to accommodate lost tax revenue, that doesn’t mean the Rays have to accept those conditions. They won’t.

So perhaps the 79% of respondents who said the city should charge more in rent might have had a different mindset if they knew such a stipulation would likely be a deal-killer.

But wait, there’s more!

Another “question” states that the city “would have to borrow $287.5 million to pay for their share of the new stadium.” It adds that after interest on the loan, “taxpayers will ultimately” be on the hook for $494 million. It then adds that “the Rays would keep all of the revenue that the stadium generates — including non-baseball revenue” before asking whether the city should require revenue sharing “to offset the investment being made by city taxpayers.”

Again, this is leading and, as stated, obviously draws a no-brainer answer from respondents. But it still ignores crucial details about the value taxpayers are getting for their investment, such as much needed affordable housing and, really, anything but a sea of parking.

It also points out in another question that the Rays would keep profits from a sale if it sells to a new owner and asks whether the city should get some of that profit.

It’s amazing that a credible polling outfit such as Mason-Dixon would indulge these types of questions. If you ask anyone if they want a piece of profit from someone selling something, the answer is going to be yes. It doesn’t mean getting a piece of that profit is feasible. This poll is making offers that simply cannot be fulfilled, all with the intent of swaying public opinion.

If the goal is merely to engage in a marketing strategy, good job, I guess. But ask yourself this: Where in their opposition has No Home Run offered a feasible alternative to the existing plan?

It took us years to get to this point. Progress is just on the horizon. I have no doubt that supporters of No Home Run have residents’ best intentions in mind — they want the best deal possible for taxpayers. But the level of naiveté is on full display with assumptions that these demands are anything less than pie in the sky.

And at the end of the day, this push poll is not an adequate reflection of resident sentiment. It provides a one-sided view of the current plan and asks people to weigh in without the benefit of the other side.

And so far, the group’s strategy is not working. At least 80 groups have signed on to support the current redevelopment plan, spanning businesses, nonprofits, elected officials and more, on both sides of the political aisle.

Among dozens of others, supporters include the Skyway Housing Foundation, the Tampa Bay Black Business Investment Corp., The Woodson African American History Museum, the Tampa Bay Innovation Center, the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, Bayfront Health, U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, the Foundation for a Healthy St. Petersburg, the St. Pete Arts Alliance, SPCA Tampa Bay … and on and on and on.

The opposition group, meanwhile, loves to say they have bipartisan support for its cause — blocking the redevelopment. But it’s more like bipartisan opposition. See, individuals on both sides of the aisle aligned with No Home Run agree they don’t like the current plan, but what they can’t agree on is what they want instead.

On the far Left, you have a bunch of activists who want more affordable housing and other progressive priorities that aren’t necessarily viable in this or any proposal. And on the Right, you have those who just want a bunch of luxury condos. In either case, the opposition remains in the minority.

When it takes a poll that fails even the most basic of salt shaker tests to find support, it’s not fair to claim victory. Anyone looking at this poll should indeed take it with a grain of salt and recognize that answers depend on how the question was asked and, in this case, it wasn’t fairly.