I hate the color Red!!!

by JDeLuca on Apr 27, 2008 10:09 PM EDT

So I'm driving to my in-laws house 20 minutes after the Rays just swept the Red Sox in one of the best series ever played by our boys, and I start to get a sick feeling. I'm getting this feeling because not only did I have to sit through 3 straight games of half the Trop crowd wearing red, but now I'm seeing hundreds of VOTE NO TO WATERFRONT STADIUM signs everywhere I look! At first there were a couple here or there, but like pennies and closet hangers they seems to have multiplied like crazy overnight!!! I live about 3 miles from my in-laws, but in that short distance I must have counted at least 50 of these signs on people's lawns and street corners.

The website listed on the sign is www.stpetepoww.com and I recently checked it out. Among its many concerns it lists everything from environmental issues (I might buy that) to ruined existing waterfront vistas (I definitely don't buy that). Anyway, as a huge supporter of the team and a believer in the proposed stadium I feel obligated to combat this propaganda. I understand that only Pinellas County residents can vote on this issue in November, so I implore the Rays to create big blue VOTE YES TO WATERFRONT STADIUM signs for local supporters to proudly display.

Anybody with me?

This post was written by a member of the DRaysBay community and does not necessarily express the views or opinions of DRaysBay staff.

Tweet Comment 45 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

if i lived in tampa, i'd be with you

all these idiots that are against the team probably have NEVER been to a game, and NEVER will go to a game.

by davidsmarch on Apr 27, 2008 10:22 PM EDT reply actions

Does Tampa have any say in it?

I believe the vote is only for Pinellas County

"I'd hate to leave right when the getting is good." -CC

by Matt Bishoff on Apr 28, 2008 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions

A little further......

The only ones who have a say in it are residents of the City of St. Petersburg, since the only thing that absolutely needs to be voted on is the issuance of a lease to the Rays for a stadium on the waterfront. The city charter requires voter referendums on any changes to a specially defined waterfront parks system that includes North Shore, Vinoy, North Straub, Straub, and Pioneer Parks, as well as the Al Lang site and Albert Whitted Airport.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 28, 2008 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions

The POWW is ran by the waterfront property owners

It’s less about “our waterfront” and more about “our resale value”.

"I've seen many, many blue skies turn gray, but the sun will eventually return, and so will I. So will I." - Carlos Pena

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 27, 2008 10:28 PM EDT reply actions

It the stadium goes in I will be happy to buy someone house that is down the street from it.

by JBrooks31 on Apr 27, 2008 10:46 PM EDT reply actions

The Opponents raise some legitimate points

Most of them are local, and many of them are Tropicana Field regulars. This is not some outside force driving all of this opposition. While I disagree with stadium opponents, I don’t feel it is fair to question their motives.

At the same time have other reasons for hating red, including the difficuly it creates for those trying to “spot the cow”.

by GomesSweetGomes on Apr 27, 2008 11:13 PM EDT reply actions

Question what motives?

It’s more nitpicking over stupid stuff, like how are you going to use the on-the-field product as one of the reasons why you’re saying no?

What happens if we’re we win 82 or more games? Will they all-of-a-sudden change their minds? No, they’ll nitpick again, complain that “it’s just one season” and point out one player or choose something else about the team to rag on.

I know it’s a possible harsh generalization, but the ownership has said(check out the official website under “misconceptions” if you want to know what I’m talking about) that the increased revenue from this will benefit the team and it’s payroll. Meaning, if you want the best players and us being able to sign them to lucrative deals, let them build the stadium and use Tropicana’s land for malls/housing/etc. It’s just a shot in the dark, but if you allow them to build the stadium, the ownership you sometimes believe to be “cheap” will open the checkbooks more than they did this offseason and during the season(signing Shields, Pena, Wheeler and Longoria to extensions).

Really, what has the team done that has truly backfired….personnel-wise? Huff has been the ONLY player to give us fits as an opposing player.

by Jacob Larsen on Apr 27, 2008 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Don't Shoot The Messenger

But understand that people who live here in Saint Petersburg have interests/concerns other than the future success of the Rays and these interests/concerns will not always align with those of the team. I’m not here to recite the opponent’s arguments for them, but we’d all be foolish to dismiss them as simplistic naysaying.

by GomesSweetGomes on Apr 27, 2008 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions

The opponents of the stadium definitely raise legitimate concerns

But as with any organization, a lot of their members have transparently self-serving interests and are using POWW as a vehicle to further their own agendas. You’re absolutely right, there are valid reasons to oppose the plan. I just wish that POWW, as a legitimate opposition group, would stop being so shrill in their attacks of the plan. They’ve really not “engaged” thus far in the debate, it appears to me that they’ve just been shouting and calling those in favor of the plan foolish or surrogates for big business, and that’s not helpful to the debate. The distortions need to stop, and we need a real debate on an issue of paramount importance for the future of the City of St. Petersburg.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 28, 2008 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions

I Agree

Many of the POWW slogans sound like the reactionary statements of a grumpy old man. At the same time I think outsiders fail to recognize the resentment that many locals around the Trop site still feel over the displacement of residents that it created. Combine that with anxiety over home sales, and it’s not too surprising that many of them are reacting emotionally to the stadium proposal. And, as you said, this sucks because it stifles legitimate debate.

by GomesSweetGomes on Apr 28, 2008 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions

The Stadium

As much as I want the new stadium, I agree there remain questions to be answered. Many of those presented are red herrings in my view, but there does need to be an honest appraisal of the financial and economic benefits and hazards before anyone can be so certain one way or the other.

From another viewpoint, not so much an argument but a tangential thought, I love the idea of having that downtown stadium as designed. Again, I am not presenting this as an argument, although it might be developed into one, but as an immediate response.

What distinguishes St. Petersburg? What does anyone see when you hear the name? Or rather, should someone in Omaha or Ottawa or Oran or Oslo hear the name, would they get a picture in their head?

For example, if I say Sydney, Australia, don’t you see the Sydney Opera House? Or Paris and the Eiffel Tower? Or St. Louis and the Arch? Or Seattle and the Space Needle?

I think the Stadium could have the same impact on people’s minds, the city becoming identifiable and a place to visit. St. Petersburg, the Tampa Bay area really, would have an immediately recognizable image, one I think is elegant and beautiful, and unlike anything else in the world.

In fact, it is one reason I am disappointed in the new Yankee Stadium plan. It will probably be impressive, but in my view boring. They are supposed to be the leading franchise, but they take the safe route rather than leading the charge into a new approach to stadium building. Sure, the history is important, but more important is to be cutting edge, ahead of the curve instead of one of the last of the retro style designs. They could have honored the history while creating something new and exciting, but chose to wallow in nostalgia and be stodgy instead.

The St. Petersburg design sets a new standard and an exciting path into the future.

by bobr on Apr 28, 2008 6:29 AM EDT reply actions

Tampa v. St. Pete

Living in Orlando driving out to St. Pete adds an extra 30 mins to an already long drive. It seems like unless you live on the isle of St. Pete it is a half hour-hour drive from all the surrounding areas. Tampa is an area that has shown it will get behind a sports team and sell out night after night (once you start winning of course). I love the design of the stadium and it would instantly give the city an identifiable image. (Good points Bob) With all this said does anyone have any inside info on why the stadium is staying in St. Pete and not going in over near Channelside or anywhere in Tampa for that matter? Is it a tax issue? Governement will get behind projects like this as long as they get their cut so is St. Pete offering a better deal since Tampa already won out on the Bolts, Bucs, and Rowdies? Does anyone else feel that Tampa would be a more idyllic location?

Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!

by Sandy Kazmir on Apr 28, 2008 9:35 AM EDT reply actions

they can't leave st pete...

They still owe too much on the Trop. So, from what U understand they couldn’t do anything unless the city of St Pete was ok with it.

As far as the economics of it, every study done about the economics of state subsidies for stadiums have determined that they do more harm than good. On the other side of that is the non-economic gains that arent’ considered. Like the fact that if the stadium is built I would probably buy my parents house when they retire and move back to the area… FWIW.

by rglass44 on Apr 28, 2008 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Stay in St. Pete!

Tampa is a longer drive for me.

Top Josh Paul Pornos- Big Navy Stroking, 2pitchers1cup, BJ to the Balls

by SRQman on Apr 28, 2008 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions

There is no "convenient" place in the Tampa Bay area

No matter where you put a stadium, you’re going to be too far from someone. That’s just the nature of this area. We don’t have a single population center on which to rely. Tampa is going to be a 30 minute drive for folks in the most densely-populated county in the state, and it’s farther away than St. Pete for those in Manatee/Sarasota/Lee/Charlotte/Collier counties.

Tampa has proven to be no better of a sports town than St. Pete. The Bucs were terrible and routinely had some of the worst attendance marks in the league when they sucked and played in Tampa Stadium. The Lightning were just as bad attendance-wise at the Ice Palace. The Rays have already drawn 30,000+ fans a season in St. Petersburg, so it can be done. The Lightning and Storm both set attendance records in the same building, so it can be done. Really, having the team in St. Petersburg isn’t dooming the Rays. It’s been crappy management over the last 13 years that’s doomed the Rays.

But for practical purposes, the Rays don’t want a fight on their hands, I’m sure. Their lease at the Trop runs through 2027, and the City of St. Petersburg wouldn’t let them terminate the agreement early to move out of Pinellas County. Moving from one place to another within the county is a better sell.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 28, 2008 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Thanks for the info Pat

I guess that makes sense about moving intra-county. I’ve lived in both St. Pete and Tampa so I am pretty familiar with the area. I think they can capture more of the Orlando market (an obvious goal with the annual Disney series) if they were in Tampa. As is if I leave work at 5 I cannot get to the Trop for the first pitch. If it was in Tampa I would be able to. I understand the competing interests, and I am merely trying to put in the opinion of an Orlando resident. Discourse = Good and I hope going forward there will be actual discourse and not a bunch of emotional pleas or under the table money exchanges to sway votes/political power. I think that if it is up to the democratic process the Rays will be in a brand new stadium in a couple of years, near the pier, with a team that is as good as anyone else in the AL. Think opening of Jacobs field. The community will benefit and the world will be a better place.

Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!

by Sandy Kazmir on Apr 28, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions

I understand what you're saying

And your probably correct. Being in Tampa would probably increase the number of people commuting from Orlando, but I’m not sure exactly how many more it would bring in. How many people from Orlando are honestly going to make the trip on weeknights? Obviously bringing Central Florida into the fold should be a priority for the organization, but I think that they can still do that from St. Petersburg. There really is no way to win though, geographically, in this area. No matter where you go, it’s going to be a longer commute for a large segment of the population, and I think a balance in the location of sports teams between the two principle bay area counties is good. I am very excited about the potential the Rays’ stadium proposal brings for the City of St. Pete. It should really transform downtown and extend development westward, while really adding Major League Baseball to the waterfront and highlighting the city’s beauty. I really hope the plan goes through.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 28, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions

"I really hope the plan goes through."

You and me both brother, you and me both.

Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!

by Sandy Kazmir on Apr 29, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions

A 30-minute drive isn’t bad.. it’s not any worse than most commutes from the suburbs to downtown parks in Phoenix, Atlanta, St. Louis, Detroit, or from the northern suburbs of Dallas to Arlington, etc.

Longlorious.

by RATW on Apr 28, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions

The real deal-breaker

Is the lack of public transit in the area. I think that of the Top 30 metro areas in the county, Tampa/St. Pete is the only one without any form of rail, and HARTline and PSTA are both awful bus systems. I’m hopeful the creation of TBARTA will finally start to get the ball rolling on a real public transit answer for this area. A good rail network would make the quality of life here so much better.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 28, 2008 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions

the price of gas isn’t going down. tampa bay needs to develop a workable transit system and walkable neighborhoods immediately or else face the reality of anyone young, talented or employable enough to have other options moving to less car-dependent areas in droves as gas becomes less and less affordable. wherever a new stadium ends up, it has to be built with accessibility by transit, biking, and walking in mind.

by calmer than you are on Apr 28, 2008 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I couldn't agree more

You summed it up perfectly. At some point, the lack of progress on transit matters will be an economic detriment to this area. That’s part of the reason I like this plan, because it takes a relatively suburban location like the Trop with asphalt parking lots on all sides and converts it to urban living, while putting the new stadium in the middle of a walkable town. But absolutely more needs to be done. Tampa Bay needs rail, light rail, commuter rail, monorail, whatever. RIGHT NOW!

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 28, 2008 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions

this is part of the reason im not there anymore

I’d rather live somewhere (in this case DC) with viable public transportation. For the record, plenty of people traveled from the NoVa suburbs to Camden Yards for games when they put a viable product on the field. Now they can’t even get Baltimorons to go to the games.

by rglass44 on Apr 29, 2008 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions

it’s the #1 reason why i left florida and moved to NYC.

what’s becoming clear in the real-estate crash numbers is that the hardest-hit areas are those that are most car-dependent (outer-ring suburbs and sprawling sunbelt cities). when deciding where to live, people are demanding transportation alternatives and walkable communities. tampa bay has to get on board or be left behind.

by calmer than you are on Apr 29, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Just curious, I don’t understand your correlation between the real estate crisis and mass transit. Are you saying people defaulted on their loans because of transportation costs? I suppose that is a factor, but I’d think the main reason outer-ring suburbs and the sunbelt were hurt the most is because that is where growth, new homes and then speculation was most rampant.

Longlorious.

by RATW on Apr 29, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

i am saying that as gas gets more expensive, homes in car-dependent areas become less attractive to prospective buyers who have opportunities to decide to live elsewhere. i don’t mean to imply that rising fuel prices are the primary cause of the real-estate meltdown, but they do have some effect on which areas have the steepest declines in property values. and this effect will increase right along with the price of a barrel of oil.

by calmer than you are on Apr 29, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Gotcha, thanks

Longlorious.

by RATW on Apr 29, 2008 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Keep in mind...

Economics pretty much says all forms of subsidy does more harm than good. While better than quotas or other government meddling there will always be more gains the closer a government is to free trade. Of course this is in Ceteris Peribus. In the real world variables are not held constant.

From what I understand the taxpayers would not be footing much of this bill. If they only need to raise <$100M why do they not issue bonds to the citizens of St. Pete? Better than a tax because it is optional and it would provide an extremely low risk payout over the next 20 years. Granted that must be paid back down the line, but I know in Tampa the local government gets a cut of the parking revenue. I’m not really comfortable with a government being that intertwined with a business, but if it means that tax dollars can go to more utilitarian causes I would be all for it.

Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!

by Sandy Kazmir on Apr 28, 2008 9:48 AM EDT reply actions

In the real world....

Studies have shown that tazpayer funded stadiums are an economic drain and don’t provide the supposed increase in revenue that proponents claim. This doesn’t take into account externalities like improving the marketability as a city in bringing talented people or other things like that. I’ll try to find one of the studies I read in school.

by rglass44 on Apr 29, 2008 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Exactly

Using hard numbers, they don’t produce enough economic activity to offset the costs of subsidizing their construction. That doesn’t mean that I’m entirely opposed to them though. Obviously I would prefer as little taxpayer investment as possible in funding professional sports stadiums, but I do think that there is something to be said for the prestige that a new stadium, and thus the continued presence of a professional sports team, brings to the area. IMO, it improves the aura of the location where the stadium is located, and it improves the quality of life greatly in the city, obviously more for some than others.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 30, 2008 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m not really wild about the stadium design. I like the idea of being right next to the water and everything. I’m just not sure i like the whole sail thing and cables suspended above. I feel like the cables look ugly and would obstruct the view. I just wish we could have a open air stadium with the downtown buildings in clear view like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. Those are the best kind of stadiums in my opinion. I know in Florida we have the rain problem but so do other areas. The Marlins have an open air stadium and they still manage to make it through the season. Everyone has rainouts, its not that big of a deal.

by dropkicknu on Apr 28, 2008 1:01 PM EDT reply actions

I was under the impression

That the sail design had more to to with keeping the stadium cool during daylight hours than rain prevention.

by GomesSweetGomes on Apr 28, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Well either way I still think it’s ugly.

by dropkicknu on Apr 28, 2008 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't know

I can see what you’re saying, and I might even disagree with you, but I really don’t know how intrusive the cables will be. Hopefully they’re fairly transparent and won’t obstruct things, and I’m pretty sure that in designing the stadium the team stipulated that as a priority. But nonetheless, your aesthetic concerns are entirely legitimate. I’m waiting for an actual 3D model of the property to really judge things in-person. I’ve got to think that the team will come up with something ahead of a possibly November vote.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 28, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions

err, that should read "I might even agree with you"

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 28, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Aesthetics

We disagree there. I think it is dramatic, elegant, graceful and unique. Almost spider web beautiful. And the design fits in perfectly with a seaboard environment. It seems to lift the stadium off the ground countering the sense of ponderous weight stadiums ordinarily present.

by bobr on Apr 28, 2008 3:39 PM EDT reply actions

I agree with what you're saying

I like the design too. I just think that dropkicknu’s concerns were over the cables specifically and how conspicuous they would be. That is a valid point.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 28, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions

When it's all said and done.

In a perfect world a stadium would have been built at the fair grounds and that would have allowed the Rays to maximize their exposure to the majority of the Central Florida markets. 10 mins from Downtown Tampa, 35 mins from St. Pete (on a good day), 40-60 mins from either side of the Orlando area. Most importantly though, the drive home to all these locations would be cake.

www.citadel-insurance.com

by SeanDubbs on Apr 28, 2008 4:29 PM EDT reply actions

You know

I’ve heard people say that before, and I don’t believe it. A Fairgrounds location would be better for Tampa and Central Florida, but worse for Pinellas County and Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, and Collier counties. It would surely boost attendance from Polk County, Orlando, and the rest of Central Florida, but those aren’t the team’s core markets. They are secondary markets that aren’t the focus of the metro area. The bulk of the area’s population is concentrated in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Sorry, but taking into account gameday traffic, rush hour for weeknight games, and the lack of sufficient infrastructure upon which to diffuse traffic off of the Howard Frankland into Pinellas County, and that’s not a 35 minute drive. It would be the farthest-west stadium of any bay area sports facility, and it would be in the middle of nowhere. Not to mention that the Fairgrounds site would need massive infrastructure upgrades to diffuse traffic appropriately onto the I-4/I-75 interchange.

The fact of the matter is, the Fairgrounds location probably is more convenient to more of the population. I just don’t think that the “more of the population” added would necessarily be the markets the Rays are targeting as primary locations, especially at the expense of the most densely-populated county in the state.

Also, the lure of the Al Lang site is that there is actually stuff to do around the stadium. You put the stadium at RayJay, Toytown, or the Fairgrounds site and you’ll be staring at nothing but asphalt parking lots for miles around. Putting the stadium in downtown St. Pete allows you a legitimate urban site with the amenities that it offers. The scenery is much-improved, it is more walkable and thus more progressive with respect to transportation concerns, and it would be a destination for the area as a whole. That’s primarily why I like the Rays’ plan so much. There is more to things than just a marginal gain in convenience for some.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 28, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions

I prefer the St Pete site as well..

As far as aesthetics go, and I believe the attendance at either site would be comparable. I was more focused on the market exposure that the Rays have been craving for since the ownership change. The moving their spring training location will help take care of the specific counties you mentioned, but there ain’t nothing like the real thing. If anything a fair grounds location would run the risk of us losing our most famous season ticket holder, Dick Vitale.

www.citadel-insurance.com

by SeanDubbs on Apr 28, 2008 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah and me!

Vitale and I hail from Sarasota. Keep it where it is in St. Pete! Screw the Orlando people (no offense but why would they wanna do that drive unless your a die hard. Hell i know a guy who drives down from J-ville once a week for a game.

Top Josh Paul Pornos- Big Navy Stroking, 2pitchers1cup, BJ to the Balls

by SRQman on Apr 28, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions

a downtown/neighborhood park with decentralized parking and transit/pedestrian access, or no new park at all.

by calmer than you are on Apr 28, 2008 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions

put it downtown with a view of this

by dropkicknu on Apr 29, 2008 2:33 PM EDT reply actions

Or

Put it downtown with a view of this:

Minus the “wart” in the background, of course. Obviously I’m biased, but I like downtown St. Pete more than I do downtown Tampa. It is more walkable, with more parks, more stuff to do, and more residents living downtown. Tampa is getting better, but downtown is still primarily a 9 to 5 destination. And that’s a shame, because as that pic shows, Downtown Tampa should be a beautiful place. The Hillsborough River waterfront needs to be utilized as a “Riverwalk”, and I think that Mayor Iorio has done a lot to further things in that direction. The new art museum looks awesome, and more residential buildings are going downtown. But right now, there really isn’t anything to do in Downtown Tampa. Channelside is great, but that’s an offshoot. JMHO, but I think St. Pete is way farther along.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 30, 2008 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions