Jake's Take: An Outsider's View on the New Stadium

by Jacob Larsen on May 17, 2008 11:44 AM EDT

The following comments are that of Jacob Larsen and do not represent the thoughts and idea of the staff and management of DRays Bay. -Jake

---

When I read the anti-stadium rumblings of fans and their reasonings for being so against moving out of Tropicana Field, I kinda laugh to myself. Nothing is more ironic than a Floridian complaining about weather, seeing as Florida experiences some of the best weather in the US. It's not called the Sunshine State for giggles.

However, it irks me that lack of on-site parking would become such a focal point and possible "deal-breaker" when it comes to the referendum needed to be passed to allow the demolishing of Al Lang Field and the building of what I dub "The Ark". Not sure what people have against walking, especially when basically the stadium is being bought and paid for without a single dime is coming from in-state taxpayers. I realize that people have grown accustom to the Trop, but it's pretty bad when our last series included us taking 3 out of 4 games versus the Yankees and barely drew over 50% capacity in any of the games, with half the series the Rays were playing the role of being the "best team in the AL"(winning percentage-wise) and "division leaders".

Why complain about the walks or the weather, when it's apparent that Tropicana isn't a place where fans want to be seen at either. "The Ark", however is at least innovative and asthetically pleasing?

Here's my gripe, from an out-of-state fans' point-of-view.

Chicago has 2, count them, 2 open-air stadiums. No "sail", no cool breezes from local bodies of water(the lake is a good 20+ miles from either stadium's easternmost point) and if it did ever get a breeze...it'd be miraculous with the stifling number of vehicles and buildings standing in between the stadiums and Lake Michigan. U.S. Cellular Field has on-site parking, which proves very costly(Over 20 bucks, if you want to park within a 5-minute walking distance of the park and ability to leave the stadium in a timely manner)

Wrigley Field, the Chicago Park without a parking facility/lot) does have mass transit to-and-from the park, but the local trains are still a 5 minute walk from the park and with the maximum capacity of Wrigley Field(which is an almost automatic 38-40,000 people)...it's apparent that 80% of the time that you're going to be body-to-body close to someone at some point during the day and it's almost a given that you're going to get some form of fluid spilled on you.

With the Rays, early on when the stadium is build, it may get a little hectic finding a way to park and get to the park, but it's nothing close to the near-bar crawl overflowingness of humanity that fills either Chicago stadium in much hotter and unprotected environments. Also, who's to say that the games at the new park weren't going to be 4-5 PM game starts during the week when it's a likliehood that the sweltering heat of the Florida Sun has started to unhinge it's hold on unsuspecting pedestrians? Is a 72 artificially-made temperature that much of a plus, when the late-game starts and "The Sail" of the Ark would put the temperature at or around 70-75 degrees?

I guess I'd have to live in Florida to fully know the weather that you guys are put through during the hot summer months.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Not sure what people have against walking, especially when basically the stadium is being bought and paid for without a single dime is coming from in-state taxpayers.

Jake, that’s very incorrect. Most of the stadium is being paid for by in-state taxpayers, specifically those in St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. The Rays are contributing $150 million to the stadium, or about 1/3 of the cost. That is the only contribution coming directly from them. The purchase of the Tropicana Field site will yield, according to the team, $70 million, but that is from the sale of an existing city asset. The Rays also want to buy parking spaces from the city and sell them, perhaps with a surcharge, to cover another $55 million of the project. The rest of the stadium costs come from the team asking Pinellas County and the City of St. Petersburg to continue servicing existing debt payments on Tropicana Field, transferring their impact to the new facility. This includes the county tourism tax.

So, in essence, you’re talking about a project that is 2/3 publicly-funded.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on May 17, 2008 11:58 AM EDT 0 recs

From what I heard

The new “tax” that would be implemented, would be a “tourist” tax….

by Jacob Larsen on May 17, 2008 12:33 PM EDT 0 recs

Well

1. The “new” tax is actually a continuation of an existing tax used to service Tropicana Field debt payments.
2. The term “tourist” does not necessarily denote that the paying individual is from out-of-state.
3. The funding plan is still heavily reliant upon the use of other public resources, including the sale of the Tropicana Field site and the use of city-owned parking spaces for games.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on May 17, 2008 1:42 PM EDT up 0 recs

Why complain about the walks or the weather, when it's apparent that Tropicana isn't a place where fans want to be seen at either.

I doubt people aren’t going to the games because of the stadium. If the Yankees played their home games in a stadium like The Trop, they would sell out every game.

As much as Ive fought it in the past, Im becoming more and more convinced that you could put The Trop in Tampa and we would see far better attendance

No matter the drive time, why would people want to make that trek across the bridge (no matter what direction they’re coming from, they have to cross a bridge) to go to a game that has the feel of baseball being played on the moon and after the game there is nothing to do but drive back across the bridge? The Trop will sell tickets regardless if we keep winning, but I think location has a big impact

by blazinrayz on May 17, 2008 1:47 PM EDT 0 recs

Another question

I understand it is true that the Trop is public property so its sale and development is technically not a private but a public asset. But it seems to me that point is moot.

After all, if the issue is that it is using public assets by selling the Trop, the real issue is what are the benefits if you don’t sell it, not what are the benefits if you do sell it without using the funds to finance the new stadium. That is, if you really consider it a public asset which should be sold to finance other projects than the stadium, you are essentially saying you want to evict the Rays and let them find another place to play on their own.

I haven’t heard anyone suggest the second option. A person may not want to have a new stadium built, but it is not because the Trop is public property and thus it is using public funds to finance the new stadium, because the only way to exploit that public property is to lose the Rays altogether. That is not an implicit threat by the Rays; it is the implicit threat by the anti-stadium public that uses that argument.

by bobr on May 17, 2008 5:09 PM EDT 0 recs

Not wanting to use the sale of the Trop site to help finance the stadium is not essentially saying you want to evict the Rays...

The Rays have done a great spin-job that creates the illusion that they are entitled to the benefits of the sale of the Trop site. While the sale would not be possible if they were still playing there, it doesn’t change the fact that it is a public asset. They are the ones who want to leave, so they have to come up with the financing to do so. That is why they have been minimizing the true impact to local taxpayers on the sale of the Trop. They are trying to create the impression that it is free money and not costing anything, which is simply not the case. To say that you don’t want to use that money to finance a new stadium doesn’t imply that you want to evict the Rays. It just means that the Rays have a $70 million hole in their finance plan that the taxpayers don’t want to pay.

by save_the_trop on May 17, 2008 7:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

not at all

by bobr on May 17, 2008 8:35 PM EDT 0 recs

That is

I have little doubt the Rays are spinning things to advertise their position. That is not relevant. Right now the Trop is being used for the Rays. To get anything for it means to evict them. It does not matter that it is the public’s. There is only use in it without the Rays, so either the Rays stay in which case the public gets nothing further from it or they go which means the Trop can be used differently, either to generate funds to help the Rays build a new stadium or to refuse that, which means there can be no TB Rays.

The spin comes from those who suggest the moneys generated by the Trop ought to be entirely used for something other than a new stadium. They suggest you can have both the totality of those revenues and the Rays too, and that is impossible.

Like it or not, the Trop is an embarrassment to the city and to the Rays.

by bobr on May 17, 2008 8:42 PM EDT 0 recs

I agree that the increased revenues from the developement of the Trop site should be used for the new stadium...

but the money for the sale of a public asset should not. Once it’s sold, it’s gone. It was the public’s property to begin with, and it’s still the public’s property. What they are trying to say is that since they are currently using it, vacating it and selling it is not costing the public any money. But that just ignores the simple fact that the public is losing an asset.
I’m all for a new stadium being built, but I’m not sold that this proposal is best for the public or the Rays. Am I the only one that thinks there are too many questions about the location (accessibility, best for attendance?) and financing to favor it whole-heartedly.

by save_the_trop on May 17, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

I don’t understand where you’re getting a five minute walk from the El train to Wrigley Field. Maybe a one minute walk. It is literally a few hundred feet from the Addison stop. I have gone to dozens of Cubs games and never once had anything spilled on me.

That said, driving to Wrigley is miserable and shouldn’t be attempted. Nowhere to park, unless you want to pay $20-30.

Comiskey is drastically different. Huge parking lot, pretty cheap, easy to get to. Night and day.

by Tim Dierkes on May 19, 2008 12:56 AM EDT 0 recs