Pro, Anti-Ballpark Groups Debate on Ron & Ian

Thursday, before the last scheduled public hearing on the Rays' proposed waterfront stadium, Ron Diaz and Ian Beckles of 620 WDAE hosted a debate on the merits of the new stadium. The debate included proponents and opponents of the proposal, and the POWW individual got absolutely PWN3D. It's well worth a listen. The interview is broken down into segments, with clickable links at the top of the page.

almost 4 years ago Patrick L. Kennedy 13 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Too Fox News for me

I don’t consider a 3-on-1 a legit debate. Not that I expect much in the way of journalistic integrity from sports-radio. In any event much smarter people than Hansen have been made to sound silly in this type of debate format.

But it was entertaining nonetheless.

by GomesSweetGomes on May 24, 2008 2:53 AM EDT reply actions

It was one-sided, most certainly

But as you said, entertainingly so. The problem is, the POWW guy wasn’t helping himself. He was very rigid and unwilling to explain his basic point. At several times he just said, no public funds, no waterfront and tried to pass that as an argument. That isn’t. That’s a declaration. I mean, I want to respect the gentleman, but he fit the exact stereotype of a elderly, selfish individual stifling progress for his own self-interest.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on May 24, 2008 2:59 AM EDT up reply actions

Diaz

Anything in regards to this man, this imbecile being impartial is a joke. It wasn’t a “debate”. I await the day that these two moronic goats are removed by Clear Channel as jokes and cretins to our community.

Joe

by joedobr on May 24, 2008 4:07 PM EDT reply actions

I agree about Hamilton

If I was arguing against the park, I would have used different and other arguments besides that one. Being declarative and actual making points are two different things. He did himself a disservice, however the hostility and lack of professionalism by Ron Diaz was disrespectful (but that is par for the course).

Joe

by joedobr on May 24, 2008 4:09 PM EDT reply actions

Fox news?

I prefer to call it a Bill Maher type gang up job

by blazinrayz on May 24, 2008 5:44 PM EDT reply actions

btw not sure if anyone heard

But at the very end of their show Ian called the guy a D-Bag

by blazinrayz on May 24, 2008 5:45 PM EDT reply actions

My point

This is why these two guys are absolutely the worst thing I can say. I can’t use expletive words here, but I have made my point in the past. These two men are ingrates and self-righteous pigs who make Tampa Bay look bad and are why talk radio isn’t the forum it should be. I can’t say anything redeeming about them, and I have long called for their dismissal. But alas, the greatness of corporate America…you deliver ratings even though you are complete douche bags, you get to keep your job. Only in America!!:)

Joe

by joedobr on May 24, 2008 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions

No

But I’m not surprised. I’m beginning to think I’m one of the only 15 or so moderates in this entire area when it comes to this issue. I really wish both sides would tone it down. We will still have to live together as neighbors when all is said and done.

by GomesSweetGomes on May 24, 2008 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Not really

After the Rays block out the sun you won’t be able to see your neighbors if you don’t wish to.

"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 May 24, 2008 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Both sides

Believe me, I see both sides of it. I am not happy with all of the vitriol now involved in the issue. My point is that Mike Killebrew, the PD at 620 is doing no favors with two uninformed hosts allowing this so-called “debate” and it did nothing but exacerbate the situation. I couldn’t be more upset about stupidity when it involves so-called on air media and talent.

Joe

by joedobr on May 25, 2008 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Wasn’t trying to be accusatory towards anyone. I’ve actually found the stadium discussions on this board a refreshing break from what I see on the Times. What sucks the most about all of this is that there are genuine issues that need to be addressed (environment, parking (and revenues derived therefrom, and the current real estate market) and rather than working together to foster new ideas and solutions, people simply point fingers and see who can shout the loudest.

by GomesSweetGomes on May 25, 2008 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Never thought otherwise

I believe there are legit issues the opposition has I would like to see the Rays further elaborate on. I don’t get quite the need to rush the stadium through with some key issued like stadium parking and assurances on ticket pricing addressed. I agree with you, my own point is we have highly biased media in this town and a horrible sports program with a lack of critical thinking that does no one any service, period. My problem is with Clear Channel and the talent at 620. I agree completely about the real issues and now its clouded up to an extent.

Joe

by joedobr on May 25, 2008 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions

I just checked out stpetePOWW.com

most of their “points” are based on wild assumptions that take wild leaps of logic to follow. Basically, you have to either be completely ignorant or completely against the sport of baseball, to buy into many of these assumptions. Here’s one I liked…

“There is a basic concept in Economics called Opportunity Cost, which occurs when people spend time and money on one thing and are therefore unable to spend that same time and money on something equally desirable. It’s a fundamental concept.

But they want us to believe there somehow won’t be any opportunity cost when it comes to the new stadium, that both time and money will magically become more abundant, just because there is now a new thing to spend them on. Not likely.”

Basically they listed the amount of time and money it costs to attend a baseball game, not including extra activites before and after the game around the stadium, and went on to assume that Opportunity Cost dictates that surrounding businesses will not benefit from the new stadium. It’s another in a line of false assumptions that they use as part of their propaganda to sway those who are on the fence, to make an ill-equipped decision with a selective amount of truthfullness to the story.’

I’ve been to 18 MLB stadiums in the past 6 years, and I have seen and experienced 1st hand the type of exposure these local businesses get with a baseball stadium next to them. 1st, the bars, shops and restaurants around the ballpark tends to attract a younger crowd who love going to a social event like a (competitive) baseball game and then getting sloshed at the bars and restaurants surrounding the stadium afterwards.

Stadiums in Baltimore, Denver, St Louis, Chicago, Toronto, and Pittsburgh are centered around lots of bars and restaurants and after the games they get filled to the max with people having good times and shooting loads of money right into the city

by blazinrayz on May 24, 2008 6:19 PM EDT reply actions