Thrive
Rays will keep land by not ending stadium deal
The Tampa Bay Rays will not terminate plans to build a new stadium in downtown St. Petersburg, likely ensuring the team retains control over a $6.7 billion redevelopment project.
The Rays also agreed that previously approved agreements to build a new $1.37 billion ballpark remain valid in a letter sent Friday evening to Pinellas County Commission Chairperson Kathleen Peters. Peters recently asked the team to honor the long-negotiated deal or issue a formal termination notice by Dec. 1.
Team officials have previously claimed that the current deal is dead due to county delays, associated cost overruns and a loss of revenue caused by Hurricane Milton shredding Tropicana Field’s roof. President Matt Silverman, in bold type, continued to blame a new-look commission for jeopardizing a generational project.
“We would not have gone forward with the project if a future Pinellas County Commission had the ability to revoke the approval we all celebrated in July or to unilaterally delay the project’s completion into 2029,” Silverman emphasized.
“In response to your question regarding the status of the various agreements, they are in effect until a party terminates or outside dates are reached,” he continued. “The Rays have fulfilled its obligations and continue to wait for decisions and actions by the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County.”
The stalemate will continue as neither of the three parties wants to pull the plug on a reimagined Historic Gas Plant District. The Rays would lose development rights on 65 acres of prime public real estate surrounding the stadium site by terminating funding agreements.
The team and its development partner, Hines, would keep the discounted public land if the city or county reneges on contracts approved in July – with or without a new ballpark.
Peters issued her Nov. 26 letter asking for clarity four days after Rays President Brian Auld told St. Petersburg City Council members that he “can’t continue to move forward based on what I’ve seen from the county.” City Administrator Rob Gerdes has also asked for a formal termination notice.
Peters responded to the team’s most recent letter in a prepared statement sent Monday morning. She remains hopeful that a now-tenuous 30-year project – anchored by a new stadium – will still come to fruition.
“While publicly the Rays organization has said, ‘The deal is dead,’ their written statement is in contrast,” Peters wrote. “Despite the Rays’ lack of political prowess of late, I’ve always been optimistic about this project because of the great economic impact it could bring to our county.”
A new, $1.37 billion Tampa Bay Rays ballpark (right) would anchor the Historic Gas Plant District’s $6.7 billion redevelopment. Image provided.
The Rays sent their first letter to commissioners Nov. 19, just hours before the board voted on a bond issuance to finance their $312.5 million tourism tax contribution to Tropicana Field’s replacement. The team said the board’s Oct. 29 decision to delay the initial vote negated plans to open a new ballpark for the 2028 season.
Per state law, the county can only use its stadium funding on capital projects that increase visitation. However, officials can use property and sales taxes generated from the megaproject on general fund expenditures, like improving infrastructure.
“To continue to keep taxes low for residents, we need to develop new funding streams,” Peters wrote. “I look forward to continued discussion with my colleagues about how this stadium can do just that while solidifying Pinellas as a diverse tourist destination.”
Peters likely faces an uphill battle. The commission that approved the deal in a 5-2 vote included staunch supporters Janet Long and Charlie Justice.
Incoming Commissioners Vince Nowicki and Chris Scherer have voiced varying levels of opposition to the funding agreement. Commissioners Dave Eggers and Chris Latvala, who voted against the deal in July, remain on the board. Four “no” votes would kill the deal.
Silverman wrote that the Rays have “always made it clear that the viability of the project depended on having certainty about the project’s approval and funding prior to the 2024 November elections.” He added that the team was “willing to advance the project for 2028 delivery knowing that Pinellas County’s final approval would take place before the elections.”
Not only do the Rays lack certainty regarding the new commission’s intentions, but Peters also previously told the Catalyst that the team would lose over $100 million annually by playing at Tampa’s Steinbrenner Field instead of the Trop.
“I think that the hurricane affected them financially, significantly, just like it’s affecting the city and the county,” Peters said Nov. 26. “We all need to honor the contract, and then we will figure out the financial stuff later.”
Tropicana Field in Hurricane Milton’s aftermath. Photo by Mark Parker.
Silverman sought to clarify a recent narrative in his response to Peters’ deadline. Commissioner Brian Scott previously said Auld acknowledged storm impacts jeopardized the project in a private call before the county’s initial Oct. 29 delay.
“The conversation concerned the near-term challenges to our business given the damage to Tropicana Field as well as the dynamics related to the location of our home games in 2025,” Silverman wrote. “Brian Auld did not waver from our commitment to the new ballpark project.”
Silverman noted a county attorney “expected a simple up or down vote” on the bond resolution without “any type of delay.” He said the long-discussed measure was “supposed to be a simple administrative action.”
“When it comes to honoring the spirit of the new ballpark agreements, it is Pinellas County, not the Rays, that falls short,” Silverman wrote.
Commissioners will vote on the bond issuance Dec. 17. The city council will consider allocating $287.5 million for a new stadium and $142 million for surrounding infrastructure no later than Jan. 9.
S
December 4, 2024at3:25 pm
Why Taxpayer-Funded Stadiums Are the Worst Idea Since New Coke
Imagine a scenario where you, dear taxpayer, are asked to fork over millions (or billions!) of your hard-earned dollars to fund a shiny new sports palace. In return, you’re promised economic growth, job creation, and a community renaissance. Spoiler alert: it’s like being promised a Ferrari and receiving a rusted tricycle with no wheels. Let’s dive into the absurdity of publicly funded stadiums and laugh at the idea that anyone ever thought this was a good plan.
The Great Economic Growth Lie
Studies have repeatedly shown that sports stadiums don’t actually boost the economy. Shocking, right? Here’s the rundown:
1. Brookings Institution: They found that new stadiums barely create any economic activity or jobs. So, that new “revitalized downtown” they promised? It’s more like “revitalized disappointment.”
• http://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/
2. Journalist’s Resource: After 130 studies spanning decades, researchers concluded stadiums are about as effective for economic growth as a chocolate teapot is for making tea.
• http://www.journalistsresource.org/economics/sports-stadium-public-financing/
3. Cato Institute’s “Sports Pork”: Over $14.7 billion of taxpayer money was wasted on stadiums in the 20th century, and the ROI was essentially negative. You’d get better results burying cash in your backyard.
• http://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/sports-pork-costly-relationship-between-major-league-sports-government
4. Cato’s “Caught Stealing”: Not only do stadiums not help, but in some cases, they actually decrease real per capita income. Yes, you’re literally paying to make yourself poorer.
• http://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/caught-stealing-debunking-economic-case-dc-baseball
Community Benefits? More Like Empty Promises
You’d think that if we’re all chipping in for a billion-dollar sports temple, we’d at least get some cool perks. Think again:
1. Barclays Center in Brooklyn: Promised affordable housing and public spaces, delivered… nothing. Twenty years later, there are still 800 affordable housing units missing. If you’re waiting for those, better pack a lunch.
• http://www.generocity.org/philly/2024/11/20/part-2-the-arena-effect-stadiums-and-communities/
2. Baltimore’s Stadiums: Expected to “revitalize” the area. Result? The same struggling neighborhoods, but now with extra traffic on game days.
• http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/infographics/in-baltimore-a-stadium-promise-unfulfilled.html
3. Cato’s “Surprise! Stadiums Don’t Pay”: Doug Bandow points out that stadium spending simply shifts money around the community. Want people to spend locally? Build a bowling alley, not a billionaire’s playground.
• http://www.cato.org/commentary/surprise-stadiums-dont-pay-after-all
Why Stadiums Are a Billionaire’s Best Friend (And Your Wallet’s Worst Enemy)
At the end of the day, the only people who benefit from taxpayer-funded stadiums are team owners and players. The Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome said it best: the money benefits “the wealthy” while you’re left holding the bag. Want to know how bad it is?
• Stadium owners don’t even pay property taxes on the shiny new toy you just bought them. Seriously.
• Ticket prices go up after the stadium is built, so now you’re paying twice to watch a game.
• http://www.cato.org/commentary/sports-are-great-stadium-subsidies-stink
The Big Picture
Taxpayer-funded stadiums are the fiscal equivalent of setting money on fire while promising the ashes will grow into a money tree. The next time someone suggests your city needs a publicly funded sports palace, just laugh, hand them this list, and tell them to buy their own stadium.
References (for when the laughter stops):
• http://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/
• http://www.journalistsresource.org/economics/sports-stadium-public-financing/
• http://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/sports-pork-costly-relationship-between-major-league-sports-government
• http://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/caught-stealing-debunking-economic-case-dc-baseball
• http://www.generocity.org/philly/2024/11/20/part-2-the-arena-effect-stadiums-and-communities/
• http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/infographics/in-baltimore-a-stadium-promise-unfulfilled.html
• http://www.cato.org/commentary/surprise-stadiums-dont-pay-after-all
• http://www.cato.org/commentary/sports-are-great-stadium-subsidies-stink
Tatguy
December 3, 2024at8:05 pm
@Tampa Bay Denny, There is no way to get back on track with the original deal!
Deadlines have already Been missed. In the “original deal”, construction would have had to begun in November 2024,( last Month) to guarantee a 2028 opening of the new stadium….. can’t go back in time. There will have to be new deals, to get it back on track, and that will cost tons more. That’s the Hines norm.
Ryan Todd
December 3, 2024at6:10 pm
Let’s all run Stu and Ken Welch out of town. Put them on donkeys and send them across the bridge.
HAL FREEDMAN
December 3, 2024at5:08 pm
I now understand why there was no public referendum for this deal. Only 1 of 17 comments on this article is favorable to the Rays and the Mayor.
HAL FREEDMAN
December 3, 2024at4:54 pm
The stadium was never important to the Rays, other than to increase their value when Sternberg sells the team…he is already reportedly trying to do that. It was always the development deal…that’s where the real money is. We are selling them 65 acres of prime urban real estate for about 15 cents on the dollar. We are throwing in infrastructure that costs us more than what we are getting for the land. The Mayor and his “negotiator” (Rob Gerdes, uncle of Councilman Copley Gerdes, who should have recused himself from any votes on the project) really blew this one…and screwed St. Petersburg taxpayers. Keep an eye on campaign contributions in future elections for some of these politicians.
John
December 3, 2024at4:36 pm
Welch has been such a Flop. He cannot leave office soon enough.
Peter Kent
December 3, 2024at12:13 pm
A possible compromise solution for the Rays, the city, and the county could involve renovating Tropicana Field by replacing its current roof with a four-corner gable design over a clear glass ring wall, similar to the roof design of the new stadium. To accommodate parking needs, two municipal parking garages could be built along I-375 as necessary.
The estimated $300 million renovation and garage costs could be funded through the county’s Tourism Development Tax (TDT) and the city’s Tax Increment Financing (TIF) taxes. Additionally, the stadium would be granted property tax-exempt status. In return, the Rays would lease the renovated stadium for 30 years at a rate of $2 million per month and void all existing contracts.
This proposal offers a way to modernize Tropicana Field while addressing both the Rays’ needs and the financial interests of the city and county.
Tampa Bay Denny
December 3, 2024at10:35 am
I want the Rays and the County Commissioners to each carry through with the original deal. Pinellas County delayed the funding vote and threw everything into a mess. We need to get back on track to keep our Tampa Bay Rays in Tampa Bay! I love watching the Rays games and they are our team. Nashville and Orlando are both begging for teams. We have a great team! Let’s do everything we can to keep them here. Approve the original funding and follow through with the deal, Pinellas County! All this petty political talk is just getting in the way. Honor the original deal. Fix the Trop for 2026. Build that new stadium for 2028. Keep the Rays in Tampa Bay!
Jango
December 3, 2024at3:17 am
We don’t need more bullies in town , we don t need to gave them 50% discount on a prime land , what do they think ?? They can go play in Tampa, Montreal or else , We the people need better street lights , sewer system , remove all that hurricane garbages , better roads and public transport , we don t need a xillion outoff mind project , it took 10 years to build a $ 75 M pier and city got over budget how many time?? and they want to build a $5+ B project ???
Why we don t put the feds investigate that non sens before it turn in a dramatical failure .
It s about time that commun sens comeback , anyway this mayor and team will not be reelected , too much failure and no commun sens
S. Rose Smith-Hayes
December 2, 2024at10:17 pm
I am still lamenting the sale of the land to the Rays for half its value. What happens to the land after the 30 years are up? Can the Rays ever sell the land to another entity???
Tom Tito
December 2, 2024at9:54 pm
Incredible!
The best way out of this mess may be to let the team leave and develop the 20 acres where the new stadium was planned to salvage some revenue for the public. I would love to see the Rays stay but not at a cost to taxpayers of another $1.6 billion including interest.
Matthew Weidner
December 2, 2024at9:06 pm
I cannot fathom how more people have not paid more attention to Alan Delislse….who has been screaming to anyone that would listen about how bad this current deal is. The best chance citizens had at an ok deal were the terms Kriseman had when he left
Office….Welch threw that deal away…..and we’ve been hostages
To ever worse terms every day since!
Tatguy
December 2, 2024at7:48 pm
As it states in the Article, “The team and its development partner, Hines, would keep the discounted public land if the city or county reneges on contracts approved in July – with or without a new ballpark.”
That’s what they are waiting/expecting to happen, likewise if the Rays some how reneges on their contracts, the deal is off. That’s why they(Rays) are not saying much, cuz they know they gain alot if the city or county faulters!!!!! Which is darn close to happening. And this ALL goes back to poor planning and negations in the original deal!
Moe
December 2, 2024at7:41 pm
Unbelievable!!! The land is ours not the Rays or a stupid bureaucrats to give away! We don’t need a team. We do need more space for all the US citizens coming from other states. Get in back !!!
james gillespie
December 2, 2024at7:32 pm
MS LOPEX MAKES A COGENT POINT ON DVELOPIMG 65 ACRES AND THE NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO MAXIMIZE VALUE AND TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY. WHAT GOES UNMENTIONED IS THE GAS PLANT REDEVELOPMENT IS ALSO SUPPOSED TO BENEFIT ORIGINAL HOMEOWNERS AND BUSINESSES THAT EXISTED THERE. THE ISSUE OF RACE IS A FACTOR.
Peter Kent
December 2, 2024at7:25 pm
County Commission Chairperson Kathleen Peters recently told The Catalyst that the team would lose over $100 million annually by playing at Tampa’s Steinbrenner Field instead of Tropicana Field.
From 2014 to 2023 (excluding 2020), the average attendance at Tropicana Field was 14,790. If every Rays game at Steinbrenner Field is played to its 11,026-seat capacity, that results in 3,764 fewer attendees per game. The average ticket price for a Rays game in 2023 was $27.87. This translates to a loss of $104,900 per game or $8.5 million for the season at Steinbrenner Field.
Peters, however, claims the Rays will lose 12 times that amount to support her argument. She added, “We all need to honor the contract, and then we will figure out the financial details later.” This is just another example of the inflated figures often cited by Rays supporters. The county commissioners should vote down the bond issuance on Dec. 17.
Ronald Hiemann
December 2, 2024at7:02 pm
I totally disagree with Alan Whitman. This was a bad deal for the city and the county and especially, its citizens. There have been studies completed which clearly showed that the money taken in will by far not exceed what it will cost the city and the taxpayers. However, adding to Lauren Lopez’s post, it would be interesting to know, who the morons were on the city council, who allowed the Rays to get and to keep control of the land to be developed. Clearly, somebody on the city council and possibly the major, too, slept on the job. If this stands, the Rays will laugh all the way to the bank. Ball park or no ball park. The Rays win. The taxpayer, well, they pay.
Alan DeLisle
December 2, 2024at6:40 pm
The Rays publicly killed this deal, period. No letter changes that.
But the city has made so many mistakes on this deal it will always be used as the example of how NOT to do a stadium/development deal. And five sold out Council members voted for it. Disgraceful.
The city never should have separated the stadium deal from the rest of the development (huge mistake). I said that from the beginning. The city gave the Rays whatever they said they needed and failed to protect the taxpayer.
That alone should result in impeachments and firings. I feel so bad for St Pete. City Attorneys need to step up on behalf of the city and break from the Mayor. Staff, wake up, you have been mislead.
Alan Whitman
December 2, 2024at6:26 pm
What a shame on the Council and committee! They made a deal and they And they need to stick to it. It’s a very good deal for the city and for the rays And
For the county. The county delayed the vote, knowing that that new commissioners could be elected Who could try to overturn things on a signed deal. Everyone needs to act in concert together Or the county
And the city are going to find out who has better Lawyers. Is it them or the rays and mlb!
Ray Tampa
December 2, 2024at5:44 pm
Lauren, you are 1000% correct by laying the blame for this horrible fiasco at the feet of St. Pete City Councilmembers (who voted in favor) and the mayor. Please remember this when the time comes to hold people accountable.
Lauren Lopez
December 2, 2024at5:06 pm
Boy did the City and County sell out the citizens allowing a deal that, NO MATTER THE OUTCOME OF THE STADIUM, the Rays retain the rights to develop the 65 acres of PRIME real estate (at a reduced value) to develop however they decide. What a total and complete embarrassment. What a nightmare for the citizens. Shame on the City Council and the Mayor.