The seeds for a new waterfront ballpark and a redeveloped Tropicana Field site, the linchpins of the Tampa Bay Rays' ambitious $1 billion remake of downtown St. Petersburg, were sown as far back as two years ago — twice as long as previously known or reported.
A review of city public records by Creative Loafing shows that discussions between the city and the team about economic redevelopment at or around Tropicana Field go back to at least March 2006, shortly after the arrival of the Rays' point person on the new stadium, Senior Vice President Michael Kalt.
Those discussions were not directly part of a plan for a new ballpark, Kalt said in an interview with CL on Friday.
They did, however, form the foundation of the Rays' current proposal, an ambitious $1 billion plan for a new waterfront, open-air ballpark at the site of Al Lang Field and a retail/housing/parks redevelopment of Tropicana Field. And those preliminary investigations progressed to the point that by October 2006, St. Petersburg economic development and real estate officials were meeting with the Rays and their ballpark architect, HOK.
It wasn't until March 2007, however, that the Rays formally requested their discussions about "Project Rebirth" — as city officials dubbed it, to the chagrin of the Rays — be confidential under a loophole in the state's public records law that allows some public-private business discussions to be kept secret. The plan became public on Nov. 9, after it was leaked to the St. Petersburg Times.
Some civic leaders and opponents of the Rays' proposal decry the secrecy, especially since it meant city officials kept the public in the dark during discussions about future uses for Al Lang Field and for the duration of the fall 2007 City Council elections.
As former Council of Neighborhood Associations President Karl Nurse wrote to CONA members after that revelation: "Now we understand why the city administration wanted flexibility on the zoning for Al Lang Field. … Obviously, the Rays and city staff were talking during this time, and this is the reason for the stall."
Kalt said Friday that most of the 2006 discussions with city officials about economic redevelopment were not part of a ballpark plan; they were, instead, his attempt to gauge the feasibility of the Rays developing some properties around the Trop, as their lease allows. The Rays hired Kalt in March 2006 after he was part of the negotiations between the city of New York and the Mets and Yankees for new stadiums, and Kalt's first project for the Rays was to win approval for a new Port Charlotte spring training facility.
But during the Port Charlotte work, Kalt said, he continued to gather data about the Trop and its economic possibilities. Kalt said the real starting point for the ballpark-Trop redevelopment proposal was late fall 2006, after the Times published a story about the end of Al Lang Field and its possible future. That, Kalt said, spurred the Rays to consider the site as a new home for the team and its fans.
The public records show an aggressive effort by the Rays to formulate their ballpark-redevelopment plans, along with a city government that provided them with information about land costs, retail activity, property tax rates, bonds, hotel room rates, office occupancy, downtown plans and court decisions about tax financing. Documents reveal that the city, since at least October 2007, has had an outside law firm, its municipal bond counsel, working on a pro bono basis to discuss with the Rays the ins and outs of Florida's public financing laws.
St. Petersburg's senior development administrator, Rick Mussett, said Friday that his departments did for the Rays only what they would do for any business looking to relocate or expand within the city. The bond work, for instance, was not designed to structure a bond issue but instead to educate the Rays' lawyers, who were not as familiar with Florida municipal bond rules and were trying to explore the team's options when it comes to paying for a new stadium.
"We do not have a financing plan; we have not even agreed to potential new sources and funds that would go into any such deal," Mussett said. "The city has taken no stance on this" and promises a full, independent analysis of parking, traffic and other questions.
But with the level of discussion that has already taken place in secret, it's no wonder that many opponents smell a conspiracy between the city and the Rays to force the waterfront ballpark on voters.
"That does not sit well at all," said Hal Freedman, a downtown condo owner and a member of a new anti-ballpark group, Preserve Our Wallets and Waterfront, which has recently begun circulating an altered copy of the ballpark rendering that shows what they contend is the full size of the sail-fabric retractable roof that would block waterfront views. "Frankly, I'm not surprised that the process started before the confidentiality statute was invoked. The only ones who were kept in the dark were the public."
The public, however, has the ultimate say in the matter: Because it would use waterfront property, the Rays' plan requires voter approval, which the team wants in a November referendum. The plan also requires approvals from, among others, the City Council and County Commission.
As much as the city and the Rays have worked together to this point, public records reveal a rift between them late last year, as the Rays pushed to make a public announcement of their plans. St. Pete officials felt so strongly against the idea of going public that they hand-delivered a letter of protest to the Trop.
"We feel a more deliberate approach is advisable," Mussett wrote on Oct. 3 to the Rays, "especially since the entire endeavor is predicated on the public's acceptance of the proposal."
Kalt wrote back on Oct. 22: "We respectfully disagree that the best way to address these concerns is by delaying the announcement date past the end of the year. As your own research suggests, it would be extremely difficult to announce the project later than the middle of December and still navigate the gauntlet of approvals and agreements needed to put this plan in front of the voters of St. Petersburg in November, 2008."
Within two weeks of that response, someone leaked the plan to the newspaper.
This article appears in Feb 6-12, 2008.