Today at 2 pm, the Pinellas County Commission is set to vote on whether to approve selling $312.5 million in bonds as part of $1 billion in public subsidies toward a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium, in a test of whether newly elected commissioners and the fallout of a devastating hurricane can reverse a decision that was seemingly set in stone back in July. Or, you know, maybe they just won’t:
Sworn in Monday night, new Pinellas County Commissioner Vince Nowicki thinks Tuesday’s vote on funding for a new Rays stadium won’t happen.
“I think the seasoned politicians will rule the day,” he said. “And kick the can down the line to the next meeting.”
That would clearly be the safe move, as there don’t appear to be the four votes needed to approve the stadium bonds, and voting “no” would close the door on renegotiating the deal, which is what it appears several commissioners are now angling for. The Tampa Bay Times’ Colleen Wright, who seems to get all the “actually doing journalism” assignments while Marc Topkin and John Romano issue the thinly veiled team press releases, has a rundown of who stands where, which comes down to:
- Chris Latvala and Dave Eggers want to renegotiate the deal. Eggers says he would vote for it if Rays owner Stuart Sternberg kicked in more money; the others haven’t specified what changes they’re looking for.
- Nowicki wants to just go ahead and vote no, on the grounds that “you might as well just take a vote on it and see where the chips fall.”
- Fellow commissioner newbie Chris Scherer has previously said he wants to revisit the stadium deal, but didn’t respond to the Times’ request for comment this time.
- Kathleen Peters and Brian Scott voted to delay the vote in October but are still pro-stadium, with Peters saying confusingly, “I’m not going to continue the fray of that banter.”
- Rene Flowers voted for the stadium bonds in July but voted to delay them in October, and said she’s “still making up my mind.”
We’ll find out at 2 pm ET today (or more likely a bit after, as the stadium is 22nd on the meeting agenda) how this shakes out, but kicking the can does seem a likely scenario, especially since the bond deal doesn’t have to be finalized until March. At which point we’ll find out how Sternberg responds, after all but saying on Saturday that he’ll take his ball and go somewhere else TBD if he doesn’t get bond approval ASAP. Will he book a flight to visit Nashville, or does Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf have dibs on that move?
Anyhoo, see you back here at 2 pm. Watch along if you want, or I’ll be liveblogging if I can manage to stay awake through the first 21 agenda items.
White Sox to Nashville so that they remain AL Central
Tampa Bay to Montreal so that they remain AL East
Montreal works for me as TB has never supported the Rays even when they’ve been good. Although Sternberg spent awhile on his silly split seasons in Montreal/TB plan and you’d think if he thought there was real public money to get a stadium there he’d have used it as leverage.
Chicago to Nashville trades the 3rd largest market for the 35th. Even if Chicago has a second team, that doesn’t remotely make sense unless they have a live one on the line and about a billion dollars of public cash for a stadium. And the city and state just finished spending billions for a soccer stadium and a football stadium, so you’d think they’re tapped out. Of course the opposite could be true: places that hand out billions for stadiums like it’s Halloween candy are probably more likely to keep handing out billions for stadiums like it’s Halloween candy than to stop.
I agree that it makes more sense to remain in Chicago. Hopefully, they can work something out. The renderings for their proposed ballpark look appealing.
Surely you mean Chicacago:
https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2024/02/08/20950/renderings-for-new-white-sox-stadium-are-wonderland-of-fall-risks-hoverkayaks/
“the fray of that banter…” hmm… not quite “concepts of a plan,” but it could make a good death metal song.
I’m a little salty that in the public commentary the concessions worker threw shade at Oakland. Yes, Oakland “is no longer a thriving city”, but she’s completely backwards on the causation. Oakland’s troubles aren’t the result of the teams leaving, at all; nor would its troubles be alleviated by spending finite resources on getting teams to stay.