It's already been reported that Tampa Council Chairman Charlie Miranda supported Mayor Bill Foster's re-election campaign with a $100 check for Foster's "dedication to ensuring that contractual obligations are adhered to."
But also supporting Foster is developer Darryl LeClair, the Carillon/Mid-Pinellas stadium proponent, who gave the maximum $500 donation. And Bob Byelick, chairman of the Clutch Hitters, the grass-roots Rays booster club, donated $250. (make sure to read his letter in the Times this week)
Meanwhile, one of Foster's top threats, Rick Kriseman, has been leading the money race and is closing the gap in the polls as well. The former St. Pete councilman, who says he'd work out a deal to let the Rays explore Tampa, received $500 from former Clutch Hitters president David Feaster.
Kriseman also received $50 from Tampa councilwoman Mary Mulhern and $500 from St. Pete councilman Charlie Gerdes, who crafted the failed contract amendment that would have opened the door for the Rays to explore Tampa.
And former ABC Coalition spokesman Craig Sher, who has always pushed for regional cooperation on the stadium front, chipped in $500 to Kriseman's coffer as well.
Many of the donations fall along party lines (Foster is a Republican; Kriseman is a Democrat), so some of the loyalties may not be stadium-driven at all.
But there doesn't seem to be much support among the baseball crowd for former councilwoman Kathleen Ford (also a Democrat). Ford is the third legit contender for two spots in a mayoral run-off, but trails in fundraising and her most recent finance report showed no signs of any notable names from the many chapters of the Stadium Saga.
LOL, I happen to hear your bit on "the Fisher experience" about shorten yellow lights. And some dude brought to light the http://isnoahpranskyafraud.tumblr.com/
ReplyDeletewebsite, lol...
It's cool, right or wrong about things, at least they're not questioning your work ethic. I'm no reporter, and maybe it's the Boston in you, but I assume being 1 sided isn't a recipe for success in investigating like the everything-Rays-do-sucks, and the Rays-want-to-spend-a-1/2 billion-of-yours approach without real proof of the future. But again, I guess if I was a true Red Sox fan, I'd have the same approach...
What if Tampa will make lots of profits for decades to come if they end up investing in the ballpark? What if it helps spur lots of small businesses & real estate values & news jobs? Every situation is different, and I find it hard to believe that you or I really know the truth, just because of what happen in Miami? That's not fare to the Rays. That's like saying every restaurant is the same, just because most fail in the 1st year or 2, there's a lot of restaurants that thrive for generations. And I know this "what if" talk is water under your bridge, and you'll continue to pound the same old style articles, but I promise you it's starting to sound more & more like it's written by a Red Sox (lol)...
DeleteIt's not about one example. It's about LOTS of them. Try to find an economist - not on a league's payroll - who is pro-stadium spending.
DeleteNewsflash, there's lots of examples of both sides of the argument. And to say that one is more right then the other only depends on the pacific situation. You CAN'T say that because Miami built a ballpark in a lower class neighborhood that once housed a football team that spent years trying to get out of is good reason why stadiums are bad when baseball cities like San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and Washington DC used ballparks to rejuvenated blighted areas into new cash-cow areas of their cities. So we can go round and round like kids on a situational issue, but the truth is we're both right in certain cases. Now, idk if you been following the future plans & ideas of Tampa's Channelside, but given that public subsidies is case-by-case basis, it's hard not to be encouraged by the in place plans by Vinnik, and others to start developing retail & residential ahead of the ballpark, including the RiverWalk, refurbished CS Plaza, the planned high rises around the ConAgra plant, along with the Lightning's success. So good luck playing the negative card and disguising your true motives for this blog because of your love the Red Sux...
DeleteThe once blighted areas aren't cash cows and the tax money that may be recouped, doesn't come close to the interest and bottom line amount to pay off the stadium. The main thing to think about is the fact that owners know that stadium are money pits, therefore, they are fine with using someone else's money to pay for them. It's wrong.
ReplyDeleteLOL, OK, "anonymous", you know what your talking about. Though, if "owners know that stadiums are money pits", why do cities always lobby to build'em? Though your probably one of those people that think all government is dumb & are just out to bury us...
Delete"Since 2010, I've been very consistent in stating that the Rays organization and the private sector will have to fund the construction of a new stadium irrespective of the area. There will never be another Raymond James sweetheart deal." - Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagen
DeleteEven the politicians are wising up, Mr. Dufala.
I read that today, and though it's "the same difference", politicians live & learn as well...
Delete