Three Things the Rays' Stadium Saga Needs in 2015

This post could be alternatively titled, "(Brian) Auld Lang Syne: Should Rays' Old Acquaintances Be Forgotten?" But it just didn't make quite enough sense.

But the point is, without the ability to hit rewind on an uncomfortable month in the Stadium Saga, we can focus on hitting "reset" in 2015. Time to put aside hard feelings between the Rays and St. Pete (and any frustrated fans)...and focus on three needs that will define progress in the stalemate:

1) A True Regional Approach Toward the Rays

On one hand, it's encouraging Tampa politicians have never criticized their counterparts across the bay. They've never made Bill Foster, Rick Kriseman, city council, or anyone else the "bad guy" - in fact, they've basically supported every decision those leaders have made.

But on the other hand, why plan a Hillsborough County site-search team instead of a search team that spans multiple counties? As much as people say Tampa Bay is past its "parochial rivalries" that have created decades worth of divides on issues like the airport, the Bucs, and the Rays...the region is not past these rivalries. We see it in social media, we see it in politics, and we see it on issues of ballpark financing.
UPDATE: We just saw it in a Letter to the Editor too!

Bring up the most logical way to fund a stadium - a multi-county tax - and elected leaders in both Hillsborough and Pinellas immediately shut down the idea. "Help pay for a stadium in that other county? No way," they say. Yet the multi-county tax is the mechanism that made "successful" stadiums in Denver and Milwaukee possible.

We need to remember anytime Tampa and St. Pete "compete," both sides lose.   It would be best to have the difficult conversations about where to build - and how to fund - a next-generation Rays stadium as a region.  Oh, and while we're at it, maybe figure out how to incorporate transit improvements too.


2) Transparency From the Rays Regarding Money

Watch my exchange with Rays' President Brian Auld here - he promises transparency on stadium financials...but provides no further details.

In fact, the Rays have repeatedly failed to answer questions about how much they will put forward for a new stadium; how many tax dollars they expect to go toward the project; and how much revenue a new stadium would actually mean for them.

In numerous exchanges over the years, Stu Sternberg has repeatedly declined to even offer a "ballpark" figure on any of these questions.

We can debate all day whether the Rays should open their books if they expect public financing. But what should be a no-brainer is having an open, honest conversation about how much a new ballpark will cost our local municipalities...and if we think that price is right.

This discussion should happen sooner rather than later, and the Rays should start talking rough numbers of what they'll spend and what they want in subsidies. Also, what impact would these new revenues have on the team's payroll? 

Claiming ignorance on these issues is not being transparent.


3) Less Heavy-Handedness from Editorial Boards and Sports Talk Hosts

As soon as St. Pete's council rejected the Rays' recent ultimatum, the Times' editorial board tore them a new one, criticizing them as "minor league" for not caving to the team's demands.  The Trib's criticisms came the next day.  But I wrote how these criticisms were inappropriate...and lots of prominent writers around town seemed to agree with me for once.

It wasn't the first time the Times' editorial board trashed anyone who dare stand in the way of the Rays' march to a new stadium...but the "at all cost" attitude is counterproductive.  Why not advocate smarter questions and solutions instead of caving to the demands of a wealthy business?

Of course, Tampa Bay's sports talk hosts buy into the fearmongering too.  "The sky is falling" and the Rays are moving, they contend.  You'd think they had never covered a team's relocation threats before.

But fearmongering isn't good.  It leads to political pressure, which often leads to politicians making decisions that are not in the public's best interests.

No, stadiums do not have to generate profit for a city - they're loss-leaders, intended as a community investment.  It's just that sometimes, the investment is so great it's not worth it.  Few politicians have ever publicly stated this because...fearmongering, which leads to political pressure, which can lead to bad decisions.

This region doesn't need more fearmongering - it needs more good questions and answers.  Why squelch questions about stadium financing and public subsidies and taxpayer protection?  That doesn't do anyone any good, including Rays fans hoping for a peaceful compromise.

MLB's threats aren't nearly as dangerous as those from the newspapers.  Let's just hope we see fewer of both in 2015.

Happy New Year everyone - for the best updates on the Stadium Saga in 2015, I encourage you to follow Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook or it's updates on Twitter.