[I]t could take about five years to identify a site, arrange financing and build a stadium. Yet some council members still fail to grasp that the more time passes without an agreement to let the Rays look for a new home, the less negotiating leverage the city has in seeking payments for leaving early and the longer the city has to wait to redevelop the site.OK, so this is more of a backhanded
While Sternberg's substantive points are fair and reasonable, his lack of appreciation for local politics and community sensibilities undercuts his message. Council members already are sensitive about being taken for granted and put off by a perceived air of superiority from a wealthy team owner who lives in New York. Refusing to talk to them at a public meeting does not help, particularly when some former elected officials and community activists urge council members to reject any deal with the Rays.
A brief history of Times editorials on the Stadium Saga:
- 2/20/15 - St. Pete should just give up now
- 12/10/14 - It's in St. Pete's financial interest to let the Rays go to Tampa
- 11/7/14 - St. Pete should amend contract b/c Rays lost their manager, GM
- 10/3/14 - Cheers, Warning on Hillsborough Negotiations
- 6/30/14 - Save Pinellas Tax Money for New Stadium
- 4/2/14 - What Steps Will Kriseman Take on Rays?
- 3/31/14 - Hurry Up! Only 14 More Years to Solve Stadium Stalemate!
- 1/1/14 - Kriseman Should Solve Stadium Stalemate Within "Months"
- 12/1/13 - Message to Kriseman: no time to waste
- 11/12/13 - New mayor will bring an open mind to the negotiations
- 11/6/13 - New mayor should renew discussions with Rays
- And a bevy of Bill-Foster bashing too: Oct. 2013 | Sept. 2013 | Sept. 2013 | Feb 2013 | Feb 2013 | Jan 2013 | Jan 2013 | Oct 2012 | April 2012
Right. Same problem: a newspaper offering business advice. Steer clear.
ReplyDeleteThe parties could also each stick to their commitments. If one side defaults, let the out-of-state owners explain their reasoning to a local judge.
The only urgency in this for the Rays and for the Times is that the Times will fold soon.
The Council members are not concerned about being "taken for granted." They are concerned about being sold a bridge. The Times are just cheerleaders for the bridge sale, nothing more. The Times should take their own advice and "just give up now."
The newspaper should disclose its business relationships with the Rays at the bottom of every single opinion about the Rays. What is good for Tampa or "the region" or the Rays or the Times is not necessarily good for St. Petersburg or Pinellas. As such, the newspaper should disclose its conflicts of interest when offering legal opinions.
ReplyDelete