Tuesday, March 31, 2015

How Hard Will Rays Work to Replace St. Pete Councilmembers?

The Tampa Bay Times dislikes St. Pete city councilmembers.  At least half of them.

In an editorial essentially calling for councilman Steve Kornell's job (two other critics of the proposed Rays' deal are term-limited this fall), the Times' editorial board said it's time for St. Pete residents to replace obstructionist councilmembers.

I wrote that replacing elected officials was one of the three options available to the Rays if they were anxious to break the stalemate.

Except not sure I agree with the Times' claim that "the stalemate only harms St. Petersburg taxpayers" since holding out for the Rays to offer a better deal may actually net St. Pete significantly more revenue.  It's just like choosing not to trade your star pitcher in spring training.  Sometimes it makes sense.

Of course, sometimes it's a mistake too.  Nobody knows right now.  But it won't stop folks from pretending they do...

ALSO READ: Why We Need to Stop Cheerleading for Our Teams When it Comes to Business Issues

A brief history of Times editorials on the Stadium Saga:
The history goes further back than that, but for a good synopsis, watch my 2010 piece on newspapers cheerleading for new stadium projects

FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook


  1. File this alternate headline under Obvious News:
    Self-Interested Editors Write Self-Interested Editorial

    The paper's credibility is like a handful of sand. The harder they squeeze...

  2. I might pump the brakes on the whole city council regime change idea. We don't want to be advocating legislative rent-seeking--if not outright public corruption--on this blog.

    I get you elected, you buy me and the Times a new stadium. K? K.

    1. I'm not advocating it; it's just the truth that every private corporation knows.

      See previous blogposts for Rays' political activities - they're no stranger to the process.