The Surprising Rays Stadium Graph the Tampa Bay Times Didn't Print

This weekend, the Tampa Bay Times editorial board opined how the city of St. Pete was losing hundreds of millions of dollars (in opportunity cost) by choosing to keep the Rays at Tropicana Field rather than redevelop the stadium's 85-acre footprint into something else.

I wrote how the editorial was rife with huge - and all-too-convenient - assumptions to bolster the paper's cheerleading for a new stadium in Tampa.

But, for fun, let's use the Times' same assumptions and look at a different chart - one they didn't publish (click to enlarge):

Disclaimer: This uses the same flawed assumptions the Times used in its Sun. editorial
Disclaimer 2: Don't confuse transparency and perspective for advocacy.

Economic assumptions aside, if the Times contends St. Pete would be better off without baseball, you have to assume the same for Downtown Tampa - a city that already has Lightning games, major concerts, arena football, and convention events 75+ times a year.
If St. Pete stands to lose economic impact by simply keeping the Rays, Tampa would stand to lose even more by keeping the Rays and having to pay for a new stadium.  That goes especially for the 2017-2019 years, where the city might potentially be spending money to build a stadium without holding a single event there.

So readers, before you click that "comment" button, remember, this isn't advocating anything other than transparency and perspective.  But if you're going to jump on the Times' editorial bandwagon, you'd better have some better reasons to do so than a silly graph.

---

A brief history of Times editorials on the Stadium Saga:

• 6/14/15 - Opportunity cost of keeping Rays costing St. Pete big
• 6/4/15 - Council blind to economic opportunities at Trop
• 5/30/15 - Times Cranks Up Pressure on Opponents of Rays Compromise 
• 5/28/15 - Hurry up and pass MOU or else we'll have to hurry up in a few years 
• 3/31/15 - Times suggests replacing councilmembers who oppose MOU
• 3/28/15 - Maybe Council Will Finally Listen to Us?
• 2/23/15 - Sternberg Wrong to Hate on St. Pete Council...That's Our Job!
• 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

The history goes further back than that, but for a good synopsis, watch my 2010 piece on newspapers cheerleading for new stadium projects

---

Get Shadow of the Stadium delivered straight to your inbox    

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