Tribune Misleads on Stadium Saga

Sometimes one little sentence - either written or not written - is enough to shape opinions on the Stadium Saga.

It may not have been intentional, but Eddie Daniels' story about the Rays meeting with the Hillsborough Commission in this morning's Tampa Tribune (a day after the Times reported it) leaves a reader to believe the prospects of building a stadium in Tampa are much rosier than they are in reality:

Several studies have suggested Tropicana Field has outlived its usefulness for Major League Baseball. Almost three years ago, the ABC Coalition, a St. Petersburg-sponsored group that studied the stadium issue, said the team was in need of a new ballpark and suggested downtown Tampa and the West Shore District, among other sites, as potential locations.

Daniels mentions "several studies," but only mentions one.  As far as I know, there has only been  one independent study on the Trop's usefulness.  Furthermore, he writes how the ABC Coalition suggested the Tampa and Westshore districts for a new stadium, but fails to mention that they also suggested Pinellas' Gateway region as a possible location.

Daniels continues:

In September, a plan for a potential baseball stadium was unveiled for Pinellas County's Carillon area, just west of the Howard Frankland Bridge and off Ulmerton Road. Additionally, members of the Baseball Stadium Finance Caucus concluded a new stadium is economically feasible on either side of Tampa Bay.

Correction: the Baseball Stadium Finance Caucus said nothing of the economic feasibility of a stadium, which would indicate whether the economy could sustain subsidizing one.  Instead, it found creative ways tax dollars could be pooled to build a new stadium...but indicated it would come with a hefty price tag.  This was not mentioned in today's Trib article.

But what the paper didn't fail to mention:

Even Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig has said the team needs a new stadium.

In that case, when's the groundbreaking?