Why our we giving away the Gas Plant?

Would you sell a property far below its value to one of only two bidders when you know there are many other prospective buyers who will pay much more?

That’s what Mayor Ken Welch wants to do with the Gas Plant, while now acknowleging there was and is international interest in the property and while having two new appraisals that value the property at much more than the offer he wants the city to accept.

This is at a time when St. Petersburg needs to borrow $600 million to speed up sewer and stormwater repairs. And this borrowing will increase real estate taxes by almost $100 per $100,000 value - for 30 years!

Mr. Mayor - where are the facts?

Why doesn’t the Mayor provide the hard facts and evidence that what he wants to do is a good deal for the city? I suggest he doesn’t because he can’t—because there are no factual answers that justify this deal.

Here are the facts

• The 86-acre Gas Plant property will be ready for development in about three years.

• The property is probably the most valuable large-scale redevelopment opportunity anywhere in the U.S.

• The Mayor has now acknowledged the property value in his comments to the Tampa Bay Business Journal: “obviously these 86 acres generate a lot of interest around the world.”

• But the Mayor never got bids from those national and international developers. He only got offers from two local developers.

• The property was just recently appraised as high as $390 million if sold as is - with any buyer paying all the costs of development including the streets and parks.

• The property could be worth as much as $1 billion if the city leads the development and sells the land after the streets and parks are constructed.

Here’s where we are

• Mayor Ken Welch wants to sell the Gas Plant’s developable land to Blake Investment Partners, for $275 million. Far less than the appraised value. And he wants to agree that the city will pay for the streets and parks.

• We don’t know the costs of the streets, parks and infrastructure. However, in their proposal ARK Ellison Horus mentioned $239 million in infrastructure investment and later suggested $400 million in infrastructure cost. For purposes of discussion, I will use $300 million.

• If the city sold the property at the appraised value, the city collects $390 million.

• If the city sells to Blake Investment Partners it collects $275 million, but it has to spend $300 million for the streets and parks. The city would be out $25 million.

• Collect $390 million or spend $25 million? A difference of $415 million.

• $415 million is 2/3 of the $600 million the City wants to borrow to pay for sewer and stormwater repairs—which will cost homeowners almost $100 for every $100,000 of property value in increased property taxes - for 30 years!

Why does Mayor Welch want to do this deal?

The City received only two offers for this extraordinary 86-acre property, and not one single national or international developer submitted a bid. The Mayor himself says the property generates interest around the world, and he still wants to move forward after receiving only two local offers.

Why would the Mayor do this deal? Why would anyone do this deal?

I suggest if any of us was the trustee for the city, we would never do this. We would have to admit we didn’t do a good job of asking for bids. Those major developers should have been salivating to get a chance. Again, per Mayor Welch himself: “these 86 acres generate a lot of interest around the world”—but none of them bid.

The Mayor says it’s not an issue of selling the land for the highest price. But selling for a loss of $415 million? When you haven’t even gotten bids from the major developers supposedly interested from “around the world?” And you haven’t considered what smart cities around the U.S. do - lead the development and capture the full property value - as much as $1 billion.

Why even sell the property to any one developer?

As I have written extensively, all of my research says the City should not sell the land even at $390 million. Instead, the city should decide on the parks and streets first, and put them in.

Why?

• Because we should decide what kinds of parks we want.

• Because once the streets and parks are in, the land could easily be worth more than $1 billion. And that value should belong to the city.

• Because the City keeps control—we don’t have to worry about any one developer having problems over the next 20 to 40 years, potentially putting the whole property at risk.

• And we can set aside as much land as we want for affordable housing. (P.S. No developer is going to guarantee how much they can build—it’s impossible for them to do that.)

With all this said:

• The Mayor is now acknowledging the Gas Plant’s extraordinary value and interest from around the world.

• Then, why doesn’t the Mayor provide the facts and evidence that what he wants to do is a good deal for the city? I suggest he doesn’t because he can’t—because there are no factual answers that justify this deal.

Why would anyone do this deal?

• All of the other candidates for mayor and most of the candidates for City Council District 6 say they wouldn’t.

Related Reading

Value: We Should Not Give Away the Gas Plant

$600M Borrowing - and a $1 B Giveaway in St. Pete?

A Billion Dollars Will Go Out the Window

Where St. Pete Candidates Stand on the Gas Plant

Rick Baker on Planning the Trop Site’s Future

Where St. Pete Candidates Stand on the Gas Plant

Recently, I asked my more than 43,000 HomeRunsMatter readers—most of them St. Petersburg residents and voters—whether voters should know where candidates for Mayor and City Council stand on the future of the Historic Gas Plant District before casting their ballots.

They said yes.

So I contacted every candidate for Mayor and every candidate for the District 6 City Council seat. I told each candidate that I would publish their comments exactly as they submitted them.

I asked them about two fundamentally different approaches:

City-Led Planning First — The City first develops the vision and comprehensive master plan for the district, including streets, parks, public spaces, infrastructure and development parcels. Developers then compete to build individual portions of that plan.

Master Developer First — The City first selects a master developer and negotiates the redevelopment of the district primarily through that developer’s proposal.

Here are the results

Candidates for Mayor

Kevin Batdorf — City-Led Planning First

Brandi Gabbard — City-Led Planning First

Jim Large — City-Led Planning First

Maria Scruggs — City-Led Planning First

Charlie Crist — City-Led Review Before a Final Decision

Ken Welch — Master Developer First

District 6 City Council Candidates

Linsey Grove — FOR City-Led Planning First / AGAINST Master Developer First

Doug Homeyer — FOR City-Led Planning First / AGAINST Master Developer First

Jameka Williams — FOR City-Led Planning First / AGAINST Master Developer First

Terri Balliet and Trevor Mallory — Provided comments but did not select an approach

My View

I strongly believe the City should complete its own planning first.

My reasoning comes down to three issues:

Value: The City should create the plan and allow developers to compete for individual parcels so that the public—not one master developer—captures as much of the land’s future value as possible.

Vision: The City, with meaningful public participation and help from nationally recognized planners, should determine the streets, parks, public spaces, development parcels and overall character of the district before developers are selected.

Control: This redevelopment will unfold over decades. A parcel-by-parcel approach preserves the City’s ability to respond to changing markets, community needs and future opportunities.

I was encouraged that four mayoral candidates clearly supported City-Led Planning First and that three District 6 candidates said they would vote for it and against Master Developer First.

Their reasons varied, but many reflected the same concerns I have raised: public control, competition, long-term value, community involvement and flexibility.

I also believe Charlie Crist’s proposed Blue Ribbon Committee is a reasonable approach. Bringing together qualified stakeholders and outside planning expertise to review the current process before making a final decision is a responsible way to proceed.

The Historic Gas Plant District may be the most valuable public asset St. Petersburg will ever redevelop.

The decisions made now will shape our city for generations.

I have published every candidate’s complete comments, Mayor Welch’s full statement and my detailed analysis on HomeRunsMatter.

Read the full article

An update on where the candidates stand on the future of the Historic Gas Plant District.

Recently, I asked my Substack readers whether they agreed that voters should know where candidates for Mayor and City Council stand on the future of the Historic Gas Plant District before casting their ballots.

The response was overwhelming. Of the 230 readers who voted, 95% said yes - voters should know where candidates stand. Not wishy-washy answers. Not silence. Just a clear position - now.

Based on that response, I emailed every mayoral candidate and every District 6 City Council candidate and asked them a simple question:

Which approach would you support for redeveloping the Historic Gas Plant District?

City-Led Planning First — The City develops the vision and comprehensive master plan, then developers compete to build individual portions of that plan.

Master Developer First — The City turns responsibility for redeveloping the entire 86-acre district over to a single master developer.

I asked each candidate to respond by Thursday, August 6, and advised them that I will publish their response on Friday—along with any comments they choose to provide—exactly as received. If they do not respond, I will publish that fact as well.

While many candidates have already responded, not all have.

I believe anyone running for Mayor or City Council should make his or her position clear. Mayor and City Council members will almost certainly make one of the most consequential decisions in our city’s history. This is exactly the kind of issue on which voters should know where every candidate stands before they cast their ballots.

While I am hopeful that all of the candidates will get back to me by Thursday, for those who do not it will be difficult to understand how remaining silent on the most important issue facing our city would help earn voters’ confidence. I believe voters expect more from those who seek to lead them.

While all of my research has led me to conclude that the City should lead—to protect value and control, and to establish the vision for the district—I’m not asking candidates to agree with my conclusions.

I’m simply asking them to tell voters theirs.

In my view, leadership is not measured by avoiding difficult decisions.

Leadership means studying the facts, reaching a conclusion, and having the courage to tell the public where you stand. Voters may agree or disagree with a candidate’s position—that’s democracy. But they should never have to guess what that position is.

The Historic Gas Plant District is too important. The stakes are too high. The people of St. Petersburg deserve to know where those seeking to lead our city stand before Election Day and in fact by August 6.

To me, that’s what leadership looks like.

On Friday, voters will be able to see which candidates chose to tell them where they stand—and which candidates chose not to do so.

I’ve written extensively about the future of the 86-acre Gas Plant. (You can read the articles on HomeRunsMatter.com.)

I have done so because I believe the Gas Plant property is the most valuable asset the City of St. Petersburg will ever own. What happens there will involve billions of dollars in public and private investment, influence the future of our city for decades, and help determine who controls many of the decisions that shape this extraordinary public asset.

I’ve spoken with nationally recognized planners, and I’ve spoken with developers involved in projects in St. Petersburg. Most recently, I published a four-part series on Vision, Control, and Value and conducted polls here in my newsletter.

The conclusion of virtually everyone (except Mayor Welch):

The City—not a developer—should lead.

Successful cities create the plan first. They don’t turn an entire district over to a single developer and hope for the best. They establish the vision, decide the streets, parks, public spaces, and development parcels, and then invite developers to compete to build that vision.

But this post isn’t about my position.

It’s about the candidates.

On August 18, voters will choose which two candidates advance for Mayor and which two candidates will advance for the District 6 City Council seat.

Shouldn’t voters know where these candidates stand on the future of the Gas Plant before Election Day?

I’m considering sending the following:

Question for Mayoral Candidates

If elected Mayor, would you negotiate with a single master developer for the Gas Plant redevelopment, or would you pause the process and have the City first prepare a comprehensive master plan.

Questions for District 6 City Council Candidates

1. If a proposal to proceed with a City-Led Planning First approach for redeveloping the Gas Plant came before the City Council, would you vote: FOR or AGAINST.

2. If a proposal to proceed with a Master Developer First approach for redeveloping the Gas Plant came before the City Council, would you vote: FOR or AGAINST

Every response would be published exactly as received. If a candidate does not respond, I will publish that as well.

Poll respones are anonymous. I can’t see who voted, and neither can anyone else, so please feel free to answer honestly.

The Historic Gas Plant District is the most valuable public property St. Petersburg will ever own.

So why is the City negotiating a proposal that would pay approximately $275 million for the land while requiring taxpayers to spend approximately $300 million on infrastructure?

Two independent appraisals valued the property at approximately $390 million.

But that’s only the beginning.

The larger question is what this land could be worth after the City creates a great neighborhood with streets, parks, infrastructure, businesses, and housing.

Nearby downtown land recently sold for approximately $18 million per acre.

What could the Historic Gas Plant District eventually be worth?

Who should benefit from that value?

In the fourth article in my Vision. Control. Value. series, I argue that cities create value through planning—and that the citizens who own the land should benefit from the value their City creates.

Read the full article here:

👉 Value - We should not give away

St. Petersburg is preparing to make decisions that could determine the future of the 86-acre Historic Gas Plant District for generations.

For the past several weeks, I’ve been writing about three principles that I believe should guide those decisions:

Vision. Control. Value.

The first two articles explored Vision—including what should happen to I-175 and what kind of parks and public spaces St. Petersburg should create.

Now we turn to the second principle:

Control.

By control, I don’t mean that the City should become the developer.

I mean that the City, with the help of national planners and an advisory council, should establish the master plan, determine where the streets, parks and public spaces go, decide how and when different parts of the property are developed, and retain the flexibility to adjust those decisions as circumstances change.

Developers should design, finance and build exceptional projects.

But the City should remain responsible for guiding the future of the entire 86 acres.

Why does that matter?

Because this redevelopment will unfold over decades.

No one knows what the economy, housing market, interest rates, construction costs or community priorities will look like 10, 20 or 30 years from now.

The question is not simply what should be built on the Historic Gas Plant site.

It is:

Who should remain in control as circumstances change over the decades required to build it?

Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn provides a timely warning.

More than twenty years after the project was announced, large portions remain unfinished. The New York Times recently described it as “a symbol of broken promises and the pitfalls of taxpayer-subsidized mega-projects.”

Now New York State economic development officials have announced a new $5 billion plan intended to finally complete it. The project could require approximately $700 million in additional public subsidies—and could take another decade or more to build.

The lesson is not that developers are bad.

The lesson is that circumstances change.

And when they do, someone must remain responsible for protecting the long-term public interest.

For the Historic Gas Plant District, I believe that should be the City of St. Petersburg, acting on behalf of its citizens.

The City should create the vision.

The City should establish the plan.

The City should retain control.

And developers should compete for the opportunity to build it.

👉 Read the full article on HomeRunsMatter, including what Atlantic Yards can teach St. Petersburg about preserving flexibility over decades of redevelopment.

The Historic Gas Plant is an 86-acre, once-in-a-generation opportunity.

One of the biggest questions is what kind of public park should be created there.

Former Mayor Rick Baker has proposed creating a 30-acre “St. Pete Commons” as the centerpiece of the Historic Gas Plant redevelopment. It is a compelling idea that deserves serious consideration.

For perspective, Boston Common has preserved approximately 50 acres of public green space in the heart of Boston for generations. The park is not land Boston somehow failed to develop. It is part of what makes the surrounding city valuable.

Could St. Petersburg create its own signature public park—something that helps define our city for the next hundred years?

Perhaps.

But before deciding whether a 30-acre St. Pete Commons—or any other vision—is right, there is a more fundamental question:

Who should decide?

Should one mayor and one development team determine what kind of park St. Petersburg will live with for generations?

Or should the City lead the process—bringing in nationally recognized planners and landscape architects to work with our professional planning staff, a serious Citizen Advisory Council, and the broader community?

The Burg Bid has assembled a talented and experienced development team and has proposed its own vision for parks and public spaces, including elevated walkways, overlooks, gathering spaces, and other distinctive features.

Some people may love those ideas. Others may prefer something entirely different.

But that is not the issue.

The issue is that St. Petersburg has never independently decided what kind of park it wants.

A developer and a city have different responsibilities.

A developer is accountable to its investors.

A city is accountable to its citizens.

Those interests can align. Often they do.

But they are not always identical.

That is why St. Petersburg should create and control its own vision first.

The City should decide how much parkland we want, where it should go, what kind of public space it should become, and how it should connect to Campbell Park, Booker Creek, downtown, and surrounding neighborhoods.

Then developers can build within that vision.

The City should lead.

The City should control the vision.

Developers should build within it.

I explore the park question—and why it is such a powerful example of why Vision must come first—in my latest article on Home Runs Matter.

👉 Read the full article on Home Runs Matter.

One of the biggest questions facing St. Petersburg isn’t simply who should redevelop the Historic Gas Plant District.

It’s who should create the vision.

Should the City decide where parks belong, how neighborhoods connect, whether I-175 should be evaluated, and how this extraordinary public asset should shape St. Petersburg over the next 50 to 100 years?

Or should those decisions largely emerge from a developer’s proposal?

After studying successful redevelopment projects across the country, I’ve become convinced that great cities begin with their vision.

They create a comprehensive master plan before selecting the developers who will help bring that vision to life.

My latest article begins a new series exploring Vision, Control, and Value—three principles I believe should guide one of the most important public policy decisions in St. Petersburg’s history.

The first article examines why the future of Interstate 175 deserves to be part of that broader planning conversation—not because it must be removed, but because great cities ask these kinds of questions before making irreversible decisions.

👉 Read the full article on HomeRunsMatter.

I'm beginning a new series about the future of the Historic Gas Plant District. Rather than focusing on one developer or one proposal, the series asks a broader question: How should a city redevelop one of its most valuable public assets?

👉 Read the full article on HomeRunsMatter.

One of the most important public policy decisions in St. Petersburg’s history is now underway.

The question isn’t simply which developer should redevelop the Historic Gas Plant District.

The more fundamental question is:

Who should lead the redevelopment?

For the past several months, I’ve been studying how cities across America have successfully redeveloped major public properties—and how some have not. I’ve reviewed successful projects, projects that struggled, spoken with planning professionals, and examined how cities protect the long-term value of major public assets.

One conclusion keeps emerging:

Cities should plan. Developers should develop.

Today, St. Petersburg is taking a different approach. The City has selected a development team before establishing a comprehensive master plan for the property.

Mayor Welch has argued that the City already knows its priorities: affordable housing, jobs, economic opportunity, and honoring commitments to the Historic Gas Plant community.

Those are important goals.

But goals are not a master plan.

They don’t answer questions like:

• What should happen to I-175?

• Where should the parks be located?

• How should neighborhoods connect?

• Where should civic spaces be?

• What should the district ultimately become?

Those are the kinds of decisions that successful cities make before selecting developers.

This is why I’m beginning a new series built around three ideas:

• Vision

• Control

• Value

The purpose isn’t to advocate for or against any particular developer.

It’s to explore why successful cities establish the vision, retain leadership of the planning process, and protect the long-term value of major public assets.

Before the City Council votes on any redevelopment agreement, St. Petersburg voters will elect a mayor and two new City Council members.

I believe every candidate should clearly explain where they stand before voters cast their ballots in the August primary election.

The first article in the series asks a simple question:

Who should decide the future of I-175?

Read the full introduction and follow the series on Homerunsmatter.com

Today, Mayor Ken Welch announced his preferred development team for the Historic Gas Plant District.

I know the team, and I respect their commitment to the future of St. Petersburg.

But my position has never been about which developer is chosen.

It has always been about how a city should redevelop one of its most valuable public assets.

Here’s why I continue to believe St. Petersburg should take a different approach.

1. Cities Should Plan. Developers Should Develop.

Major cities across the United States typically do not ask a single master developer to determine the future of an entire district. Nor do they leave the most important planning decisions to a mayor acting alone.

Instead, the city leads the process.

It hires nationally recognized planners and urban designers. It engages residents, business leaders, neighborhood representatives, architects, transportation experts, and other stakeholders. Together, they determine the streets, parks, public spaces, land uses, infrastructure, and overall vision for the neighborhood.

Only after that vision is established do developers compete to build portions of the plan.

That keeps the community—not one mayor and one developer—in charge of shaping the city’s future.

This is not a criticism of Mayor Welch or any future mayor. No one person can be expected to have all of the necessary expertise to make all of the decisions that will shape an 86-acre district for generations. This is about using the best planning process available.

2. The City Should Keep Control

An 86-acre redevelopment will unfold over decades.

No one knows what the economy, housing market, financing environment, or community priorities will look like 10, 20, or 30 years from now.

This isn’t a criticism of any particular developer. It is simply reality.

When the City retains control of the land and the overall development process, it can adapt as circumstances change while continuing to protect the public interest.

Once long-term control is transferred, many of those decisions become far more difficult—and sometimes impossible—to change.

3. The Public Should Receive the Full Value of This Extraordinary Asset

This property is one of the most valuable publicly owned redevelopment opportunities in Florida.

The reported proposal values the land at approximately $275 million, while the City is expected to fund the infrastructure.

Yet the City’s own appraisals have suggested substantially higher values for the land, even before infrastructure is considered.

If the City created the master plan and then sold or leased individual parcels over time, it would capture substantially more of the property’s long-term value for the public rather than transferring that value to a single master developer.

That value would help fund affordable housing, parks, transportation improvements, public amenities, and other long-term community priorities.

This Has Never Been About Choosing the Best Developer

It has always been about choosing the best model for governing the redevelopment of 86 acres that belong to the people of St. Petersburg.

I continue to believe the City should lead the planning, retain long-term control, and maximize the value of this extraordinary public asset for current and future generations.

Qualified developers are essential.

But developers should build the city’s vision—not create it. The responsibility for planning the future of St. Petersburg belongs to the City and its residents.

Related Reading

If you’d like to explore these ideas in more depth:

• The Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment Guide – A comprehensive overview of the redevelopment debate.

• The Best Cities Plan First. Then They Build. – How successful cities approach major redevelopment projects.

• Who Should Decide the Future of the Historic Gas Plant? – Why the planning process matters as much as the outcome.

• After Seven Years, a Parking Garage – What the former Police Headquarters redevelopment can teach us about long-term public projects.

• A Proposal for a St. Petersburg Advisory Council – A framework for broader community involvement in major civic decisions.

A 1.8-acre downtown St. Petersburg property just sold for $32.5 million.

That raises an important question.

If the Historic Gas Plant District were planned the same way—creating the streets, parks, infrastructure, and public spaces first—what could its individual development sites eventually be worth?

The recent downtown sale didn’t happen by accident.

Those buyers weren’t just purchasing land. They were purchasing a place whose value had already been created through decades of planning, public investment, businesses, housing, and infrastructure.

The Historic Gas Plant District has the opportunity to follow the same sequence.

Instead, the Mayor has said he intends to choose between proposals that would transfer development rights for the entire 86-acre district to one developer for less than $300 million (subject to City Council approval). Under either proposal, the City would still be responsible for paying an estimated $300 million for the streets, parks, utilities, and other public improvements.

That raises another important question:

Who should capture the value created by public planning and public investment?

Under the current approach, one developer would control the future development sites after the City creates the neighborhood.

Under a city-led approach, the City would first create the neighborhood and then offer individual development sites through competitive proposals, giving the public the opportunity to capture the value that its planning helped create.

Why does that matter?

Because every additional dollar the City creates and captures can be invested back into St. Petersburg—to help pay for infrastructure, parks, affordable housing, workforce development, programs for children and families, and other community priorities.

Cities don’t create value by simply selling land. They create value by creating great neighborhoods first.

I’ve written a new article explaining why I believe the Historic Gas Plant District deserves that approach.

👉 Read the full article by clicking the link below:

Historic Gas Plant: Create Value Before Selling

If you think this perspective deserves a wider audience, please Restack, share this post, or forward it to someone who cares about St. Petersburg’s future. Every share helps more residents become part of the conversation.

Question for readers

Why would St. Petersburg sell one of its most valuable public assets before it reaches its full potential value?

I’d enjoy hearing your thoughts in the comments.

Today, the Tampa Bay Times published my letter to the editor shown above.

I wrote the letter after reading this Catalyst article:

Welch files finance report late: major developers stand out

The article reports that a co-founder of Ellison Development, one of the teams seeking to redevelop the Historic Gas Plant site, contributed $50,000 to Mayor Ken Welch’s political committee.

Should a mayor accept $50,000 from someone seeking one of the city's most valuable assets?

What do you think?

If seven years from now the only completed structure at the Gas Plant were a parking garage, would we consider that a success?

That is the question I explore in a new article published yesterday on Home Runs Matter.

Nearly seven years ago, St. Petersburg selected a single development team to redevelop the former Police Headquarters site. At the time, the project was expected to include offices, condominiums, workforce housing, and retail space.

Today, nearly seven years later, the only completed structure is a parking garage.

This article is not about criticizing the developers involved.

It is about risk.

Should St. Petersburg place the future of 86 acres of publicly owned land in the hands of a single development team when other approaches are available?

The Historic Gas Plant District is one of the most important redevelopment opportunities in our city’s history. Before moving forward, I believe we should ask whether there is a better way.

Read the article:

Click Here to Read the Full Article

At the end of the article, you’ll also find a link to a letter I sent to Mayor Ken Welch and an opportunity to add your name in support

You can also read the letter and add your name in support.

Click Here to Read the Letter and Add Your Name

.

St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch has three proposals on the table for the future of the Historic Gas Plant site.

One would put a master developer in charge.

Another would put a different master developer in charge.

A third would have the city retain ownership but hire an outside team to manage the process.

(Of course any proposal selected by the mayor would ultimately have to be approved by the City Council.)

Each proposal is different.

But they all have one thing in common.

They already assume they know how redevelopment should happen.

The future of the Gas Plant is too important to rely on what any proposal team thinks the answer should be.

Mayor Welch should pause the current selection process, create a short-term public review process to evaluate the alternatives, include community input, and make sure the city gets this decision right.

The city should first decide what redevelopment approach best serves St. Petersburg.

Are We Starting in the Middle?

I think we are.

The three proposals were submitted in response to the process Mayor Welch established, effectively asking each proposer to present what they believe is the best approach to developing the property.

Doesn’t that mean we are evaluating answers before deciding the question?

And I believe that question is:

Who should lead the redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant site?

• Should the city lead?

• Should a master developer lead?

• Should there be some form of public-private partnership?

• Or should there be another approach entirely?

Those are decisions that belong to the city and the community—not to any proposal team and not to any mayor.

Why This Matters

The Historic Gas Plant is one of the most important public assets St. Petersburg will ever own.

What happens there will help shape our city for decades.

We should make sure we are asking the right question before choosing an answer.

What I Think Should Happen

The city should create a short-term public review process to evaluate the alternatives and determine the best redevelopment approach.

The review process should be transparent and public. Citizens should be able to see the alternatives being evaluated, hear from experts, and provide input before recommendations are made.

This doesn’t need to take years. It could likely be completed in a matter of months.

The goal is simple:

• Decide the approach first.

• Then decide how to implement it.

• Then decide what expertise is needed, if any.

The Bottom Line

This shouldn’t be a debate about which proposal is best.

It should be a discussion about how St. Petersburg should make one of the most important decisions in its history.

Mayor Welch should pause the current selection process, create a short-term public review process to evaluate the alternatives, include community input, and make sure the city gets this decision right.

👉 Click below to read the full article on Home Runs Matter:

Who Should Decide the Future of the Gas Plant?

In my last article, I highlighted 10 cities that got major redevelopment projects right by planning first. Developers second.

• They established a public vision.

• They laid out the streets, parks, and infrastructure.

• Then they invited developers to build within that framework.

It seems clear: the best cities plan first.

But what happens when cities choose a developer before they decide what they want to build?

Across the country, there are examples. More often than not, the result has been delays, cost overruns, lawsuits, scaled-back promises, and taxpayer burdens.

In my newest article, I examine six major redevelopment projects—from Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn to Foxconn in Wisconsin—and what they can teach St. Petersburg as the city considers the future of the Gas Plant District.

Click below to read the full article on Home Runs Matter.

When Cities Choose Developers First - Lessons from Failure

The Best Cities Plan First

St. Petersburg is approaching one of the biggest decisions in its modern history — the redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant District.

Within a few years, the Tampa Bay Rays will leave Tropicana Field, and redevelopment of this extraordinary 86-acre public site can begin.

That raises a simple but important question:

Who should lead?

One developer?

Or the City of St. Petersburg?

After spending months studying redevelopment projects across the country, I have come to a conclusion:

The city should lead.

Not because developers are unimportant.

Quite the opposite.

Successful redevelopment requires planners, architects, engineers, financial experts, housing specialists, and experienced developers.

The question is not whether developers should participate.

The question is who should establish the vision.

Across America, the most successful large-scale redevelopments followed a remarkably similar pattern.

The city planned first.

Before major development began, cities determined:

• Where streets and parks would go

• How neighborhoods would connect

• What infrastructure would come first

• What would remain public

• Housing goals and density

• Historical recognition

• Design standards and public spaces

Only then did developers come in to help bring that vision to life.

This approach is consistent with principles promoted by the Urban Land Institute and reflected in many successful redevelopment efforts across the country.

In a new cornerstone article on Home Runs Matter, I examine ten examples of cities that followed this approach, including:

• St. Petersburg

• New York City

• Chicago

• Denver

• Austin

• San Francisco

• Portland

• Pittsburgh

• Milwaukee

The examples are different in size, geography, and politics.

But they share a common lesson:

The most successful cities planned first.

They decided what they wanted to build before deciding who would build it.

The Historic Gas Plant site is one of the most important city-building opportunities in St. Petersburg’s history.

The decision before us is not simply about development.

It is about who decides the future of this land.

Read the full cornerstone article by clicking on the title.

The Best Cities Plan First

The best cities plan first. St. Petersburg should too.

Over the last two posts, I’ve raised what I believe is a simple question:

When people are entrusted with responsibility over valuable assets, what obligation do they have to protect and maximize value before making major decisions?

That question now comes home to St. Petersburg.

The city’s own independent appraisals, just received, value the Gas Plant redevelopment property at approximately $380–390 million — before infrastructure improvements are even added.

Yet the major proposals currently under consideration contemplate substantially lower land values while also expecting major public investment.

At the same time, City Council has already raised concerns about moving forward before additional planning and public evaluation occur.

This isn’t simply a choice between proposals. It is a question of process, public stewardship, long-term value, and whether St. Petersburg should pause to more fully evaluate alternatives before irreversible decisions are made.

I’ve published the full article on Home Runs Matter.

Read the full article here

This is Part 3 of a series on public responsibility, leadership, and fiduciary responsibility.

After you read the full article, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts here in the comments.

Part 2 of a 3-part series on fiduciary responsibility, public assets, and the obligations government owes the public when managing valuable public land.

Good intentions are not enough when government is responsible for protecting assets that belong to the public.

That may sound obvious.

But a real-world example unfolding in Florida suggests the issue is not always treated that way.

A Simple Question About Responsibility

Yesterday, in Part 1 of this series — “Shouldn’t Someone Find Out What It’s Worth?” — I posed a hypothetical question about fiduciary responsibility.

I also asked readers a simple poll question:

Should someone responsible for selling valuable property fully test the market before agreeing to a deal?

As of this writing, 97% answered yes.

That response matters because most people instinctively understand something important:

When someone is entrusted with assets that belong to others, they have a responsibility to carefully determine value, protect the public interest, and demonstrate responsible handling of those assets.

That principle applies in business.

It applies in charities and trusts.

And it should apply in government too.

A Real Example Now Playing Out in Florida

Recently, Florida’s Cabinet approved moving forward with negotiations involving state-owned land connected to a proposed Tampa Bay Rays stadium project in Tampa.

According to recent reporting, the state moved forward without first obtaining an independent appraisal of the land involved — despite the fact that observers believe the property could potentially be worth far more than its assessed value.

What caught my attention was not whether the project itself is good or bad.

Nor is this necessarily about anyone believing they were acting improperly.

In fact, the people involved may sincerely believe they are doing the right thing and pursuing what they think could become an important project for the region.

But that is not really the issue.

The issue is responsibility.

At the same time, campaign contributions connected to parties involved in the broader project naturally increase the importance of transparency, independent analysis, and public confidence in the process.

That does not mean anyone acted with improper intent.

But when valuable public assets are involved, the obligation for careful process becomes even greater — not less.

“Government officials are temporary caretakers of assets that belong to the public.”

---

Why This Matters Beyond Baseball

This issue is much larger than one stadium proposal.

At a time when Floridians sit in traffic every day, highways across the state remain strained, mass transit systems remain limited in many regions, infrastructure needs continue to grow, and communities face enormous challenges involving housing, resiliency, storm protection, and public services, it is reasonable for taxpayers to ask:

How carefully are public assets really being protected?

How rigorously are public resources really being evaluated?

And are governments fully demonstrating that the public is receiving the greatest possible benefit before major commitments are made?

Because government does not own these assets.

The public does.

Government officials are temporary caretakers acting on behalf of the people.

And when government is handling valuable public land or committing public resources connected to private development, fiduciary-like responsibilities should apply:

• independent valuation,

• transparency,

• careful analysis,

• market testing,

• and a clear demonstration of public benefit.

These decisions can affect communities for generations.

Good Intentions Are Not Enough

That responsibility exists even when everyone involved believes they are acting appropriately.

Good intentions matter.

But responsibility, valuation, transparency, and process matter too.

And when large public assets, political relationships, campaign contributions, and taxpayer resources all intersect, the responsibility for independent scrutiny should increase — not decrease.

That is not an accusation.

It is simply the standard of responsibility the public should expect.

The Question

So here’s the question again — this time not as a hypothetical:

Should government obtain independent appraisals, fully test the market, and clearly demonstrate public benefit before transferring or committing valuable public land connected to private development?

My answer is yes.

What’s yours?

Related Reading

Read Part 1:

“Shouldn’t Someone Find Out What It’s Worth?”

You may also be interested in earlier Home Runs Matter posts discussing:

• city-led redevelopment,

• public responsibility involving major public assets,

• the Historic Gas Plant District,

• and why process matters before selecting developers.

Home Runs Matter focuses on the future of St. Petersburg, civic leadership, redevelopment, public accountability, and the decisions facting our community.

Subscribe to receive future posts directly by email

This is the first of a three-part series about fiduciary responsibility, public trust, and the obligations government owes the people it serves.

An elderly couple meets with their attorney.

They own a large parcel of valuable land in a community they care deeply about.

They explain that they would like to sell the property and use the proceeds to benefit a charity that is important to them.

They also explain something else:

While they want to maximize the value of the property, they also want the land ultimately developed in a way that is positive for the surrounding community.

They ask the attorney to help oversee the process and protect both of those goals.

A Proposal That Sounds Good

Eventually, a wealthy developer approaches the attorney about buying the property.

The developer not only offers a price, but also presents a vision for how the land would be developed and how the broader community might benefit from the project.

The attorney likes the proposal. He believes the price being offered sounds fair. He likes the vision for the property and believes the project could create meaningful community benefits.

And so he recommends moving forward with the transaction.

The Missing Step

But there was one thing the attorney never did:

He never obtained an independent appraisal of the property.

He never established what the land might actually be worth on the open market.

He never tested whether someone else might pay substantially more.

He simply proceeded based on his own judgment that this was the right path.

The Real Question

Now step back for a moment.

The issue is not whether the proposed project sounded attractive.

It may very well have been.

The issue is whether the attorney fulfilled his responsibility to maximize the value of the property for the charity while also protecting the couple’s broader goals for the community.

Did he truly determine what the land was worth?

Did he test the market?

Did he seek competing proposals?

Did he determine whether another buyer, another structure, or another approach could have generated substantially greater value for the charity while still allowing the property to be responsibly developed in a way that benefited the community?

What Fiduciary Responsibility Means

Because the attorney’s obligation was not simply to approve a proposal he liked.

His obligation was to protect and maximize the value of the asset entrusted to him while responsibly balancing the couple’s broader objectives.

That is what fiduciary responsibility means.

Why This Matters Beyond One Story

And those questions are not theoretical.

Right now in Florida, state and local governments are making major decisions involving valuable public land, stadium proposals, infrastructure commitments, and private developers.

That includes current discussions involving the State of Florida and the City of St. Petersburg.

That is what this three-part series is about.

That principle matters in families.

It matters in business.

And it matters in government.

Former St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker has published an open letter regarding the future redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant District (the Trop site).

I am sharing it here because I believe his perspective as a former mayor with extensive experience in downtown redevelopment, parks, and civic planning is important and deserves thoughtful consideration as St. Petersburg considers the future of this historic property.

The discussion about the Trop site is not simply about development. It is also about long-term planning, public priorities, parks and public space, neighborhood connections, and what kind of city we want St. Petersburg to become over the next generation.

That is why the City Council’s call for a pause and a planning framework is so important, and why Home Runs Matter has consistently advocated for planning first before major redevelopment decisions are made for the site.

The following open letter by former Mayor Rick Baker originally appeared in the St. Pete Catalyst and is reposted here with permission.

Read the original article here