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.

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

I attended St. Petersburg’s April 30 public meeting on the future of the Historic Gas Plant site expecting more clarity.

Instead, I left thinking that many residents — and even parts of the media — still do not fully understand what is actually being decided.

And that matters.

Because this is likely the most important public decision in the history of St. Petersburg.

The meeting involved four very different proposals:

• two proposals to buy and develop the entire 86-acre site,

• one proposal for a small affordable housing project on less than 1% of the land,

• and one proposal recommending that the City lead the development itself.

But one thing still was not clearly explained:

Is the City seriously considering leading the development itself — or not?

That matters because those are completely different paths with completely different long-term financial and public-policy implications.

Another issue stood out:

The City already has an appraisal valuing the land at approximately $350 million without infrastructure.

Yet two proposals are offering significantly less than that for the land while also expecting the City to pay infrastructure costs that could total hundreds of millions of dollars.

That raises obvious questions.

The affordable housing discussion also left major uncertainty.

Developers were asked how many affordable housing units they were guaranteeing.

Neither proposal answered the question, which seems to me to be saying - no guaranteed affordable housing.

And while one proposal was described as offering the most affordable housing, none of those numbers were guaranteed.

There was another important issue:

Records from the meeting show that more than 130 questions and comments were submitted by residents through online forms, Zoom, and other channels.

Only 5 questions(!!) were discussed publicly.

Many residents are still trying to understand:

• what options are actually being considered,

• how the proposals are being evaluated,

• and what role public input will really play moving forward.

Even among City Council candidates now discussing the proposals publicly, very few are clearly distinguishing between a planning-first, city-led approach and immediate selection of a master developer. That reinforces my concern that the public conversation still is unclear about what is actually being decided. (For example, see this recent Patch article featuring candidate comments.)

Add Your Name to the Open Letter to City Council

I’ve created a sign-on letter to City Council encouraging continued support for a thoughtful, transparent, and planning-first approach as this process moves forward.

Read and sign the letter here

I’ve also written a much more detailed breakdown on Home Runs Matter covering:

• the appraisal issue,

• infrastructure costs,

• affordable housing questions,

• the city-led alternative,

• and the unanswered questions from the meeting.

You can read the full article here:

The goal is not to slow things down.

The goal is to make sure we get this right.

Today, April 30, the city is holding a public meeting to review proposals for the Gas Plant site—and may be moving toward choosing a development partner.

So here’s the real question:

Should the city choose a single development partner—or should the city develop the site itself?
We believe the city should take the lead.

In recent posts, I’ve been making that case:

• We looked at what it means when a city leads—using the Stapleton redevelopment in Denver as an example. In simple terms, that means the city creates the plan, puts in the streets and parks, and then brings in developers over time—rather than turning the whole site over at the beginning.
  What that means in practice: the city keeps the value, keeps control, and reduces risk.

• We pointed out that hundreds of millions—and potentially more than $1 billion—of value is at stake, depending on one key decision: whether the city keeps control and develops the site over time—or turns it over too early and gives a significant portion of that value away.

• And we noted why that matters—because the city is also considering borrowing $600 million+ for major infrastructure. If that’s the case, why would we give away long-term value from this site that could help pay for those needs?

Now, just a few blocks away, there’s a real example happening right now.

At the St. Pete Municipal Marina, the city is doing something important.

It’s leading.

The marina is a $165 million project—and the city is:

• In charge

• Doing the work in phases

• Hiring experts and contractors as needed

• Keeping the marina as a public asset

This isn’t theoretical.

It’s already happening.

So what’s the difference between the marina and the Gas Plant site?

There shouldn’t be one—if the city does this the right way.

The Gas Plant site is 86 acres of prime downtown land—one of the most important opportunities the city has.

If the city plans it carefully and develops it over time, it keeps the long-term value.

If it turns it over too early, a big part of that value goes to someone else.

The question

If the city can successfully manage a $165 million marina redevelopment…

Why wouldn’t it use that same approach for the Gas Plant site—where the stakes are much higher?

The city is asking residents to take on more than $1 billion in new debt—while potentially giving away up to $1 billion in public value.

The city has announced that it would like to borrow $600 million to fund stormwater, flooding, and resiliency improvements.

At the same time, it is considering proposals for the Gas Plant site that could result in giving away up to $1 billion in taxpayer-owned prime downtown land to a single developer.

Why would we do that?

Why would we give away $1 billion in value—while asking taxpayers to take on more than $1 billion in new debt, when the city could retain that value by leading the development itself?

Because that’s the reality of what the city is proposing—asking residents to pay more in taxes while giving away up to $1 billion in public value.

What this means

The proposed borrowing would increase property taxes by approximately:

$96 per year for every $100,000 of home value

That’s real money—every year.

At the same time

The Gas Plant decision could:

• Transfer control of prime downtown land to a private developer

• Result in that land being sold far below its long-term value

That’s where the potential loss—up to $1 billion—comes from.

A question worth asking

As reported by Florida Politics, Gina Driscoll asked:

“What do you say when a resident says… ‘Why didn’t you just take .96 mills from what I’m already paying you? Because you guys are taxing us enough… and maybe you need to start living within your means, government, like we have to?’”

The decision

With infrastructure needs approaching $5 billion:

Do we want to give away up to $1 billion in public value—
or retain it for the benefit of the city?

👉 Read the full post on Home Runs Matter

There’s a public meeting on April 30 about the future of the Gas Plant site.

In my last post, I raised a simple concern:
It’s not clear what the public is being asked to evaluate—or even what decision is being made.

That leads to a more basic question:

What does it look like when a city actually gets this right?

👉 For a more detailed look at this, you can read the full post on Home Runs Matter.

The Right Order

Cities that get this right tend to follow the same order:

• Plan first — decide what this place should be

• Structure second — set the streets, parks, and basic rules

• Public priorities clearly defined

• Then bring in developers to build within that framework

Not theory.
Not renderings.

But a clear, city-led process.

An Example: Denver

One example is Denver’s redevelopment of the former Stapleton Airport site.

The city didn’t start by picking a developer.

It started with a plan—working with experienced planners and a structured public process to define how the site should come together.

That plan was carried forward through a simple idea: a clear set of rules that ensured the vision held over time—even as different pieces were built.

Only after that did they decide how to bring in developers—and on what terms, whether through a single partner or multiple developers over time.

Why This Matters

That’s not the sequence we appear to be following here.

The current direction seems to be to select a single development partner first—and work out the details later.

That may seem like a small difference.

It’s not.

It determines who is leading—and how much control the city retains over the outcome.

This is the first in a short series looking at how other cities have approached major redevelopment decisions.

Because before we make a once-in-a-generation decision…

It’s worth asking:

Are we doing this in the right order?

There’s an important public meeting on April 30 regarding the Historic Gas Plant site.

Thursday, April 30 – 5:00 PM
📍 The Coliseum, 535 4th Ave. N (or via Zoom)

If you’re interested in the future of this site, you might consider attending. It should be an informative discussion. More information HERE

There is real confusion about a few basic questions:

• What exactly is the public being asked to evaluate?

• What decision is the City planning to make in June?

• Are we choosing a developer—or deciding whether the City should lead the development itself?

In discussions with residents and in conversations with others involved in the process, I’ve heard many of these same questions.

I sent the following note to Mayor Welch yesterday in the hope of bringing some clarity to those questions ahead of the meeting.

There should also be an opportunity at the meeting to ask questions directly, and these are questions people may want to keep in mind if they attend.

Letter to Mayor Ken Welch

Mayor Welch,

I’m writing in the spirit of helping bring clarity—before the April 30 public meeting—on what exactly the City is doing regarding the Historic Gas Plant site.

Before I share my thoughts on the upcoming meeting, I wanted to briefly restate my perspective.

As I shared when we met and you asked about my goals, I expressed to you then—and continue to express—that my objective is to see this site developed in a way that continues the growth of the city, makes the best use of the resources it represents—whether on-site through what is developed there, or off-site through how its value can support priorities across the city—for priorities such as affordable housing, job creation, infrastructure, and the future of our children, and appropriately recognizes and reflects the history of the property. I believe those goals align closely with yours. In that context, my perspective has been centered on ensuring this site is used in a way that delivers broader, long-term value to the community, beyond any single type of development.

I have suggested that an advisory council working with the City could help evaluate how best to achieve that. In addition, such a group could help work through how the site itself is planned and used—looking at how to honor the history of the property, as well as elements such as parks, public spaces, and how development is structured, and, to the extent appropriate, exploring ideas around workforce development and how the site might support job training or related opportunities. These are not predetermined outcomes, but areas for discussion and exploration as part of a broader effort to get this right.

I also understand from our conversation that you believe there has already been significant planning work done and that the community has expressed what it wants for this site. My perspective, based on my conversations with four national planners, is that even where prior studies and input exist—many of which were done several years ago—communities still take the step of establishing a focused advisory group, often working alongside experienced national planners, to help work through the key decisions as the process moves forward. Given how much has changed in recent years, and how quickly conditions continue to evolve, that step helps ensure earlier work is revisited, updated, and translated into a clear and actionable plan.

In practice, that means the city leads the planning—defining how the land should be used, how public space is structured, and how development is organized—and then brings in developers to execute within that framework. It is one of the reasons I believe a structured, city-led approach with a strong advisory component is the best path forward, and, at a minimum, one that should be carefully and thoroughly evaluated before moving to a different approach.

For these reasons, and in the interest of making sure we get this right, I believe it would be worthwhile to take the time to clearly determine the appropriate direction for the site and to fully evaluate the alternatives before moving forward. That approach would also be consistent with the City Council’s recent guidance.

That said, if moving forward on the current timeline remains your plan, I wanted to offer a few thoughts with respect to the April 30 public meeting.

I believe it is unclear what is being asked of residents at that meeting, and what decision or decisions are planned to be made in June. Is it to choose a developer, or to make the decision that the City will lead the development itself?

In discussions with a number of residents of St. Petersburg, the confusion stems from the fact that the four shortlisted proposals are not directly comparable. They represent fundamentally different approaches:

Two propose a single master developer for the entire site

One is limited to 1–2 acres

One proposes that the City lead the development itself

While these are different paths, at the same time, the timeline indicates that a proposal(s) will be selected in June, followed by involvement of the Community Benefits Advisory Council (CBAC) and negotiation of a term sheet.

That sequence seems straightforward if the City is selecting a single master developer for the full site. However, it is less clear how that same sequence applies if a smaller, partial proposal were selected, or if the City were to take on a lead development role.

As you know, CBAC does not plan projects or choose developers. Its role is to review community benefits after the City reaches an agreement with a developer. If the City selects a single master developer, CBAC would logically be involved upfront. If the City leads the development itself, CBAC would come into play later, as individual parcels are developed and agreements are structured.

Given these differences, it may be helpful to clarify:

1. What exactly the public is being asked to evaluate on April 30

2. Whether a city-led development approach is still under active consideration, or

3. Whether the process is focused on selecting a single development partner for the full site

And, based on that,

If a city-led approach is not being actively considered, it would be helpful for the public to understand how that determination was made and why that path is not being pursued.

I believe answers to these questions would likely make the April 30 meeting more meaningful and the public input more informed.

I respectfully offer these thoughts in that spirit and hope you might consider providing additional clarity ahead of the April 30 meeting.

Respectfully,

Ron Diner

$1 Billion

That’s the potential value of the 86-acre Historic Gas Plant site—the value the City owns today and should keep.

But in June, the mayor is planning to select one developer to buy the property at a substantial discount—well below what it will be worth once the streets and parks are in. Streets and parks the city will pay for.

(There are other proposals on the table, but they do not involve developing the entire property—and the mayor has already indicated that full-site development is the direction he intends to take.)

How can this possibly make sense?

The city should develop the site itself.

Why This Matters

Why would we turn over the future of the Historic Gas Plant site to one developer when you consider everything we will give up:

• A billion dollars in potential long-term value
  Why would we want to give that away to a private developer? Funds that could otherwise be directed toward affordable housing, flood prevention, parks, job development programs and helping to support the schools.

• Who decides what gets built
  Once control of the land transfers to a developer, they will drive key decisions about what goes there.
  Why would we want to give up the ability to decide that ourselves?

• Control when things go wrong
  If a developer runs into trouble—markets change, projects stall—we will be left with a mess.
  Why would we want to give up control and risk winding up with a partially built property—or worse, a field of weeds?

  The city’s planning department, with the help of national planners it can hire (just as the developers will do), has the ability to manage the process.

• The ability to shape our own outcome
  Decisions about affordable housing, honoring the history of the site, and public space are central to this project.
  Why would we want to turn these decisions over to one developer?

• Something we already own
  The City already owns this land.
  Why would we want to lose so much of its value?

The Experts Agree — Do It Yourself

I don’t understand where the city’s approach is coming from.

I’ve spoken with multiple national planners who have worked on projects like this. Their view is consistent: smart cities all over the country lead.

They bring in experienced planners, create a clear plan, lay out the streets, the grid, and the public spaces—then bring in developers to buy individual pieces over time.

That is how cities keep control. That is how they keep the value. And that is how creative developers from all over the country and the world can participate and create a great outcome for St. Petersburg.

If the City wants independent validation, it could bring in an organization such as the Urban Land Institute to review the options and provide objective guidance.

But the absence of that kind of independent analysis is exactly the problem.

So why isn’t that the path here?

Why is the mayor proposing to turn over the entire site to a single developer to do what the City could do itself—while giving away the site’s long-term value in the process?

What Happens Next

The city is hosting a public meeting on April 30 to answer questions and present the proposals. It is hard to understand what the purpose really is. It feels more like an effort to make a case for something that cannot be justified—giving away tremendous value.

In June, the mayor says he will move forward with selecting a developer. Then he says it will take more than a year to negotiate a deal. If it is anything like the Rays/Hines deal, that process could cost millions in legal and advisory fees.

But that is not the end.

While the mayor can select a proposal and negotiate a deal, City Council has to approve it. And City Council has already voted 6–2 not to select a developer. They want to consider the city developing the property itself.

We can only hope that, at the end of it, City Council does what it should do.

Because if it doesn’t, the value will go out the window.

So a year and millions of dollars later, we have a good chance of starting all over again.

Home Runs Matter has said over and over: the mayor should pause—just as City Council voted 6–2. I have met with the mayor and discussed the value at stake—value we all want for affordable housing, honoring the property’s history, and so much more. I’ve written in more detail about why a pause would allow the city to more fully consider its options here.

While he listened, it does not appear that the facts presented are reflected in the current approach. It also seems that the concerns raised by City Council and the hundreds of letters calling for the city to stop and decide—should we do this ourselves?—have not been addressed.

The decision

This may ultimately become part of what voters decide in November:

A billion dollars at stake—is this the right decision for our city?

What do you think?

This is about the future of the Historic Gas Plant site.

With more than 300 letters from citizens, more than 400 people signing on, and overwhelming poll results showing concern, it’s clear the public is paying attention. City Council has also spoken, with a 6–2 vote calling for a planning-first approach.

And yet, the process continues to move in a different direction.

There is no urgency here. The Rays will be playing for at least three more years and may seek an extension.

This is not a moment for speed.

It is a moment for clarity.

👉 Read the full Home Runs Matter post here:

The Core Issue

There is a complete disconnect.

• The Mayor says he intends to select a developer

• But the current process includes proposals that are not even about selecting a developer

At the same time:

• City Council has clearly said planning should come first

• But the administration continues to move forward with a proposal-driven process

Those two paths are not aligned.

What’s Happening Thursday

On Thursday, the Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Committee of City Council will meet.

This is not just another meeting.

It is a continuation of City Council’s 6–2 vote to begin a planning-first process.

But what is being presented is only the beginning—Phase 1.

That is not the decision.

The decision comes after the City completes a full process, including Phase 2, where real options are evaluated.

Why This Matters

Right now, the City says it has “shortlisted” four proposals.

But they are not comparable:

• Two propose a single developer for the entire site

• One proposes developing only a small portion

• One suggests the City develop the site itself

These are not competing versions of the same idea.

They are entirely different answers to a much bigger question:

What role should the City play?

• Should the City lead and structure development?

• Or should it turn control over to a single developer?

That is the first decision.

Not the last.

What Needs to Happen

City Council has already taken a position.

Now it needs to make it unmistakably clear:

No proposal—of any kind—should move forward until the City completes the planning-first process it has already called for.

That means:

• Pause the current proposal-driven process

• Complete Phase 1 and Phase 2

• Then decide how to proceed

This is not delay.

This is how responsible government is conducted.

Why This Isn’t Speculation

In conversations with nationally recognized planners, the guidance is consistent:

Cities lead the early stages of projects like this—using planning and phased development to shape outcomes—before turning to private developers.

That’s exactly why this step matters.

The Bottom Line

Right now, the City is moving in two directions at once:

• A planning process that has just begun

• A developer selection process that continues forward

That does not make sense.

Thursday is a good moment to fix that.

I Need Your Input — Today

If you care about the future of this site, weigh in now.

In a recent interview, Ken Welch suggested that Home Runs Matter is advocating for “million-dollar condos” at the Historic Gas Plant site—and that we’ve delayed progress without offering a plan.

That’s not accurate.

More importantly, it misses the real issue.

If you want the full detail, I’ve outlined it here.

But here’s the simple version.

This Was Never About Condos

Home Runs Matter has not advocated for luxury condos—or any specific development.

The position has been consistent:

• Don’t pre-determine the outcome

• Don’t turn over 86 acres of public land to a single developer

• Start by deciding what kind of place this should be

This is about how decisions are made, not what gets built.

There Is a Plan—It Starts With Planning

The claim that there’s “no plan” ignores what’s actually been proposed.

The approach is straightforward:

• Define what the city wants this site to be

• Establish how decisions will be made

• Bring in independent, national expertise

• Create a real advisory structure

That’s not delay.

That’s how you create a plan.

Because until you decide how this gets developed—city-led, developer-led, or some combination—there is no real plan. Only proposals.

We Have Time

There is no immediate deadline.

The Rays will be at Tropicana Field for several more years.

We have time—three years, possibly more—to get this right.

Taking time to plan is not delay.

It’s responsibility.

So Why Rush?

The administration is now moving toward selecting a developer as early as June.

But key questions haven’t been answered:

• Who should lead this redevelopment—the city or a single developer?

• What structure will guide decisions?

• Why not bring in independent, national expertise?

Even after a 6–2 City Council vote calling for a planning-first approach, the process is moving forward.

That doesn’t make sense.

This Is What Leadership Looks Like

Leadership isn’t about characterizing opposing views.

It’s about:

• Addressing the actual questions

• Explaining decisions clearly

• Making sure the process matches the importance of the decision

What This Is Really About

This isn’t about any one person.

It’s about whether the city:

• Defines a clear vision

• Establishes a transparent process

• Makes decisions in the long-term public interest

That’s what matters.

This week, it was reported that the City has narrowed the future of the Historic Gas Plant site to four proposals.

That sounds like progress.

But when you look more closely at what has been shortlisted, something important becomes clear:

There is no clear path forward.

• Two proposals would develop the entire site with a single partner.

• One would develop only a small portion of the property.

• Another suggests the city could develop the site itself.

These are not variations of the same plan.

They are fundamentally different answers to a basic question:

What are we trying to do with this land?

And when a process produces that kind of result, it tells us something important:

There is no clear direction yet.

The Problem

The issue is not which proposal is better.

It’s that these proposals reflect completely different paths:

• A single master-planned development

• A phased or partial approach

• Or a project led more directly by the city

Those decisions should come first.

Right now, they haven’t been fully defined.

What Should Happen Next

The next step is straightforward:

Pause.
Bring in independent expertise.
Define the plan.
Then move forward.

That’s what the St. Petersburg City Council has already called for—and what a broad cross-section of residents are saying as well.

The Council’s resolution points to a clear approach:

Engage an independent national advisory organization—such as the Urban Land Institute—to help structure the planning process.

Not to choose a developer.

But to help determine:

• How planning should proceed

• How infrastructure should be phased

• When and how land should be offered

• And how public input should shape the outcome

This ensures decisions are made intentionally—not by default.

A Clear Message from the Community

This isn’t just a theoretical concern.

• More than 400 residents signed a letter calling for a planning-first approach

• More than 300 letters have been sent to City Council expressing the same view

• 90% support defining a plan before selecting a developer

• 83% support creating an advisory council first

Across different forms of input, the message is consistent:

Define the plan first. Then move forward.

A Moment for Leadership

Situations like this call for clarity—not just movement.

What has been presented here is not a recommendation.

It is a set of conflicting paths.

That leaves the key question unresolved: What are we trying to do with this land?

As I discussed in a previous post, this highlights two important elements of leadership:

• Having experienced, capable individuals in key roles who can evaluate complex information and provide clear recommendations

• And having a structure—such as an advisory group—that can bring independent perspective when decisions are complex

What is being presented here is not providing the Mayor with the level of experience, support, and clear guidance needed for decisions of this complexity—it points to the importance of strengthening both leadership support and advisory input.

At a moment like this, leadership should be receiving not just information, but clear direction.

Final Thought

Pausing does not mean slowing down.

It means getting it right.

The process is moving forward—but movement alone is not progress.

Progress requires direction.

And right now, the shortlist is telling us something important:

Not which proposal is best—but that we haven’t yet decided what we’re trying to build.

👉 Read the full post here

Leave a comment

Two opinion pieces in the Tampa Bay Times discuss the future of the Historic Gas Plant site.

One describes the ARK–Ellison–Horus proposal and what they believe could be built there.
Another argues that we can’t wait any longer and the city should move forward.

Taken together, they point to four clear conclusions:

• The city can do exactly what the developer proposals say they will do — create the master plan with the help of national planners and community input, build out the streets, and then sell parcels over time. By doing so, the city keeps control and the long-term value of the land, while retaining the flexibility to reserve parcels for civic uses - such as museums, police or fire facilities, parks, cultural spaces, or affordable housing.

• If the city does it, it keeps immense future value, retains control, and avoids major risks.

• If the city does it, we make the decisions about parks, housing, jobs, helping kids, and recognizing the property’s history - not someone else.

• The wait time will be less if the city is in control.
  
  

What the Proposal Actually Shows

If you read the actual ARK-Ellison-Horus proposal or the only other proposal for the full property, they may sound promising. But two important facts become clear.

1. Just Ideas

They two proposals contain ideas about what could be built on the site:

• housing

• arts districts

• innovation spaces

• cultural venues

• a museum

But they are just concepts about what might be built, not firm committments about what will be built or who will build it. No developer could make those committments today. Projects like this depend on future partners, financing, and market conditions.

Ideas are welcome.

But ideas do not require giving one developer control of the entire district.

If those ideas are strong:

• the city and an advisory council will conclude to include them

• developers can acquire parcels within a city plan

• institutions can propose projects

• investors can decide what they want to build

That is how major districts evolve.

The city creates the framework.

The market brings the projects.

2. One Developer Does What the City Can Do

With either proposal, one developer takes over control — but then does what the city can do itself: design the streets and sells the parcels one at a time to other developers.

The ARK–Ellison proposal says so:

“…we will engage qualified development partners … responsible for acquiring land … designing their components … financing their developments … constructing and operating their assets.”

When the land is divided and sold this way, the value created by those parcels - which could ultimately approach or exceed $1 billion - flows to the developer rather than remaining with the city.

Why the City Running This Does Not Slow Development

Another argument is that the city cannot wait any longer. But no redevelopment should begin until the stadium lease ends.

With at least three years before the Rays leave Tropicana Field, planning the site now does not create delay. It ensures the city moves forward with a clear plan rather than turning control over to one developer.

When I met with the mayor, it became clear that he would like to move forward now with projects such as a museum and an affordable housing development on two parcels that might be available sooner.

But without a complete plan for the entire district, those projects could easily end up located on the edge of the property when they might belong somewhere else once the full plan is developed.

For example, if a museum is part of the future district, it might make far more sense for it to sit next to a major park or civic space rather than on the edge of the site.

Affordable housing might make more sense located within a broader residential district rather than placed before the overall housing plan for the site is determined.

These kinds of decisions are exactly what a comprehensive planning process — guided by national experts and a community advisory council — is meant to determine. And it does not result in delay.

The Questions That Mayor Welch Should Answer

Last week I met with the mayor. I explained what I have learned from three national planners — cities throughout the U.S. do not turn over major land development projects to one developer.

I emphasized:

• My goal is to see that the property is developed in a way that continues the growth of St. Petersburg while generating resources to help make life better for everyone.

• I do not see how selling the whole property to one developer would be best for those goals.

• My position has not changed from my conclusion that the Rays/Hines deal was also not the best way to reach these goals.

I raised the following issues during our discussion, but the conversation did not lead to any clear any answers:

1. After selling the land to one developer and they design the streets — and then the city is going to pay for those streets — why doesn’t the city do it itself?

2. Why transfer land that could ultimately be worth close to $1 billion for about $200 million?

3. Why take the risk of one developer controlling all 86 acres when the city could retain control?

4. Why assume one developer knows better than the city and the community about how this site should be planned?

5. Why will the process move faster if the city gives up control of the land?

6. Why accept the idea that building a museum and an affordable housing project at the edge of the property is better than first designing the whole site with community and national expert help?

The Real Question

When you read the proposal and the two columns together, the issue becomes clear.

Why shouldn’t the city produce the plan, decide what’s built, keep control, and keep the profits?

The answer seems clear.

Personal Note

I’m just a member of this community who cares about the future of St. Petersburg and the opportunities it will provide for our children and grandchildren.

I have no financial interest in this project, no role in any proposal, and no stake in who ultimately develops the site. I simply want the city to make the best possible decision about land this important.

Many people have shared their views with me on this issue — local leaders, nationally recognized planners, and others in the community.

I’ve also spoken with the mayor and virtually all members of City Council, and I’ve listened carefully to the comments made by the two council members who did not support the council’s 6–2 vote to pursue a planning-first approach.

What I have not heard from anyone is one clear, fact-based reason why the city should not lead this effort itself.

Some people have suggested to me that the city may not have the staff, capacity, or wherewithal to do this on its own. But the city has a planning department that plans projects all the time, and of course they are busy.

The way cities handle projects of this scale is by bringing in national planners, architects, and development experts to work alongside city staff to produce the plan—just as the development teams behind the two proposals the mayor is considering will do.

If there are facts that support a different conclusion, I would genuinely welcome seeing them. Feel free to send them to me.

A week ago I also asked readers a simple question:
Should the city plan the Historic Gas Plant site first, or select a developer first?

So far more than 100 readers have responded, and 90% believe the city should complete the plan first.

The poll remains open for two more days if you would like to weigh in HERE

For now, the facts point clearly in only one direction.

Earlier this week I met with St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch to discuss the development of the Historic Gas Plant. (More about that below).

Yesterday, in an interview on NPR Radio, the Mayor suggested that I am the chief opponent to his agenda — and that I have no goal. (You can read my response here.)

I’ll admit, I’m flattered. I haven’t raised a dollar, and I’m not running a campaign. I have no financial interest in the development or any surrounding property and am not part of any development team. Yet somehow my civic interest and this small newsletter — and the 43,000 residents who subscribe — has become, in the Mayor’s view, his primary opposition.

If that’s the case, then it says something important: people in this city care deeply about how decisions are being made.

And if asking for thoughtful planning now counts as opposition, that probably tells us something about the agenda being defended.

For the record, I do have a goal. It’s a simple one. I want an administration that understands what real planning looks like and the value that planning can bring to a city like ours.

Cities succeed when they plan first — when they think carefully about infrastructure, neighborhoods, growth, and the long-term public good before decisions are made. That’s not radical. It’s how competent cities operate.

Despite what the Mayor suggested on NPR — and despite how my position was characterized — I still believe this administration is fully capable of acting competently. If it chooses to.

Make no mistake: the city can do this. It can plan first – and that means create a real plan – a plan you can see on paper. And it can do this without losing any time.

And there are countless talented people in this community — residents, planners, architects, engineers, and civic leaders — who would gladly help make that happen.

What the Mayor describes as “no goal” is really something else: a referendum on his goal —a goal that, in my view, reflects the wrong approach, appears politically driven, and — most important — could be harmful to the long-term interests of the city and its residents.

What I Explained During the Meeting

Before getting into the specifics of the conversation, it’s worth explaining the central point I raised during the meeting.

I explained what I believe are the tremendous benefits to the City of taking control of the planning process for the Historic Gas Plant site and completing that planning before selecting a developer.

That means creating a clear plan for the property — determining how the district should function, how infrastructure should be laid out, how it should connect to surrounding neighborhoods, and how land should be allocated for housing, civic uses, and other priorities.

The Mayor’s position was different. He made clear that he wants to move forward now and select one of the developers who submitted proposals, letting them make the planning decisions.

As you will see below, I laid out the reasons why I believe a planning-first approach is the better path — reasons informed by conversations with national planners and development experts from around the country who regularly work on projects of this scale.

During our discussion, however, the Mayor did not provide a clear explanation for why the City should proceed the way he proposes when dealing with a property of this size and importance.

Earlier in my career, I founded the affordable housing investment business at Raymond James. Over the years we completed thousands of major real estate transactions. Every investment had to be presented to an investment committee — often including senior leadership of the firm.

Those committees required something simple: a logical explanation of why a transaction made sense and why it was in the best interest of the people whose capital was being invested.

In the case of the Gas Plant, the capital involved belongs to the residents of St. Petersburg — and the value at stake is enormous. If this land is planned and developed thoughtfully, the public value created could easily approach $1 billion.

That is money that could support many of the priorities the Mayor himself has identified — housing, helping kids succeed, addressing flooding, and expanding economic opportunity.

Yet at the same time the Mayor has suggested asking residents to approve a $600 million referendum to help fund flood protection.

This raises an obvious question: why would we consider asking residents to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more in taxes for flood protection while giving away public land value that could help fund those same priorities?

Quite frankly, if a proposal structured as Mayor Welch suggests had come before our investment committee, it would have been rejected immediately.

What Happens Under the Current Proposal Framework

During our meeting I tried to walk through a very basic question.

If the City proceeds under the current framework, what actually happens next?

A developer purchases control of the land at a very low price.

The developer then hires national planners and consultants to design the site.

Once that plan is created, the developer returns to the City and asks the City to pay for the infrastructure — streets, utilities, lighting, and public improvements.

After the infrastructure is built, the developer then sells or develops the individual parcels at much higher prices.

In other words, the value created through planning and public infrastructure accrues to the developer.

If the City is going to pay for infrastructure anyway — and planning will occur anyway — why wouldn’t the City complete the planning first and capture that value for the public?

Why Move Forward Now?

City Council recently voted 6–2 asking the administration to pause the developer-selection process and pursue planning first.

Given that vote, it is difficult to understand why the administration would now begin negotiating with developers anyway.

The last time the Mayor attempted to negotiate a large development agreement — the Rays/Hines proposal — the process consumed millions of dollars in outside legal fees and thousands of hours of City staff time.

Those resources matter.

If the likelihood is high that any negotiated deal would ultimately fail to receive Council approval, it raises a reasonable question:

Why spend those resources pursuing a path that may not succeed?

What I also still struggle to understand is the urgency.

Nothing significant can occur on the property for years. The Rays’ lease still controls the site for three years, and the timeline around the team’s future remains uncertain. In practical terms, we have time to plan this carefully.

So why the push to move quickly?

I cannot see a practical reason tied to the development of the property itself. The only explanation that seems plausible is the desire to show visible progress now — perhaps because an election is approaching.

But a project of this scale should not be driven by political timelines. It should be driven by what will produce the best outcome for the city over the next fifty years.

“We’ve Already Waited”

During our meeting, the Mayor’s central response was that the city has already waited long enough.

But the reason we have waited is not mysterious.

For years the City was bound by a lease with the Tampa Bay Rays that limited what could be done with the property.

Waiting during that time was unavoidable.

And the timeline may still depend on what ultimately happens with the team.

But that makes thoughtful planning even more important — not less.

The History of the Site — and Who Should Help Decide

The Mayor frequently speaks about the history of the property and the fact that the city has waited more than forty years.

He is right that the history matters deeply.

But decisions about how that history is honored should not be made by one person.

The Mayor has spoken about building a $40 million museum on the site.

I agree that the history of the Gas Plant community must be recognized.

But there are important questions that still need to be answered:

• Who will pay to build it?

• Who will operate it?

• Where should it be located within the district?

• And is this what the community believes is the best way to spend significant resources to recognize the history?

That is why I suggested forming a Community Advisory Council (a recommendation supported by all the national land planners with whom I have spoken), including members of the Black community, historians, planners, and civic leaders to help guide these decisions.

Why Planning the Whole Site Matters

The Mayor has suggested moving forward immediately with a few parcels — one for the museum and another for affordable housing.

But placing individual projects before completing the overall plan creates risk.

For example, if the district eventually includes a central park, a museum might be best located next to that park.

But today the only parcels that could realistically be developed first are likely on the edges of the property.

Building something important simply because a parcel is available first may result in placing it in the wrong location.

The Same Question Applies to Affordable Housing

Affordable housing should absolutely be part of this redevelopment.

But again the question is where and how it should be integrated.

Should it be mixed with other housing?

Should it be located near parks and amenities?

If the proposal is a taller residential building serving seniors, is the best place for it on an edge parcel simply because it is available first?

Maybe it is.

But maybe it would be far better integrated within a broader residential district that includes mixed-income housing.

These are decisions that should come after the plan is complete, not before.

What “Pause” Actually Means

The proposed pause is often described as stopping progress.

That is not the case.

Planning would move forward — and likely accelerate.

The only thing being paused is the decision to transfer control of the land to one or two developers before the City has determined what the district should become.

Planning first does not delay progress.

It ensures that progress happens in the right direction.

It would be great if you took a momement to vote in the poll below. And if you’d like to share additional thoughts, feel free to email me directly.

The Tampa Bay Times reports that two local developers — both of whom have submitted proposals related to the Historic Gas Plant site — are in court involving two other projects in which they partnered in St. Petersburg.

According to the article, the disputes involve The Nolen condominium project and The Central redevelopment of the former police headquarters site. The lawsuits include claims of repeated construction delays, missed milestones, payment disagreements, lien filings, and management disputes. Both sides deny wrongdoing, and the cases are ongoing.

Who is right and who is wrong is for the courts to decide. That is not the purpose of this post.

What is relevant is what situations like this point out when decisions must be made about the Historic Gas Plant — 86 acres of publicly owned land that will shape St. Petersburg for generations.

First: There Are Real Risks in Putting All Your Eggs in One Basket

All Development Involves Risk

Every development project carries risk.

Large development teams can have experience, resources, and track records that indicate they are positioned to carry a project forward over many years. But no one can predict with certainty what market shifts, financing pressures, partnership changes, construction challenges, or other unforeseen events may arise over time.

Timelines shift. Market conditions change. Costs rise. Projects can be delayed — sometimes for years. Disagreements can occur. That is true in small projects and large ones alike, as the article describes in the cases of The Nolen and The Central.

The broader point is that development is complex.

If a project involves a single building or a few acres of privately owned land, the consequences of delays or disputes primarily affect the parties involved.

Why 86 Acres Magnifies the Stakes

But the Historic Gas Plant site is 86 acres of publicly owned land. It is not a small project. It is a once-in-a-generation redevelopment that will shape St. Petersburg for decades.

When a city grants long-term control of land of this scale to a single master developer under a decades-long agreement, risk becomes concentrated. If delays, disputes, financial pressures, or other complications arise, the entire 86-acre project can slow down or stall. Unlike a single private building, the City cannot easily pivot to another developer or move forward parcel by parcel once full-site control has been granted.

Some argue that contracts can include protections — including provisions that allow land to revert back to the City if obligations are not met. But enforcing those provisions can take years and involve significant legal expense. That process can create uncertainty for surrounding neighborhoods and investors. During that time, progress can halt, and momentum can be lost.

On a site of this size and public importance, that kind of disruption is not just a private matter. It affects the City, its residents, and the long-term future of downtown.

When Community Priorities Can Be Pushed Aside

When a city places the entire redevelopment of 86 acres under a single long-term master development agreement, it is not only financial risk that becomes concentrated. Over time, if timelines extend or financial pressures increase, priorities can narrow toward completing core components and stabilizing the project. In those circumstances, elements that matter deeply to the community — historic recognition, affordable housing commitments, workforce opportunities, public space, cultural preservation — can become more difficult to protect.

Planning First Reduces Concentrated Exposure

Alternatively, as many of us have been proposing, the City could complete the master planning first and then sell or lease parcels individually over time.

In conversations we have had with four national planning firms that work with cities across the country, this phased, city-led approach is consistent with how large publicly owned redevelopment sites are most frequently handled. In that model, development risk is distributed rather than concentrated. If one parcel encounters delays, disputes, or changing market conditions, the entire 86-acre redevelopment does not stall. The City retains flexibility, maintains leverage, and can adapt as conditions evolve.

When the City retains control through planning first and phased development, it is better positioned to protect those commitments over time.

Second: Public Land Requires Real Competition
Structure Comes First

Before choosing any long-term development partner, the City should determine whether a single master developer controlling the full 86-acre site is in fact the appropriate structure.

In many cities across the country facing large-scale redevelopment of publicly owned land, the trend has been for the city to retain greater control over the master plan, infrastructure, and phasing before selecting individual development partners. That approach allows the public entity to set the vision first and invite private participation within that framework.

That structural decision should come first.

If the City Proceeds Under the Mayor’s Current Plan

If the City were to proceed under the current full-site master developer framework, it is important to understand both its relevance and the competitive landscape. Under a full-site master developer model, the outcome is essentially “winner takes all.” One entity would control the planning, phasing, and development of the entire 86-acre site under a long-term agreement.

That makes the concentration of risk and competition especially significant.

At present, there are only two full-site master developer proposals.

One of those proposals has been submitted by one of the parties involved in the litigation described above. Who is right and who is wrong in that dispute is for the courts to decide. Nothing here suggests otherwise.

But if, for any reason — whether structural, legal, financial, or otherwise — one of those two proposals were not able to move forward, the City could find itself effectively negotiating with only a single full-site option.

That is not an accusation. It is simply a matter of competitive dynamics.

Why Competition Matters on 86 Acres

If you were selling a highly valuable property and held an open house, and only one — or even just two — qualified buyers appeared, you would pause. You would ask whether the structure, timing, or process limited broader interest.

The Historic Gas Plant site is not just any property. It is 86 acres of publicly owned land in one of Florida’s most attractive markets. It should be capable of attracting national-level interest and robust competition.

If meaningful competition is not present, that is feedback from the marketplace. On land of this scale and importance, the City has a responsibility to step back, decide what kind of place it wants to create, and then invite strong national and regional developers to compete under that clearer framework.

When public land of this scale is involved, competition matters. Leverage matters. Process design matters.

And those questions should be resolved before entering into a decades-long master development agreement.

What City Council Has Already Recognized

City Council’s recent resolution recognized the importance of getting the structure right.

At its core, the resolution says the City should determine the development framework first — and then move forward within that framework.

It called for:

• Forming an independent Community Advisory Council
• Bringing in independent third-party expertise
• Allowing the City to determine the overall development framework before entering into a binding long-term agreement

Where We Go From Here

In practical terms, that means the City should answer foundational questions such as:

• Do we want a single master developer model?
• Do we want to complete a full master plan first and then invite multiple developers by parcel?
• Should the City retain greater control and phase development over time?

Those structural choices shape everything that follows.

For a detailed breakdown of all eight submissions related to the Historic Gas Plant site, you can also review my prior analysis on Home Runs Matter.

Before I Meet With the Mayor

I am meeting with the Mayor next week. I will urge him to support City Council’s approach and pause the current process so that the City can determine the appropriate development framework first.

If you agree that we should slow down and follow Council’s plan, I encourage you to sign the letter calling for that pause.

You can add your name (if you have not done so) here:

https://homerunsmatter.com/plan-first-mayor/

We have time.

Let’s use it wisely.

Nine proposals were submitted in response to the City’s notice regarding redevelopment of the 86-acre Historic Gas Plant site. One was withdrawn.

Of the remaining eight, only two propose control and redevelopment of the entire site under a traditional master developer structure:

Ark Ellison Horus
The Burg Bid

If the City continues under the current developer-selection framework, it would effectively be choosing between those two.

For publicly owned land that could ultimately be worth close to $1 billion once infrastructure is built — and where the highest offer submitted today is $275 million — that deserves careful reflection.

Even if someone believed the proposal-first approach were appropriate — which we do not believe is the appropriate approach — selecting one of only two bids for an asset of this magnitude would not meet the City’s responsibility as trustee of this property.

If the City were determined to proceed under that model, it would first need to step back, speak directly with major national development firms, understand why broader participation did not occur, and restart the process in a way that attracts full market engagement.

As discussed in prior posts, the appropriate sequence is to complete a comprehensive planning framework first — governance, infrastructure sequencing, parcel configuration, and long-term public priorities — before selecting any master developer.

What About the Other Six?

Five of the remaining submissions address limited portions of the site or present conceptual frameworks.

One — Foundations Vision Partners — proposes that the City retain ownership, complete the master planning itself, and sell parcels gradually to multiple developers.

In other words, only two submissions seek to control the full 86 acres under a traditional master developer structure.

A full breakdown of all six other submissions is available here:

👉 https://homerunsmatter.com/gas-plant-eight-submissions/

I Am Meeting the Mayor Next Week

Next week, I will meet with Mayor Welch to discuss the sequencing question.

If you believe the City should complete its planning process before selecting a master developer, (and if you have not) I invite you to add your name:

👉 https://homerunsmatter.com/plan-first-mayor/

Public engagement matters — particularly when decisions involve land of this scale and long-term civic consequence.

On Thursday, February 5—just two days after development proposals were submitted—the St. Petersburg City Council voted 6–2 to pause the City’s redevelopment process for the Gas Plant site.

The resolution asked the City to step back and review how it should proceed before moving further.

Specifically, it opposed the City Administration moving forward with any developer selection before completing a comprehensive planning framework. It also requested that the City pause any action to select, negotiate with, or advance a developer until that framework is in place.

The resolution further stated that the planning framework should be prepared by independent, professionally qualified planners and guided by City residents, City-based businesses and employees, and organizations representing City residents—so redevelopment reflects community perspectives and advances long-term public benefits.

This was not a debate about which proposal is best. That responsibility rests with the Mayor and administration. The question before Council was more basic: is the City ready to proceed with proposals at all, or should it first consider other ways of moving forward?

Why the vote matters

Council members expressed urgency, frustration, and concern. But a clear majority agreed on something fundamental: the City does not yet have a shared framework for decision-making.

This was not a vote to delay for delay’s sake. It was a recognition that moving forward without clarity creates risk.

The vote focused on process. It was guidance to pause, step back, and clarify how the City should move forward—before committing to any proposal-driven path or deciding whether to pursue a different approach altogether.

Given the scale, value, and history of the Gas Plant site, that distinction matters.

What was made clear

There is broad agreement that the City needs a plan. There are also different views about what that plan should include, who should shape it, and what steps should come first.

While there are strong views—based on national experience—about the benefits of city-led, phased development, this post is not about advocating for a particular outcome. It is about the process the City should use to decide which path makes sense, and how that process can reflect community perspectives and advance long-term public benefits.

Leadership and the resolution

It is appropriate to recognize Council member Brandi Gabbard for bringing the resolution forward.

Regardless of where one comes out on redevelopment approaches, the resolution reflected a willingness to slow the process down, surface unresolved questions, and ask whether the City had the right framework in place before moving further. That kind of leadership—focused on process rather than outcomes—is often harder than taking a position, but essential when the stakes are high.

The concerns raised

Council members raised a wide range of concerns, including:

• avoiding a process driven by outside interests without clear public accountability

• ensuring the history of the Gas Plant site and its lasting impacts are not acknowledged once and then set aside

• preserving community voice over time

• clarifying the respective roles of City Council and the administration

• recognizing real fiscal pressures and competing City priorities

• accounting for public safety, infrastructure, and municipal services

• questioning reliance on older plans and assumptions

• frustration that Council had limited opportunity to discuss process before proposals were advanced

Taken together, these concerns point to a single issue: the City does not yet have a clear path forward.

What happens next

Council was not deciding which proposal is best. It was deciding whether a proposal-driven process should be the starting point at all.

Large public sites raise threshold questions:

• Should the City define priorities first, or react to proposals?

• How should community input and oversight work over time?

• How does this site fit with other City needs and investments?

Those questions need answers before negotiations proceed further.

Much of the discussion focused on engaging the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to help the City step back and address these foundational issues. A ULI study does not produce the actual plan. Instead, it helps cities decide how to proceed, not what to build.

The core point

The February 5 vote was about how the City decides, not what the City decides.

Taking time now to clarify process, roles, and options creates a stronger foundation for whatever comes next. For a site of this scale and importance, that is not over-planning. It is responsible governance.

More detail

This post is intentionally concise for Substack.

A longer version—covering governance, planning frameworks, appraisals, and how these decisions fit into the City’s broader responsibilities—is available on HomeRunsMatter for readers who want a deeper dive.

What comes next

The next post will look at the nine proposals that were submitted—not to rank or critique them, but to understand what was put forward and why, without a City-defined framework, they are difficult to compare.

Additional posts will follow on land value, appraisals, and how cities use independent frameworks to guide complex redevelopment decisions.

Each is intended to add clarity, not heat, to an important civic conversation.