Some new ideas on the Rays stadium deal and the Historic Gas Plant District | Letters

Think about this

Will subsidizing the Rays’ new stadium deal pay off for taxpayers? | Column, April 14

For a minute, let me play “what if?” What if the Rays’ stadium plan with St. Petersburg included moving the Tampa Bay Rowdies that play in the nation’s second-tier soccer league to the Tropicana Field site, away from where they play now near St. Petersburg’s waterfront? What if a smaller, much less expensive plan substituted the Rowdies for the Rays? What if this plan led to a Major League Soccer franchise in St. Petersburg? Then, the old Al Lang stadium where the Rowdies play now could be torn down and redeveloped into something better. It could be more open park space, or it could be an expansion of the Saturday morning market into something more like they have in Seattle and Philadelphia. The city would be off the hook for a whole lot of money to pay for the new baseball stadium. My point is simply that there are more options that I’m not hearing discussed. We should give this our consideration.

Roy Jones, St. Petersburg

More than money

Will subsidizing the Rays’ new stadium deal pay off for taxpayers? | Column, April 14

To paraphrase a famous author, “To build or not to build, that is the question.” Much has been written about competing objectives and priorities for the Tampa Bay Rays stadium site. The fact that a new stadium would not be a major economic contributor compared to other uses has been well documented by experts and history. The real question is whether the Rays are a significant contributor to community identity and cohesion — and pride when they win championships. While location and transportation deficits would likely continue to inhibit larger stadium crowds for the Rays, community support via radio, TV and the Tampa Bay Times is likely to remain strong. When I open the morning e-Newspaper, Sports is the first section I read. While professional sports teams and their stadiums are designed to make money for players and owners, I believe they do generate community identity and cohesion. I can sit next to someone with whom I strongly disagree about many issues, but still enjoy watching a game with them. Sports teams provide fodder for neutral conversation and debate at the bar, water cooler, backyard party or stadium. The Bucs, Lightning and Rays are the source of this type of identity and cohesion for us. Is it worth the cost?

Robert H. More, Riverview

Let’s move forward

Will subsidizing the Rays’ new stadium deal pay off for taxpayers? | Column, April 14

I confess to being a huge baseball fan and an admirer of the new ballpark and entertainment plaza in Atlanta. But here is why I support the Rays-Hines proposal: Experienced, committed, competent leaders from St. Petersburg and Pinellas County have been working on this opportunity for a long time. If we finally get this close to a resolution and fail to make a commitment to the project, I can’t imagine getting here again anytime soon.

I truly believe that if the St. Petersburg City Council rejects this proposal as offered and negotiated, in five years one of the most valuable tracts of urban land in the country will be home to an empty stadium and acres of ugly parking lots.

How grim. The progress of the past 20 years in St. Petersburg is not irreversible. Lack of vision and investment can turn things sour pretty quickly. The purpose of government, this liberal believes, is to invest in things that don’t make sense for individuals or businesses, but that do improve the quality of life for the community as a whole. I hope the City Council has the courage, after so many years of fits and starts, to say, “Enough! Let’s move forward.”

Susan Burnore, Gulfport

Won’t change a thing

Will subsidizing the Rays’ new stadium deal pay off for taxpayers? | Column, April 14

I live in Tampa and have been to a few Rays games over the years. My considerations usually include driving time, ticket cost and parking logistics. Not once did I ever think that the condition or the age of the stadium in which they play was part of my decision to attend. It makes no sense to me that a newer stadium in the same location will somehow attract more attendance.

Jeff Gladish, Tampa

It’s 2024, not 1787

The Electoral College, debunked and debated | Perspective, April 14

The comments from supporters of the Electoral College were disingenuous on four counts. First, people vote. Land does not. The assertion that Los Angeles County has a larger population than many states is true, but irrelevant with respect to voting. Second, each state has two senators, giving equal state representation no matter the population or physical size. Third, the overwhelming majority of taxes come from the most populous cities and states. Less populous states are disproportionately supported by more populous states. Fourth, want the perfect storm for a civil war? Have a candidate win the popular vote by, let’s say, 10 million votes, and the opposing candidate winning the Electoral College and therefore the presidency. The solution is obvious. I just checked my calendar. It’s 2024. Get rid of the Electoral College.

David Nathanson, Tampa

Law of the land

The Electoral College, debunked and debated | Perspective, April 14

These were excellent commentaries on the Electoral College. The anti-Electoral College segment of society always uses “democracy” as its reason. They hate seeing an actual state, like Wyoming, with outsized power compared to Los Angeles County. They don’t understand that laws don’t only govern people. The phrase “the law of the land” is not an accident. In time, they turn their needs — like health care and education — into rights, which can be assigned to others. This transfers their need for self-reliance instead to reliance on the government. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. This is the argument about the direction of the nation. Should we be more democratic, or should we be satisfied with the rights affirmed in the Constitution? My antiquated view is that for something to be a right, it cannot be someone else’s obligation.

Jason Barrera, Oldsmar

Myths upon myths

The Electoral College, debunked and debated | Perspective, April 14

I disagree with some of the myth-busting. Myth No. 2 — “The Electoral College always favors one party over another. Majority rule is fairer and more democratic.” — has nothing to do with it favoring one party over the other. In all the examples cited in “busting” the myth, the winner actually won more votes than the others. There were only 16 years between the 2000 election and the 2016 election when the winner lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and it could easily happen again in 2024. The professor mentions other presidential elections when the winner did not get 50.1% of the vote has no bearing on the Electoral College. Rather, it is the result of the first past the post method of voting.

As for Myth 6 — “The Electoral College should be scrapped because it doesn’t directly reflect the popular vote. (It’s far from one person/one vote.)” — the professor’s answer has nothing to do with either the Electoral College or one person/one vote. Even if 100% of the voting-age people voted, that would not fix the problem. Even if we had open primaries and some form of ranked-choice voting, that would not fix the problem. Even if all the states assigned their votes proportionately to the candidates, that would not fix the problem. The only way to fix it is to do what was done with senators: have the winner be the one who won the popular vote. One final step for all the elections, to make them fairer, is some form of ranked-choice voting.

Christopher Radulich, Apollo Beach

A seafaring world

America needs a true maritime strategy, maybe a SpaceX for ships | Perspective, April 14

William McQuilkin’s call for a coherent national maritime strategy (more than simply a naval strategy) is timely. To many, perhaps a majority of Americans, the sea is distant and intangible. Even to those living along the coasts, in places such as Jacksonville, the Navy, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine are often invisible. But our dependence upon maritime trade touches every American, wherever they live. Of America’s two great theoretical historians of the late 19th century, Frederick Jackson Turner and Albert Thayer Mahan, the relevance of Turner’s “frontier thesis” has been eclipsed; however, in the 21st century, Mahan’s argument that oceans are critical to successful nations is as relevant as ever. For too long, the United States has neglected its maritime industrial base and in so doing places its national sustainability at risk. Recent events in the Middle East and the western Pacific prove that maritime commerce and navalism remain elemental to America’s political economy. We must elect representatives who get the big picture and who will urgently prioritize our national resources to strengthen all of the sea services, including the U.S. Merchant Marine.

Alan Bliss, Jacksonville