A Billion Dollars Will Go Out the Window

This post was orginally published on Substack and is shared here for broader access.  

$1 Billion

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

• 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’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

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.

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

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

Read the discussion on Substack:  HERE