What Was Actually Submitted
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 One was withdrawn.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. Those two full-site proposals were submitted by Ark Ellison Horus and The Burg Bid.
If the City continues under the current developer-selection framework, it would effectively be choosing between those two.
For a generational 86-acre redevelopment on publicly owned land that could ultimately be worth close to $1 billion once infrastructure is built, the fact that only two full-site proposals were received deserves careful reflection.
In practical terms, when land of this scale and long-term public importance receives only two bids — the highest offering $275 million today — the City should not be selecting one of those two offers.
Even if someone believed the proposal-first approach were appropriate — which we do not — 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 start the process over with a structure designed to attract full market engagement.
As we have stated in prior posts, we believe accepting a master developer proposal at this stage is not the correct approach. The appropriate sequence is to complete a comprehensive planning framework first — including governance structure, infrastructure sequencing, parcel configuration, and long-term public priorities — before selecting any developer.
Notwithstanding that position, this post is intended to provide information on the other six submissions.
The Six Other Submissions
Tampa Bay Boom, Inc.
This proposal centers on creating a new NBA franchise (“Tampa Bay Boom”), along with a new arena and entertainment district.
It includes acquisition of the Gas Plant property and the Tampa Bay Rays franchise, with development tied to a sports-anchored concept.
While ambitious, it is not structured as a conventional 86-acre master development plan under the City’s RFP framework.
Freedom Communities Company
Freedom Communities requests control of approximately 1 to 1.5 acres within the district for an affordable housing project called “The Sanctuary St. Pete.”
It proposes 100 residential units, a grocery anchor, and community-focused space.
This is a small, targeted housing proposal — not a full-site redevelopment plan.
Reparations Land Trust & Development Authority
This submission presents a land trust and reparative ownership model.
It is a governance and policy framework rather than a detailed, capitalized master plan for the entire site.
Pinellas County Housing Authority (1659 3rd Avenue S)
This submission appears tied to a specific housing component at a specific address.
It is housing-focused and programmatic, not a proposal to redevelop the full 86 acres.
Logical Sites, Inc.
Logical Sites outlines development concepts but does not present a fully integrated, capitalized, 86-acre redevelopment structure.
It reads as conceptual rather than executable at full scale.
The first five submissions are limited in scope or conceptual in nature.
The sixth — Foundations Vision Partners — takes a different structural approach.
Foundations Vision Partners
Foundations Vision Partners does not propose to purchase or redevelop the 86 acres.
Instead, they propose that the City retain ownership, complete the master planning and infrastructure sequencing itself, and then sell parcels gradually to multiple developers.
Their philosophy aligns with the planning-first approach that many have advocated — that the City should define its framework before committing the entire site to a single developer.
They argue that retaining land control allows the City to capture long-term value and avoid concentrating risk in one private entity.
Foundations also proposes to assist the City in leading the master planning and infrastructure process.
That may ultimately be a role the City determines it needs. But that determination should follow — not precede — the formation of a formal advisory council and the engagement of independent national planners to define the City’s vision and framework. Only after that work is complete should the City decide whether development management assistance is necessary — and, if so, procure it through a competitive RFQ process consistent with public procurement standards.
The Context
When viewed together, the submissions break down as follows:
Five are limited in scope or conceptual.
One proposes a City-led planning model rather than private redevelopment.
Two propose full-site control and redevelopment under a traditional master developer structure.
If the City proceeds under the current framework of selecting a master developer, there are only two proposals that fit that definition.
That is simply the landscape.
And in decisions of this magnitude — involving publicly owned land and long-term civic consequences — clarity about the landscape is essential.
A Final Note
I will be meeting with Mayor Welch next week to discuss the sequencing question and the importance of completing a comprehensive planning framework before selecting any developer.
I have previously invited readers to add their names to a public letter urging a planning-first approach. Many have done so, and I am grateful.
If you have not yet signed and believe the City should complete its planning process before selecting a master developer, I would welcome your participation.
You may add your name https://homerunsmatter.com/plan-first-mayor/
Public input matters. And in decisions of this scale, broad civic engagement strengthens the process.
