Too Many Unanswered Questions and Too Much Uncertainty
On April 30, St. Petersburg hosted a public meeting on the future of the Historic Gas Plant site. It was billed as an opportunity for the public to understand the four proposals the mayor has shortlisted for the site.
Two of the proposals are to buy and develop the full 86 acres—one from Ellison-Ark-Horus (Ellison), and one from the Burg Bid (Burg). Another proposal, from the Pinellas County Housing Authority, is asking for an option to buy 0.6 acres—less than 1% of the site—at no cost, to build one affordable housing building. The fourth proposal, Foundation Vision Partners (Vision), recommends that the city develop the infrastructure itself and then sell the land parcel by parcel.
Public Input
Residents were given the opportunity to submit questions for the Q&A portion of the meeting.
But while the meeting was supposed to help the public better understand the proposals, many key questions either were not answered—or were answered without meaningful follow-up or clarification.
After the meeting, I spoke with several people who attended, and it was clear that many still did not understand what was being proposed or decided. At least one television station report after the meeting also made it clear that the media does not fully understand what is being considered.
At times, the discussion felt less like a fact-based public review and more like something you might see in Washington—where questions are asked but not really answered.
Key Questions and Concerns
1. What happened to the many other questions submitted by residents?
There were only 30 minutes for questions and answers, and only five questions were presented.
Yet records from the meeting show that more than 130 questions and comments were submitted by residents through online forms, Zoom, and other channels.
Those questions covered a wide range of issues, including:
- infrastructure costs,
- flooding and Booker Creek,
- affordable housing,
- financing,
- transportation,
- environmental concerns,
- public access,
- jobs,
- and whether the city should retain long-term control of the property.
Since more than 145 questions were never asked publicly during the meeting, will the City now ask the proposers to respond to those questions and release both the questions and responses publicly?
2. Why are four very different proposals being grouped together?
The mayor did not explain why these very different proposals are being evaluated in the same process.
Since the mayor has historically focused on a developer-led approach, he did not make it clear that a city-led approach is something he is seriously considering—even though it is one of the four proposals.
As outlined in the Vision proposal (and which is the same as what we have been saying), when the city does it itself, it forms an advisory council, hires national planners, engineers, infrastructure experts, and lays out the property. The city builds the roads and utilities and then sells parcels over time to developers.
Under that approach, the city would remain in control of the land, infrastructure, and long-term plan. This approach significantly reduces the risk of relying on a single master developer while giving the City direct control over affordable housing, parks, infrastructure timing, land use decisions, and how the history of the property would be honored.
And creative developers from all over the country and around the world could participate by buying parcels.
3. Why is the city considering selling the land for less than appraised value?
The city already has a 2023 appraisal estimating the value of the land (78.21 acres—not sure about the difference with the frequently cited 86 acres) at $350 million (actually $349.3 million)—as is, without infrastructure in place. The City is also expecting two updated appraisals in the coming days, which will likely reflect even higher values.
Without infrastructure. This means the value if someone buys it and the buyer will pay for the infrastructure.
Yet the purchase offers from the two full-site proposals are $202 million and $275 million, with both expecting the city to pay for the infrastructure—estimated to cost approximately $275 million.
That raises two basic questions:
Why would the city sell land for less than appraised value and agree to pay for the infrastructure when the appraisal assumes the buyer—not the city—would be paying for the roads, utilities, parks, and other infrastructure improvements?
Why would the city sell the land for less than its value, especially when it wants to raise taxes to pay for a more than $1 billion loan ($600 million plus interest) the city wants to take out to pay to stop flooding?
A $425 Million Swing
If the City accepted an offer of approximately $200 million while infrastructure costs total approximately $275 million, the City would effectively be $75 million out of pocket.
Compare that to selling the land at the current appraised value of $350 million without funding infrastructure.
Instead of being negative $75 million, the City would be positive $350 million.
That is a $425 million difference.
Why would the city ever do this?
Before Considering the Billion-Dollar Opportunity
And that does not take into account a third possibility:
If the City funded the infrastructure itself and then sold parcels individually over time, the total value realized from the site could potentially exceed $1 billion.
Importantly, the infrastructure required to unlock that value is largely the same infrastructure the development teams are already asking the City to fund.
4. No guaranteed affordable housing
During the Q&A, the developers were asked how many affordable or workforce housing units they were guaranteeing to build.
The Burg response focused on their experience building affordable housing, while the Ellison response spoke about the amount of housing they expected to build. Neither answered the question.
These are experienced development teams. They understand their proposals in detail. They know the numbers, the structure, and what can actually be delivered.
Which makes the lack of a direct answer significant.
There’s a simple reason:
They can’t guarantee it.
No developer can.
Affordable housing depends on financing, subsidies, market conditions, construction costs, and timing. So when affordable housing numbers are discussed, they are not guarantees. They are projections—or intentions.
One proposal was described as offering the largest amount of affordable housing among the proposals. That may influence how people view the proposals.
But if those numbers are not guaranteed—and they are not—then they are not commitments, are not enforceable, and are not something the City can rely on as outcomes.
Comparing proposals based on affordable housing totals that are not guaranteed ultimately means comparing intentions—not outcomes.
Why This Matters Here: If affordable housing is truly a priority, if the city leads, it can set aside land specifically for affordable housing development rather than depending on a developer’s projections or intentions.
5. Who is paying for the infrastructure and parks?
Burg failed to mention that their proposal calls for the city to pay for the proposed Samuel Davis Park, which they describe as the largest park built in St. Petersburg in 119 years.
Ellison also discussed the proposed Unity Bridge/Unity Arch and stated they hoped to obtain state and federal funding for it. But no estimated cost was provided, and no guarantee was given regarding who would pay if public funding falls short.
6. How is Vision being paid?
Vision proposes to manage a city-led process for fees that could exceed $20 million. If the City decides it wants outside help leading the process, there was no discussion about whether there would be a competitive process for those services.
7. What exactly is the public evaluating?
During the meeting, Cathie Wood, speaking as part of Ellison, said that since submitting their proposal they have spoken with many people and that those discussions significantly transformed the proposal.
Where are those changes? Has the City received updated versions? When will the public see them? Are people commenting on something different from what is actually being considered?
None of this was explained.
8. What about jobs, office space, and other projected benefits?
Questions were asked about jobs and office space.
Both Ellison and Burg provided projections—not guarantees.
There are no guarantees regarding the number of jobs, the amount of office space, or many of the other projected benefits being discussed. And that is to be expected. The market will decide the answers once the land has been divided into parcels. If the market is slow office space won’t be built and jobs will not be created.
So again, if the City planned the site itself and established the zoning, those same jobs and office space would come based on actual market demand.
And if demand changes over time—or if there turns out not to be demand for as much office space as projected—the City, by controlling the land, would have the flexibility to adapt and use parcels for other purposes instead.
9. What exactly is the public being asked to comment on during the next 30 days?
The mayor announced that the next 30 days will be a period for community input.
But input on what, exactly? Which proposal? Whether to select a developer at all? Whether the City should lead the development itself?
And what does “community input” actually mean?
If this is meant to be meaningful public input, the process should be clearly defined:
How can people participate? Where do they send input? Will there be additional meetings? Will input be visible publicly?
Right now, none of that is clearly laid out. Without that clarity, the process risks happening in a way that feels behind the scenes.
The Pattern
Across all of this, a pattern emerged: Important questions were asked. Clear answers were not provided. The decision was not clearly framed. And the process for input is not clearly defined.
After the meeting, I spoke with someone running for City Council. I asked whether they thought the City should lead the development or select one of the private proposals.
While they said they had been following this closely and had read what I’ve written, they still were not sure.
This is a complicated issue—and it is not being explained clearly enough.
Why This Matters
The decisions made about the Historic Gas Plant site will shape St. Petersburg for decades.
This is not simply about selecting a developer.
It is about:
- who controls the land,
- who controls the planning,
- how affordable housing is actually delivered,
- how public money is spent,
- how the history of the site is honored,
- and whether the public truly understands the choices being made.
The next 30 days are supposed to involve community input.
But for that input to be meaningful, residents first need clarity about what is actually being considered.
Right now, too many important questions remain unanswered.
Let’s Continue the Conversation with City Council
I believe these questions deserve clearer public answers before decisions are made.
If you have been following this issue, I hope you will continue paying attention, asking questions, and participating in the public discussion.
I have also created a sign-on letter to City Council encouraging continued support for a thoughtful, transparent, and planning-first approach as the process moves forward.
If you would like to read the letter or add your name, you can do so here:
Sign-on Letter
The Goal
The goal is not to slow things down.
The goal is to make sure we get this right.
Because once this decision is made, it will shape the future of this site—and this city—for decades.
1 comment
The City needs to table the entire Historic Gas Plant proposal process and allow for a new Mayor to be elected. It
appears our city planning department is qualified to design and manage our infrastructure. However, when it
comes to planning, design, and functional esthetics, they lack credibility. For example, look at the current portfolio of affordable housing projects. If the City is too be leading an informed citizens redevelopment panel, the City not only needs to hire a national planning and redevelopment team but they need to hire staff who have also had experience in planning, designing, and executing municipal redevelopment projects. For now, table this effort that looks like a give-away to developers, stick to improving our vulnerable infrastructure, get help in design of affordable housing that reflects St. Pete’s Mediterranean architectural traditions, and vote in a new Mayor.
Comments are closed.