The Gas Plant – Letter St. Petersburg City Council
Executive Summary
- The Gas Plant site is one of the most valuable pieces of publicly owned land in St. Petersburg and presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity — with the potential to generate more than $1 billion in long-term public value if handled correctly.
The City is moving toward soliciting proposals beginning January 4, before completing a City-led planning process, which risks transferring control — and future value — to private developers.
Experience from cities across the country shows that redevelopment works best when planning comes first — because it allows cities to retain control of land use, timing, and value, rather than reacting to developer-driven proposals.
A City-led planning process, supported by national planning expertise and a Community Advisory Council, would reduce financial and execution risk, preserve long-term public value, and strengthen City Council’s ability to exercise its fiduciary responsibility.
City Council should make clear that it will not approve proposals brought forward before such a planning process is completed, so that the City does not lock itself into outcomes it cannot later change.
The City has done this kind of planning before and has the capacity to do it again — using its Planning Department, supported by national planning expertise and a Community Advisory Council — without giving up control of its most valuable public asset.
The following letter was provided to City Council to explain why a City-led, plan-first process for the redevelopment of the Gas Plant site is essential, rather than soliciting proposals to sell the entire site.
This letter is being shared at this time because the Mayor has announced that the City intends to move forward with soliciting proposals for the Gas Plant site beginning January 4.
Experience from cities across the country points in one direction: redevelopment should begin with City-led planning, not proposals.
My Letter to City Council
I am writing now because the Mayor has announced that the City intends to move forward with soliciting proposals for the Gas Plant site beginning January 4. I am asking you to do what I believe — and what I hope you also believe — is your responsibility at the next City Council meeting, before a proposal-first process gains momentum.
Specifically, I am asking City Council to make clear that it will not approve any proposals brought forward before the City completes a public, city-led planning process supported by a Community Advisory Council and national planning expertise.
This position is not mine alone. It is shared by many people across the city who care deeply about housing, jobs, kids, resilience, taxes, and the long-term future of St. Petersburg.
I am asking you to act now because, as with the Rays–Hines deal, once the City accepts a proposal and brings it to Council, there will be enormous pressure to approve it — before Council has had the opportunity to evaluate it within a City-led plan.
Deciding what the Gas Plant site should become is a City decision — and in our system, that responsibility rests with City Council, not the Mayor acting alone. The Mayor leads, negotiates, and makes recommendations. City Council’s role is to approve planning decisions first, before proposals are considered. That is the responsibility voters assign to Council members.
A Personal Note to City Council
This note is written personally to each of you.
You know who I am. I have appeared before City Council many times over the last two years, always as a resident who cares deeply about this city and its future.
I want to be clear about my motivation.
I have no personal agenda in the outcome of the Gas Plant site. I have never had — and do not have — any financial interest in this property or in any development that might occur here. My only interest is the long-term future of St. Petersburg: for my grandchildren, for your grandchildren, and for the generations who will live with the consequences of the decisions made now.
What Shapes My Perspective
What I See on the South Side
Through my work as a mentor in South Side schools, I see firsthand what opportunity looks like — and what happens when cities miss chances to invest wisely in children and families. That perspective strongly shapes how I think about what truly matters when a city makes a once-in-a-generation land-use decision.
Who I Have Spoken With
Over the course of the last several years, I have spent a great deal of time talking with people who care deeply about this site and about St. Petersburg’s future. That includes national land planners, developers, members of the Gas Plant descendant community, housing advocates, educators, and people focused on jobs, parks, and public space.
I have spoken with leaders connected to the school system, and with Parks and Recreation staff about the very real constraints they face in providing programs and safe places for kids.
These conversations have not been about promoting a single outcome. They have been about understanding what works, what doesn’t, and what sequence of decisions best serves the public interest. Over this entire period, no one — including those who disagree with me — has challenged the accuracy of the facts I have presented.
Professional Experience and Due Diligence
I also bring a professional lens to this conversation. Over more than 40 years, I underwrote thousands of affordable housing transactions at Raymond James Affordable Housing. Every transaction went through an investment committee, which I chaired. No deal was ever approved without extensive underwriting, due diligence, market analysis, and independent review.
Our committee members represented major institutional investors and were given the information necessary to exercise independent judgment responsibly before making decisions of that magnitude. Committee members were never expected to make decisions without information.
City Council is in a similar position. You represent the residents of St. Petersburg. Expecting Council members to evaluate a project of the scale of the Gas Plant without a City-led planning process, a Community Advisory Council, and independent national planning expertise is no different than asking an investment committee to approve deals without underwriting. That is not how serious decisions are made.
Even experienced developers operate this way. One of the major developers responsible for many of St. Petersburg’s high-rise buildings has told me the same thing: before proceeding, they consult outside advisors on demand, design, height, density, and feasibility. Experience does not replace analysis — it depends on it.
The Central Conclusion
Taken together, this experience leads me to one consistent conclusion: if the City approaches the Gas Plant site thoughtfully and in the right order, it will plan first. It will design the streets and connections. It will preserve flexibility.
It is highly unlikely that a serious, City-led planning process — informed by national expertise — would conclude that selling the site as a single, comprehensive transaction is the best way to serve long-term public value.
This is not theory. Smart cities all over the country do this.
Coordinating the Bigger Picture
If the City does this work itself, it can also think comprehensively and coordinate decisions beyond the boundaries of the Gas Plant site alone. That includes how this site relates to the existing soccer stadium, how surrounding areas evolve over time, and how nearby City-owned properties might be planned together rather than in isolation.
This approach allows the City to involve the right organizations — including arts and cultural institutions — and to think strategically about who we are as a city, what actually drives our future, and what kind of place we want to become.
Phased Development and the Importance of a Cohesive Plan
The Mayor has suggested that the City could move forward now on certain parcels — including a possible museum or affordable housing — while the Rays continue to play at Tropicana Field. That is a reasonable point and, in principle, correct.
It is possible to advance development on portions of the site that are available while the ballpark remains in use.
However, even in a phased approach, a full City-led planning process should come first.
Large sites like the Gas Plant require an overall framework so that early projects do not inadvertently constrain better long-term outcomes. Streets, infrastructure, parcel relationships, open space, and connections to surrounding neighborhoods need to be designed as part of a cohesive vision. Without that framework, early decisions — even well-intentioned ones — can lock in patterns that are difficult or impossible to correct later.
A Community Advisory Council, working with the City’s Planning Department and national planning experts, provides the right structure to establish that framework. Once the overall plan is in place, the City can confidently move forward in phases, knowing that each individual project — whether housing, cultural space, or civic use — fits into a coherent long-term vision rather than standing alone.
Planning first does not prevent early action. It ensures that anything built now strengthens, rather than undermines, what comes next.
Why a Community Advisory Council Is Essential
A Community Advisory Council is not a substitute for City Council. It is the mechanism that allows Council to do the job voters elected it to do.
Council members are not elected to be experts in large-scale multifamily development, land valuation, financing structures, or master planning. You are elected to exercise judgment on behalf of the public.
City Council cannot do this work on its own. Council members cannot privately compare options, workshop alternatives, or learn together outside public meetings. A Community Advisory Council exists to do that work openly — studying alternatives, hearing from residents, and bringing forward clear options — so Council can make informed decisions without being forced to react under pressure.
A CAC works for:
- The City
- The Mayor
- City Council
It improves decision-making for everyone. It provides independent analysis, reduces pressure at the point of decision, builds a public record, and helps ensure that alternatives are fully explored before commitments are made.
For a Community Advisory Council to be effective, people need confidence that it reflects the community it serves and operates transparently.
A CAC should include a cross-section of perspectives — including residents, members of the Gas Plant descendant community, housing and workforce voices, arts and culture, youth-focused organizations, and individuals with relevant professional expertise — working alongside City staff and independent national planners.
Because a CAC would operate under Florida’s Sunshine Laws, its meetings would be open to the public, noticed in advance, and accessible for residents to attend. In addition, a CAC should host public listening sessions and invite written input so that people across the city — especially those who have historically been left out of major land-use decisions — can be heard.
The role of the CAC is not to make decisions, but to inform them — by surfacing trade-offs, testing assumptions, and bringing community priorities into the open so City Council can exercise its judgment with full information.
The City already uses this model. The Advanced Air Mobility Task Force chaired by Ed Montanari meets regularly, studies complex issues, and keeps Council informed so that future decisions can be made thoughtfully. A CAC for the Gas Plant site would serve the same function.
Planning Is Not the Same as Stating Priorities
“Planning processes allow communities to look past immediate concerns, evaluate options for how best to proceed, and move towards a better future.” Comprehensive Plan Standards for Sustaining Places — APA Planning.org
It may be suggested that the City has already identified its priorities, pointing to the RFP that led to the Rays–Hines proposal.
But those priorities are general and obvious. Everyone knows we need affordable housing. Everyone knows people want good jobs. Everyone knows parks, resilience, and opportunity matter.
The purpose of planning is not to restate what we already know.
The purpose of planning is to determine the best way to meet those needs — where, how, when, and at what scale.
An RFP cannot answer those questions. A City-led planning process can.
In addition, a city-led planning process allows the City to decide how value is captured. In some cases, that may mean selling land after streets and infrastructure are planned and in place. In others, it may mean long-term ground leases that keep land in public ownership while generating ongoing revenue. The right approach can vary by parcel and by use. Those decisions should come after planning and analysis — not before.
What the City Has Already Shown Is Possible
It is also worth noting that the City has already taken steps in this direction before. In November 2018, the City commissioned a conceptual planning scenario for the Tropicana Field site prepared by HKS, a nationally recognized architecture and planning firm. That work laid out proposed streets, a grid, parcelization, and a framework for mixed uses across the site.
While I do not have full information about how that effort was initiated or how it fit into the City’s internal process at the time, it is reasonable to assume it was undertaken as part of the City’s planning work to explore long-term possibilities for the site. In substance, it reflects exactly the kind of City-led thinking that should come first: establishing streets, connections, and an overall framework before individual projects are considered.
That earlier work underscores an important point. The City is capable of doing this itself. With its Planning Department, supported by national planning expertise and a Community Advisory Council, the City can once again define a cohesive vision — one that ensures any development that moves forward, whether phased or immediate, fits into an integrated plan rather than standing alone.
What Proposal-First Looks Like in Practice
The Rays Deal
The Rays deal illustrates the problem clearly.
A comprehensive proposal was brought forward that included a ballpark and a large entertainment district. But who decided those were the right anchors for the site? If the City had planned first, it is entirely possible neither would have been included.
The proposal assumed the developer would lay out streets and infrastructure, then return to the City to have those costs covered — leaving a fully entitled site they could ultimately sell off at enormous value.
The City can do this itself. The Rays proposal contemplated hiring a national planning firm such as Gensler. The City can hire the same firms directly, working alongside its own capable Planning Department.
The Same Pattern Appearing Again
We are seeing similar dynamics again. With the Ark Ellison Horus proposal, already submitted, the City is being asked to sell land at today’s value, fund streets and infrastructure, and accept broad claims about future innovation anchors that may or may not materialize.
Who is to say that this plan makes sense here? Who would pay for it? And why would the City give up control before answering those questions?
In proposal-first, other developers to come forward, each with their own assumptions about what the City wants or needs. Each proposal reflects a private party’s view of priorities, market positioning, and risk — not a shared, City-defined vision. Council is then asked to choose among competing private interpretations of the City’s future rather than evaluate projects against a framework the City itself has established.
Affordable Housing Under Pressure
If you care about affordable housing, the Rays deal illustrates the risk.
The agreement required only a minimum amount of affordable housing — and allowed the developer to buy its way out of that obligation. There is also no guarantee housing would ever be built as envisioned. If market conditions change or a developer encounters financial trouble — or bankruptcy — housing can be delayed indefinitely or disappear entirely.
When the City controls the land, that risk largely disappears.
The City can decide how many units it wants, where they belong, and when they should be delivered. Affordable housing often depends on layered financing and takes time. Control allows flexibility.
There is also an alternative strategy to consider. Selling (or leasing) this land at its highest value that would generate far more money for housing across the city — where land is cheaper, jobs are nearby, schools are accessible, and teachers and essential workers can actually afford to live. High-value development downtown also expands the tax base, creating even more ongoing revenue to support housing citywide.
The Rays Deal and the Value Question
The Rays proposal makes the value issue unmistakable – and what will be an issue in any proposal.
The proposed purchase price was $104 million — which discounted back to today’s value is closer to $50 million. The developer’s plan was essentially to do what the City itself can do: plan, lay out streets, divide the land into parcels, and sell them over time.
The difference is who captures the upside.
Based on reasonable assumptions, the fully planned, streeted land could be worth on the order of $1 billion today, and that value is likely to increase over time. Selling early transfers that future public value to a private party.
There is no urgency that justifies locking in a discounted price now — especially when the property would not even transfer for several years. Waiting and planning almost certainly produces far more value for the City.
Why Parcel-by-Parcel Development Works Better
A city planned, parcel-by-parcel approach, attracts the best developers and the most creative ideas.
Instead of one master developer, many firms can compete — each bringing expertise and design tailored to a specific site. Smaller and innovative developers can participate. Competition improves quality.
This is how great cities have developed historically. New York City put in the grid first. No one designed the Empire State Building or Rockefeller Center in advance. Creativity emerged within a shared framework.
St. Petersburg already demonstrates this creativity all around downtown. We do not need one developer to tell us what we want.
Parks, Public Space, and Green Infrastructure
There is active debate about parks — a large signature park, smaller parks, or a hybrid approach.
A CAC, working with national planners and City staff, allows the City to study what has worked elsewhere. Members could even visit comparable projects. These are decisions that should be informed by evidence, not embedded in a proposal.
Jobs, Workforce, and Legacy Funding
Jobs — and good jobs — are another core priority.
A planning-first process allows the City to evaluate whether it makes more sense to:
Rely on developer-led job training promises tied to individual projects, or
Use legacy funds generated from land value to support scalable, citywide workforce programs
Developer-led programs may sound appealing, but their effectiveness is uncertain. Planning allows honest evaluation.
Children, Opportunity, and Long-Term Public Benefit
What ultimately matters to people is that their children succeed — that they have safe places to go after school, adults who support them, and real opportunities as they grow. The Gas Plant decision is one of the few chances the City has to make a lasting difference in that future.
By approaching this site carefully and with long-term thinking, the City can create a legacy fund that provides ongoing support for after-school programs, youth mentoring, education initiatives, and other programs that help children thrive. Those resources can strengthen families and neighborhoods across the city, especially on the South Side, long after any single development is finished.
Resilience, Infrastructure, and Long-Term Public Protection
St. Petersburg faces growing risks from flooding, storm surge, and aging infrastructure. Across many parts of the city — especially older neighborhoods — sewer and stormwater systems are already under strain, and the next major hurricane will only increase those pressures. These are not abstract concerns. They affect homes, schools, businesses, and public safety.
A planning-first approach to the Gas Plant site allows the City to be intentional about how and when publicly owned land is sold. By planning first and then selling parcels over time, the City can generate substantial resources and dedicate a portion of those proceeds to a legacy fund focused on resilience. That fund can help accelerate sewer and stormwater improvements across the city, reducing flooding risk and strengthening infrastructure before the next major storm hits.
Arts, Culture, and Identity
Another role of the CAC is to step back and ask what actually drives St. Petersburg as a city.
One clear answer is the arts.
Arts and culture are central to the City’s identity and economic vitality. A CAC allows intentional inclusion of arts leaders and ensures culture is integrated into planning — not treated as an afterthought.
Recognizing the History of the Gas Plant
Honoring the history of the Gas Plant site is essential.
A CAC provides the right structure to engage descendants of the Gas Plant and the broader community, and to explore multiple forms of recognition. This does not necessarily require a single, expensive museum. Meaningful recognition can be woven throughout the site in sustainable ways.
Independent input ensures the conversation is inclusive, balanced, and thoughtful.
I-175 and Reconnecting the South Side
Any serious planning process must address I-175.
Today it functions as a physical and psychological barrier separating the South Side from this site. Planning allows the City to evaluate options for integration and reconnection — something no developer proposal should dictate.
Convention Centers and Testing Demand
Claims about convention centers illustrate why planning must come first.
Is there real demand? Tampa already has a major convention center. What purpose would another serve?
If demand exists, the City can designate a parcel and test the market. Developers can propose to build and finance such a facility themselves. The City should never have to pay for one.
The City Can Do This
Some suggest the City cannot do this work.
That is simply not true.
City-led planning with national expertise is standard practice across the country. St. Petersburg has a capable Planning Department already working on major initiatives, including District 2. Augmenting staff with national planners and specialized expertise is exactly how smart cities operate.
This approach is proven. It is repeatable. We can do this.
Long-Term Control Matters
Retaining control allows the City to decide what is built, when it is built, and how it evolves over 20 or 30 years.
If control is sold, development occurs on someone else’s timeline, driven by their priorities, not the City’s. Environmental standards, resilience, and sustainability are harder to enforce once deals are locked in.
Control allows adaptation. Selling eliminates it.
A proposal-first approach does not serve the City’s long-term interests
It is difficult to understand why the City administration would proceed with proposals first.
This approach is out of step with national best practice. CACs and national planners are typically used to inform mayors and administrations before proposals are issued — not after.
There is time to do this right. The Rays are expected to remain for at least three more years, and it is entirely possible that an additional extension could occur. There is no immediate deadline that justifies rushing a decision of this magnitude. Time, used properly, is an asset — not a liability.
Proposal-first also leads the City to spend millions of dollars negotiating complex deals — legal fees, advisory costs, financial consultants — only to discover later that the deal structure itself does not serve the City’s long-term interests.
Planning first avoids negotiating deals the City would never approve if it had full information from the outset.
City Council’s Responsibility
As I see it, the role of City Council members is central.
You are elected by the public, and the public looks to you to do the right thing on its behalf. I know that you know that is your responsibility.
The Mayor has an important role in advancing ideas and recommendations. But it is your job to decide whether those ideas make sense for the people you represent.
Without a City-led planning process, a Community Advisory Council, and independent expertise, Council is not in a position to do what voters hired you to do.
Even when a proposal appears well-intentioned or aligned with public priorities, approving it before city-led planning is completed effectively turns the proposal itself into the plan. Decisions that should be made deliberately and sequentially — about land use, infrastructure, public space, value capture, and long-term control — become locked in all at once. That deprives City Council of the ability to exercise step-by-step oversight over time.
That leads to one conclusion: this process should stop. City Council should tell the Mayor that it will not approve deals that come forward before a City-led planning process is completed.
Allowing proposals to advance without that foundation will only waste time, consume millions of dollars in legal and advisory costs, and create enormous pressure to approve something before its consequences are fully understood. Without the benefit of a Community Advisory Council process, Council will be left with no real choice at all.
Why I Am Writing This
Most residents have little idea what is happening with the Gas Plant site or how consequential the sequence of decisions will be. The distinction between planning first and proposals first is not intuitive, and it is not being clearly explained elsewhere.
People are busy. The process is complicated. They reasonably assume City Council has the information and structure it needs to protect their interests.
That is why I am writing — to make sure you have that information before irreversible steps are taken.
Closing
This letter is offered with respect for the responsibilities each of you carries and with confidence that City Council wants to protect the long-term interests of the people you represent.
This is a once-in-a-generation decision involving publicly owned land of extraordinary value. The order in which decisions are made will determine whether that value is captured for the public or given away.
Planning first preserves control, flexibility, and public benefit.
Proposal-first does not.
That is the choice before you.
