READ THIS IF YOU DON’T READ ANYTHING ELSE
These “developers” are largely assembling the same teams of planners and experts that the City can—and should—hire directly.
So ask yourself:
Why do we need a master developer to hire and manage third-party planning firms that the City could manage itself—especially when the City already has a planning department?
Why would we want to give any developer control and authority over decisions that belong to the public?
And most importantly—why would we pay a developer hundreds of millions of dollars to do that job?
Under a master-developer deal, we would give up a $1 billion and more in public value and hand it to a developer—just to manage this process and these firms.
If this were your land, would you pay someone that much to do the job and give up all your control?
The Proposals Are Proving the Point
The Tampa Bay Times reports that “hopeful Tropicana Field developers are adding to their teams.”
That headline tells us far more than it may appear at first glance.
Mayor Ken Welch has given developers 30 days to submit proposals to redevelop the Historic Gas Plant site after the Rays leave—likely in 2028 or later.
Yet from the start, something important has been widely acknowledged—and is now becoming impossible to ignore:
National land planners, the League of Women Voters, cities across the U.S., and even the developers themselves all agree:
This is not the right way to develop this property.
What Everyone Actually Agrees On
There is broad agreement on a better approach:
The City should lead the planning
The City should hire national planning experts
There should be a strong, independent form of community and civic oversight
- The land should then be sold parcel by parcel, aligned with the plan and at full market value
This reinforces why a city-led, parcel-by-parcel planning approach is the safest way to preserve public value, reduce risk, and keep long-term control with the City.
This approach maximizes long-term public value, keeps the City in control, and reduces the risk inherent in relying on any single master developer.
A Fair Concern: How Is the Plan Protected Over Time?
Whenever a City-led planning approach is discussed, a reasonable concern comes up:
What prevents a future mayor from changing course, undoing the plan, or steering the land toward political allies?
That concern is valid—and experienced cities plan for it.
The answer isn’t to abandon City leadership.
The answer is to lock the process in through governance.
Cities that successfully redevelop once-in-a-generation public land use a variety of durable structures, often in combination:
A master plan adopted by ordinance, not just policy
A legally established Community Advisory Council, or another independent governance body
In some cases, a redevelopment authority or public development corporation with a fiduciary duty to the public
Clear parcel-by-parcel disposition rules, based on independent appraisals and public process
Requirements that any major deviation receive City Council approval, sometimes by supermajority
The specific structure can vary—a CAC, a redevelopment agency, or another public entity—but the principle is the same:
decisions are embedded in law and process, not left to personalities.
Good governance doesn’t assume future leaders will always agree—or always get it right.
It assumes they won’t, and designs protections accordingly.
Why Developers Are Proceeding — And What They’re Saying Privately
Why Proposals Are Moving Forward
It’s important to understand why developers are moving forward with proposals—even while many question the process.
Several developers have acknowledged in private conversations—that the Mayor’s proposal-driven structure is currently the only way to remain engaged. If you want a seat at the table, submitting a proposal is the table.
In that sense, proposals should not be read as endorsements. They are responses to the framework the City has put in place.
Concerns About Capacity and Politics
At the same time, those same conversations reveal deeper concerns.
Some developers have expressed skepticism about whether the current administration has the capacity—or track record—to successfully manage a project of this scale. Others worry more broadly about what happens if leadership changes, or if future administrations favor political allies or insiders.
Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously.
But they point to the right solution, not away from it.
Why Concentrating Control Isn’t the Answer
The answer is not to concentrate control in a single private deal because of doubts about City Hall. That simply replaces one concentration of power with another—without transparency and without public safeguards.
The answer is to design a City-led system that does not depend on trusting any one mayor or administration.
What a Durable Governance Structure Looks Like
That means establishing a formal Community Advisory Council or comparable public governance body, created by ordinance or charter, with clear authority, transparency requirements, and defined responsibilities.
This body would be intentionally composed of serious, high-capacity individuals who:
care deeply about St. Petersburg,
bring real expertise and judgment,
represent key community constituencies, and
are selected for credibility—not personal agendas or political loyalty.
Why This Approach Is Safer
The role of the Community Advisory Council or comparable public governance body would be to work alongside national planners and City staff, provide informed oversight, test assumptions, and help ensure that decisions reflect the long-term public interest—not short-term politics.
Cities that succeed assume leadership can change, administrations can struggle, and political pressure will always exist. They respond by distributing authority across independent public bodies and making favoritism difficult regardless of who occupies the mayor’s office.
In fact, a City-led process with strong governance is safer—not riskier—than a master-developer deal. A private agreement struck under one administration is easier to influence quietly and far harder to unwind later. A well-designed public framework does the opposite.
This debate is not about who is mayor today.
It is about whether St. Petersburg builds a redevelopment process that works even if leadership falls short tomorrow.
The Proposals Are Showing Why the City Should Lead
Ironically, the proposals now taking shape are proving exactly why a City-led planning process makes the most sense.
They show that developers are doing precisely what the City itself could—and should—be doing, while retaining:
More than $1 billion in public value that would otherwise flow to a single master developer
Control over the land and its long-term future
Protection against risk if any one developer goes under, stalls, or becomes distracted—leaving this irreplaceable site undeveloped for years
It’s also worth noting that the City already has professional planning staff and institutional knowledge in place, while developers must assemble large, third-party teams from scratch just to replicate that capacity.
What the Times Is Reporting
According to the Times:
The ARK Investment Management / Ellison team has added architecture, infrastructure, and engineering firms
They’ve also brought in housing authorities to advise on affordable housing
This is exactly what a City-led process would involve: hiring outside experts and working collaboratively through a formal public structure.
The Times also reports that local real estate investor Blake Investment Partners is joining forces with Blue Sky Communities, a local affordable housing developer.
Blue Sky would handle all affordable and workforce housing, both on-site and off-site, and has already identified five locations around the city.
That highlights two important points:
A City-led, parcel-by-parcel process preserves flexibility.
The City can work with Blue Sky—or other partners—when parcels become available and if the adopted plan calls for affordable housing on those parcels.Affordable housing decisions should be strategic, not automatic.
Gas Plant land is extraordinarily valuable. A civic governance body may reasonably conclude that some affordable housing is better built elsewhere—near jobs, near schools, and where public dollars go further.
That doesn’t weaken the commitment to affordable housing—it strengthens it.
The Conclusion Keeps Getting Clearer
All of this points to one unavoidable conclusion:
A City-led planning process works better.
It preserves more than $1 billion for what truly matters:
Affordable housing
Helping kids and families
Flood protection and infrastructure
Job training
Relieving pressure on taxes, rents, and utilities
And it keeps the City—and the public—in control if any single developer falters.
A Moment for Civic Leadership
The local developers now assembling teams underscore that there is significant interest in the future of the Gas Plant site.
That interest matters. It reflects how important this land is—not just economically, but symbolically—to the future of St. Petersburg.
At moments like this, leadership can mean recognizing when the process itself needs to change.
Some of the most constructive contributions developers could make right now may not be in competing proposals, but in helping the City design a planning framework that works—for the public and for future investors alike. Participating in a formal community advisory or governance role would allow experienced voices to help shape the plan, while ensuring the City retains control and captures the full value of this land.
At this moment, true civic leadership may mean helping the City design the future—before competing to own it
