A closer look at the planning-first approach and why the order of decisions matters for the future of the 86-acre site.
Earlier this week I met with Mayor Ken Welch to discuss the future of the 86-acre Historic Gas Plant site. Subsequent to the meeting, the Mayor discussed the project in a radio interview.
During the interview, he referenced our meeting and described his views on the redevelopment process.
The following points respond to comments made during the mayor’s interview.
Goal of the Planning-First Approach
Mayor’s comment: “they really have no goal for this additional round of planning” and described the proposed pause as “a pause without a real goal.”
My response: During our meeting, the mayor asked me directly what my goal was, and I explained it clearly:
My goal is to ensure that this land — one of the most important public assets the city will ever control — is developed in a way that continues the growth of St. Petersburg while generating long-term resources that help make life better for everyone in the city.
Those resources can help address priorities residents consistently care about, including:
– affordable housing
– flood protection and resilient infrastructure
– job opportunities
– opportunities for children, especially those who need help the most
And the redevelopment should also recognize and honor the history of the community that once lived on that land.
Chief Opponent
Mayor’s comment: The mayor referred to me as the “chief opponent.”
My response: I wouldn’t characterize it that way.
I’m simply a member of the community who has taken the time to study the issue, talk with residents, and consult with planning experts.
Through my Home Runs Matter Substack, which has about 43,000 subscribers, I hear regularly from people across St. Petersburg about issues affecting the city.
This is not about one individual being for or against something.
It’s about having a thoughtful community conversation about how best to develop an important public asset for the future of St. Petersburg.
Planning vs. Another Round of Discussions:
Mayor’s comment: Additional planning would simply repeat earlier discussions. “Well we’ve planning for over a decade.”
My Response: That is not what I proposed.
The earlier community meetings identified broad priorities that most people agree on — housing, jobs, economic opportunity, and recognizing the history of the Gas Plant community.
The next step is actual planning — translating those priorities into a clear framework for how the 86 acres will actually be organized and developed.
What I suggested is a process in which the City works with a Community Advisory Council and experienced national planning firms to determine the layout of streets and infrastructure, the location of parks, how parcels are configured, how affordable housing is integrated, and how development will be phased over time.
Planning ultimately ends with something concrete: a plan.
Decisions Like “16th Street or 17th Street”
Mayor’s comment: He does not want to spend years debating whether housing should be on 16th Street or 17th Street.
My response: In fact, that is exactly the type of decision planning is meant to resolve.
Those kinds of land-use and infrastructure decisions should be made by the City and the community before development rights are transferred, not later by whichever private developer is selected.
Once the City establishes the framework for the district, developers can compete to build within it.
2022 Community Meetings
Mayor’s comment: The mayor said I was not aware of the planning done in 2022.
My response: That is correct in the sense that I was not involved in those discussions at the time.
But those meetings gathered broad community priorities.
Planning is the next step — turning those priorities into a specific adopted plan that defines streets, infrastructure, parcels, and development structure.
During our meeting I also made a simple observation: if the planning is truly complete and the City already has a plan, then the logical next step would be for the City’s planning department to begin implementing that plan as the site becomes available. The fact that we cannot yet do that suggests that what we have are important priorities and ideas — but not yet a fully developed plan for the land.
Importance of the City Retaining Control of the Historic Gas Plant Site
Mayor’s Comment: The mayor supports selecting a single developer to buy and control the whole property – now.
My response: During our meeting, I emphasized the importance of the City retaining control of the land.
Once that framework is defined — streets, infrastructure, public spaces, and parcel structure — development can proceed within that plan while the city retains flexibility over time.
I also noted that even when a developer appears strong at the outset, projects of this scale can unfold over decades. Circumstances change. Companies change. Ownership changes.
If a single developer is selected at the beginning and something goes wrong years into the project, the city could be left dealing with half-finished development, contractual disputes, or litigation, which can stall projects for many years.
That is one reason many cities establish the plan first and then allow multiple developers to build different parcels over time, rather than relying on a single development entity to control the entire district.
Another reason for retaining control is financial. The proposals currently under consideration include one offering approximately $275 million for the land and another offering considerably less. Yet many people familiar with major redevelopment projects believe that once the land is properly planned, subdivided, and developed over time, the total value created from the 86 acres could be far higher — potentially approaching or exceeding a billion dollars. If the City structures and phases the development itself, that additional value could be captured for public priorities such as affordable housing, infrastructure improvements, youth opportunity, and honoring the history of the site.
Parcel Development – Not for the highest value
Mayor’s comment: The mayor suggested my proposal is simply to sell the land parcel by parcel for the highest value.
My response: What I said is that in most large redevelopment projects, once the city establishes the master plan, parcels are developed over time.
Decisions about how parcels are used — for sale to developers, or for affordable housing, cultural recognition, or other public priorities — would be made by the City with community input.
The goal is not simply maximizing price.
The goal is structuring the land so it produces the greatest long-term benefit for the community.
National Planning Practice
Mayor’s comment: The mayor said he does not agree with the planning-first approach.
My response: During our meeting I provided a detailed written proposal and explained that I had spoken with national planning firms that work on large redevelopment projects.
Their consistent view was that cities typically establish the master plan first — defining infrastructure, public space, and parcel structure — and developers then build within that framework.
Affordable Housing
Mayor’s comment: The mayor said developer proposals include stronger affordable housing commitments.
My response: Affordable housing is extremely important.
But affordable housing projects require multiple layers of financing, including tax credits, grants, and public subsidies. And no one developer can control how much affordable housing will be built, no matter what they say in their proposal.
If the city plans the district first and sells parcels at their full value afterward, the city will have significantly greater resources available to support affordable housing developments.
If the land is transferred to a developer at a lower value up front, the city will have fewer resources available later to fund those projects.
Honoring the History of the Site
Mayor’s comment: The mayor has spoken about honoring the history of the Gas Plant community, including the fact that more than forty years have passed since the original neighborhood was displaced.
My response: Recognizing that history is extremely important, and I fully support that objective.
A thoughtful planning process could help the city determine the best way to do that. By bringing together a Community Advisory Council that includes descendants of the Gas Plant neighborhood, other community representatives, and experienced national planners, the city could have a robust discussion about the most meaningful ways to recognize that history.
The mayor has suggested a museum, and that may very well be the right approach. But a broader planning process would allow the community to consider additional possibilities as well.
For example, if the city structures the redevelopment so that it captures long-term value of the land, it could create permanent legacy funds tied to the site.
Those funds could support:
– recognition of the history of the Gas Plant community
– affordable housing initiatives
– programs that help children reach their full potential
– job training and economic opportunity
– infrastructure improvements, including addressing flooding challenges
Timing
Mayor’s comment: Additional planning would delay development. “What is the goal of delay”
My response:
First, what delay?
The Rays will continue playing at Tropicana Field for at least three years, and during our conversation the mayor acknowledged that the timeline could be four, or even five years before the full site becomes available.
That means there is time to complete the planning work necessary to ensure the redevelopment is structured correctly. If the Mayor wants to sell the whole property to one developer, that is exactly what they will be doing. If you look at the two proposals for the whole site, they both are teaming up with national planners, just like the recommendations
Planning does not delay development. It’s part of the process, whether the city does it, or a developer does it. It makes sure that when development begins, it proceeds within a well-defined framework
Letter from Residents
At the conclusion of our meeting, I provided the mayor with a public letter signed by 393 St. Petersburg residents urging the city to follow the City Council’s vote to pause the developer selection process and complete a comprehensive planning framework.
Since that meeting, the number of residents signing the letter has grown to well over 400.
