The Mayor Owes the City a Pause—and an Explanation

Mayor Ken Welch has announced that the City has four proposals from which it intends to select one for the future of the Historic Gas Plant site—and that it expects to do so by June.

At the same time, City Council, by a 6–2 vote, has made it clear that it believes the City should pause and undertake planning first.

And at the April 9 meeting of the City Council’s Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Committee—attended by the six members who voted to pause—it became clear that, despite that vote, the City is continuing to move forward.

At that same meeting, the City also indicated that while it may select a proposal by June, it does not expect to have a negotiated agreement ready to bring back to City Council until the summer of 2027.

That raises a fundamental question:

Why move forward now at all?

If no agreement will be negotiated or approved for more than a year, selecting a proposal now is not progress—it is a premature commitment to a path that has not yet been fully evaluated.

The Mayor Owes the City a Pause

City Council’s resolution was not ambiguous.

It called for planning first.

And that planning is not about process for process’s sake. It is about answering the most important question facing the City:

How should this property be developed?

• Should the City develop it itself?
• Should it turn it over to a single developer?
• Should there be multiple developers or a phased approach?

Those decisions come first.

They are the reason to plan.

But based on what was said at the April 9 meeting, the message to City Council was clear:

The City is not going to pause.
The City is moving forward.
The City has already decided.

That is the issue.

This Is About Responsibility

When six of eight City Council members—representing the residents of this city—say that the current approach is not the right one, the responsible course of action is not to continue forward.

The responsible course of action is to stop.

City Council and the Mayor are supposed to be on the same side—protecting the interests of the people of St. Petersburg.

When there is this level of disagreement, proceeding anyway is not leadership.

Pausing is.

What Happens If We Don’t Pause

If the City continues on its current path, it will select a developer and begin negotiating a complex agreement.

That process will take time—by the City’s own estimate, more than a year, with no agreement expected before the summer of 2027.

During that time, the City will commit significant public resources.

Based on past experience, this could cost—and likely will cost—millions of dollars in outside advisory and legal costs, along with substantial staff time, all before anything is brought back to City Council for approval.

And based on a 6–2 vote already on record, there is every reason to question whether such an agreement would be approved at all.

That is not a prudent use of public resources.
It is irresponsible.

That is exactly what should be avoided.

There is no benefit to proceeding on this timeline—but there is clear and avoidable risk.

There Is No Urgency

There is no reason to rush.

The Rays will continue to play at Tropicana Field for at least three more years—and possibly longer.

Taking several months now to undertake proper planning, engage experienced advisors such as the Urban Land Institute, and ensure alignment between the administration and City Council will not slow the project in any meaningful way.

Taking a few months now to get that clarity will move the process forward.

Failing to do so risks wasting an entire year.

The Mayor Owes the City an Explanation

In addition to a pause, the Mayor owes the residents of St. Petersburg and City Council clear answers.

In a meeting with the Mayor about a month ago, these same issues were discussed. At that time, there was no clear explanation provided as to how the City is approaching these questions or why this process is moving forward in its current form.

These questions have already been raised—and remain unanswered:

1. What exactly is being selected in June?

The City has said it intends to select a “proposal.” But the four proposals currently referenced are not comparable—and they are not competing proposals in any meaningful sense.

• Two propose development of the entire site by a single developer.
• One proposes development of only a small portion of the site.
• One suggests the City itself should develop the property.

These are not variations of the same idea.
They represent fundamentally different approaches to the central decision:

Who is going to control and develop this property—and how?

So what exactly is the City doing?

• Is it choosing between two developers to control and develop the entire site?
• Is it considering whether the City itself should take on that role?
• Or is it proposing to move forward with a plan for only a small portion of the site—with no defined plan for the remaining 80+ acres?

As presented, the process is confusing.

The City needs to explain what is actually being decided—and why these fundamentally different approaches are being treated as part of the same selection process.

2.What role is the Urban Land Institute process actually intended to play?

At the April 9 meeting, there was discussion of engaging ULI—which is exactly what City Council called for in its 6–2 resolution.

But the purpose of that engagement matters.

As discussed at the meeting, the primary purpose of a ULI process is to help the City and City Council determine the best path forward.

But at the same time, the City made clear that it intends to continue moving forward with selecting a developer.

By definition, that means the City is proposing to move forward before a ULI process could even be completed.

3. Why proceed with selection before planning is completed?

4. Why move forward at all when City Council has already said to pause?

How are these decisions being made?

There is also a broader issue reflected in the City’s current approach.

Experience and instinct are part of leadership. But projects of this scale—an 86-acre site with this level of economic, social, and historical importance—require more than general experience or judgment.

They require demonstrated expertise in projects of this complexity.
They require independent analysis.
They require a structured process that allows the City, the Mayor, and the administration to fully evaluate all options.

That is precisely why analysis and planning come first.

To date, neither the City, the Mayor, nor the administration has identified what expertise or analysis it is relying on to justify moving forward in this manner, nor has it explained why this approach is appropriate for a project of this scale.

Without that, it is fair to ask:
What analysis has been done?
What expertise is guiding these decisions?
And why has that not been shared?

Without that, decisions risk being driven by momentum rather than by understanding.

And that is exactly why a planning-first approach is so important.

The Bottom Line

This is a moment that calls for clarity—and for leadership.

• Why is the City not pausing this process, as called for by City Council in its 6–2 vote, and as supported by the clear interest of the public?
• What are the reasons for continuing to move forward, despite that direction?
• Will the City now answer the questions that have been raised?

A responsible government does not move forward without clarity.

It pauses.

It engages.
And it makes decisions based on a clear, well-understood framework.

That is what leadership requires.