Mayor Ken Welch has now made clear that he intends to move forward with selecting a developer for the Tropicana Field site. He has stated that the City has already spent enough time planning and that now is not the time to pause the process.

Mayor Welch has noted that nine proposals were submitted during the open window. One was subsequently withdrawn, and one was not a comprehensive redevelopment proposal. Of the remaining submissions, only two proposed a complete, full-site redevelopment program. While we do not believe selecting a developer should occur before the City defines its redevelopment framework — as described below — even if the City were determined to proceed in that order, it would be expected to do so through a broad, nationally competitive process designed to attract the strongest possible field. Moving toward selection from only two complete proposals, without first establishing a clear framework and without ensuring robust national competition, would be extraordinarily difficult to defend from a fiduciary standpoint.

Selecting a development path for an 86-acre public asset is not a routine administrative decision. It is equivalent to managing a billion-dollar enterprise decision. In any private company of that scale, leadership would first establish a clear decision-making structure, obtain independent advisory input, and define the governing framework before committing to a path forward.

Those foundational steps — formation of a structured advisory council, engagement of independent national advisory expertise, and a defined community-informed planning framework — have not been publicly completed. If any such work has occurred, it has not been presented transparently to the public or to the City Council. Without that structured and visible process, it is difficult to see how a final conclusion could already be justified.

One Proposal That Reflects a National Model

The first proposal reviewed is from Foundation Vision Partners.

Their proposal outlines a structure in which:

• The City retains ownership of the land.

• The City plans first.

• The City builds horizontal infrastructure first.

• Development proceeds parcel by parcel.

• The City captures the increase in land value created by public investment.

This structure is consistent with how most major cities approach redevelopment — and consistent with what we have advocated all along: planning first.

Where the proposal differs is sequence.

Foundation Vision Partners proposes that the City hire them immediately to guide the process and oversee implementation.

Before hiring outside programming and management support — particularly at the scale proposed by Foundation Vision Partners — the City must first complete the foundational steps described above.

After those initial steps are completed, and after the City determines that it intends to move forward with an approach similar to that proposed by Foundation Vision Partners — including City-led horizontal infrastructure and phased parcel development — it may then conclude that outside programming and management support is necessary, as proposed by this group.

Given that the proposed advisory and program management services suggested by Foundation Vision Partners could involve fees in the range of approximately $22–$24 million over time, the City would have both a legal and fiduciary obligation to conduct a formal Request for Qualifications process before engaging any firm. Commitments of that magnitude require defined scope, competition, and transparent selection.

Only if, after completing the structural planning process and defining scope, the City concludes that it needs outside support as proposed by Foundation Vision Partners, should it then proceed through a lawful and competitive RFQ process.

The Capacity Question — And the Real Issue

If the City cannot organize itself to move a project through a structured planning process — forming the advisory body, engaging independent expertise, defining the framework, and setting accountability — and if the reason it is moving forward with selecting from only one or two proposals is that it lacks internal capacity, then we have a far more serious issue.

If the City lacks the capacity to structure the planning process properly, it cannot credibly claim to have the capacity to evaluate and negotiate a multi-billion-dollar development agreement either.

If that is the case, then the responsible course is not to accelerate selection.

It is to step back and organize the City first.

The City should hire a dedicated redevelopment director.
It should assemble a focused project team.
It should create accountability and deadlines.

If it cannot do that, then it should pause until it can.

Proceeding into binding negotiations without first organizing internally does not demonstrate leadership. It demonstrates risk.

The Cost of Getting This Wrong

If the Mayor moves forward now and Council allows that process to continue without structure, the result will not be efficiency.

It will be waste.

We will divert staff time away from pressing City needs.
We will spend millions of dollars on outside legal and consulting fees.
We will repeat the pattern seen in the prior Heintzelman negotiations, where enormous time and energy were spent only to arrive at an agreement that could not move forward.

The Mayor has expressed concern about wasting time.

Allowing negotiations to proceed without a structured planning framework is how time is truly wasted.

If Council ultimately determines that no agreement can be approved without a proper planning process, then every month spent negotiating without that framework will have been unnecessary.

If Council knows that it will not approve a redevelopment agreement absent a structured advisory and independent review process, then that process should begin now — not after resources have been spent and expectations created.

Council can and should state clearly:

No redevelopment agreement will be approved until the City completes a structured planning and advisory process.

That is not obstruction.

That is stewardship.

And if Council ultimately votes no because that work has not been done, then the delay will not have been caused by those calling for discipline — it will have been caused by proceeding without structure.

An Election Is Coming

This is an election year.

The Mayor has raised concerns about delay and political distraction.

But if the City proceeds without completing the structured planning process first, and Council later rejects the agreement because that work was never done, the delay will be far greater.

Voters will then decide whether the wiser course was to establish structure first — or to move forward without it.

Leadership is not measured by speed.

It is measured by discipline.

If You Agree

If you believe:

• The City should define the process before choosing a developer,

• A structured advisory council should be formed first,

• Independent advisory guidance should precede developer selection,

• And public control of this land should be protected,

I encourage you to sign the open letter calling for a plan-first approach.

This is not about stopping progress.

It is about doing it correctly.

[Link to sign-on letter]