Yesterday, I wrote about what the seven development proposals tell us about the sequencing question facing the 86-acre Historic Gas Plant site.
Today, the Tampa Bay Times published my op-ed, “Order Matters at the Gas Plant.”
The argument is straightforward:
Before selecting a master developer for one of the most valuable public assets the City will ever steward, St. Petersburg should first define its own planning framework.
————-
The full column appears below as published.
In January, St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch requested proposals from private development teams to redevelop the 86-acre Historic Gas Plant site. The city received nine proposals, but only two propose redevelopment of the entire 86 acres.
What is also relevant is that while they differ in design, they share a fundamental flaw in the proposal process: both would allow a single developer to determine where the streets go, what gets built where, and how the project is phased — while the City pays to build those new streets and the utilities beneath them.
Once the City builds and pays for that infrastructure, the land is estimated to be worth as much as $1 billion. Yet the proposals offer to buy the land today for far less — one offering $275 million and the other materially less. And the cost of building those streets and utilities could approach, or even consume, a significant portion of what the city is being offered.
In other words, the public finances the infrastructure that unlocks the value — and then transfers that value to the developer.
That leads to a basic question: if the city is paying for the streets, why shouldn’t it create its own master plan, build those streets, and sell the land at full value to developers, keeping the profits for the many needs of the city?
Developers would still do what they do best — build buildings. But the City would control the plan to protect the City’s long-term objectives. That would place the city in a position to adapt as needs and markets evolve over time, rather than committing the full site under the developer’s vision when that vision could instead be the City’s.
That is not anti-development. It is responsible stewardship. This approach would also allow participation over time by many developers, rather than concentrating financial and execution risk in a single developer. It would also broaden creative input and encourage competition across parcels, allowing the site to evolve as markets and community needs change.
The City Council is now asking the same question.
By a 6–2 vote, the Council expressed opposition to moving forward with any developer selection before the city plans first. That vote reflects a clear concern that the city has not yet defined its own vision before entertaining private visions.
And that concern is well founded. The city is not just a negotiator in this process. It is the trustee of one of the most valuable public assets it will ever control. Its duty is to maximize long-term value, protect community priorities, and act prudently on behalf of its residents. The beneficiaries are the people of St. Petersburg — today and for generations to come.
The City Council’s resolution points to the appropriate next step: engaging an independent national advisory organization such as the Urban Land Institute, or a similar body, to help the city determine how the planning process itself should proceed. A ULI process would not choose a developer, nor would it serve as the project’s long-term planner. Rather, it would provide independent guidance on how to structure a proper planning phase — including how infrastructure development should be phased, when land parcels should be offered for sale, and how public engagement should shape the framework.
The resolution also notes what best practices require once that structure is established: the engagement of professional planners, meaningful involvement of residents and businesses, and a community-driven strategy that honors the past while creating lasting benefits for generations.
It ensures that policy decisions are made intentionally rather than by default. It protects community input. It places the city in a stronger position to deliver outcomes that reflect public priorities — not simply private proposals.
Pausing does not mean abandoning the project.
It means the city must first decide what it wants to do and how it wants to do it.
Pausing is not obstruction. It is order.
The mayor should agree with the City Council and pause the Gas Plant proposal process. Define the City’s plan. Then proceed on terms set by the public — not by default.
———-
Take Action: Ask the Mayor to Honor the 6-2 Council Vote
If you would like to add your name to a public letter urging the Mayor to honor the City Council 6-2 resolution and pause the current developer-selection process, you can do so here.
https://homerunsmatter.com/plan-first-mayor/
