Spectrum News / Bay News 9 reports today that Ken Welch is defending his approach to redeveloping the Historic Gas Plant District — a proposal-first approach that would sell the property to a single developer — saying it puts long-time residents and equity first. Experience from other large public redevelopments suggests a different sequencing reduces risk and improves long-term outcomes.
I’ve requested a meeting with the mayor to better understand how he reached his conclusions, and to share what I’ve learned from developers, national planners, and public-sector experts who have worked on projects of similar scale.
According to the report, the mayor says his administration is focused on honoring long-standing promises made to the displaced community, including:
affordable and workforce housing
jobs
opportunities for minority-owned small businesses
He also notes that new proposals include increased affordable housing and a 40% minority participation target.
Those goals matter. The real question is which approach — selling the site to a single developer up front, or having the City plan first and sell parcels over time — makes it more likely those goals are actually delivered and sustained over time.
Between those two approaches, having the City plan first and then sell parcels over time is more likely to deliver affordable housing, jobs, and opportunity, because no single deal or developer controls the outcome.
(The report further notes that advocates say they will keep pushing for legally binding guarantees to ensure long-time residents — and future generations — actually benefit from one of the most significant redevelopment projects in the city’s history. There is no realistic way to obtain true, long-term legally binding guarantees from a private developer — a point explained further below.)
Affordable and Workforce Housing: Far More Likely With Planning First
A proposal can promise affordable housing today.
But large projects take years to unfold. Costs rise. Markets change. When that happens, housing commitments are often delayed or renegotiated.
Why planning first makes delivery far more likely:
When the City plans first:
housing locations and timing are set before deals are chosen,
and City-controlled land value can support housing on site or elsewhere as needs change.
Just as important, no private developer can guarantee affordable housing over time — because affordability depends heavily on public subsidies, tax credits, and funding programs that change from year to year. Needs change. Programs change. Markets change.
A proposal-first buyer cannot deliver or guarantee affordable housing any more than the City itself can — and handing control to a single developer does not create any additional certainty. Planning first keeps the City’s options open so it can adjust how, where, and when housing is delivered as conditions change.
There is no upside to giving that flexibility away.
That makes housing delivery far more likely, not just well-intended.
Jobs: Far More Likely With Planning First
Under a proposal-first approach, jobs depend on one large project moving forward as planned.
If that project stalls, so do the jobs.
Why planning first makes delivery far more likely:
Parcel-by-parcel development means:
work starts sooner,
continues even if one developer has problems,
and creates a steadier flow of jobs rather than one big, risky bet.
If a developer who bought one parcel runs into trouble, that project may slow — but the rest of the site keeps moving, and the entire redevelopment does not shut down.
Over a multi-decade project, no developer can realistically guarantee job creation independent of market conditions, financing, and phasing.
That makes job creation far more likely over time.
Minority-Owned Small Businesses: Far More Likely With Planning First
A 40% participation target sounds strong.
And in truth, almost any developer can agree to a percentage target on paper.
The problem is that a target is not a guarantee — and there is no realistic way to turn it into one.
Minority business participation depends on many factors a developer cannot control over time:
which firms are available when work begins,
whether projects are broken into packages small enough to bid on,
whether bonding, insurance, and cash-flow requirements change,
and whether schedules shift in ways that favor large national firms.
No developer can realistically guarantee outcomes decades in advance — and no bank or investor will underwrite that kind of open-ended obligation. When conditions change, targets get renegotiated.
Why planning first makes participation far more likely:
Planning first lets the City shape the site so participation is realistic:
smaller parcels,
phased construction,
repeated opportunities over time — not one big moment that can be missed.
As with housing and jobs, these outcomes depend on conditions that no developer can realistically guarantee far into the future.
That makes meaningful participation far more likely than a percentage target tied to a single deal.
Why “Legally Binding Guarantees” Can’t Come From Developers
Advocates are right to call for legally binding guarantees.
The problem is that no private developer can realistically provide them.
No private developer can truly guarantee long-term outcomes like affordable housing levels, job creation, or minority participation over decades.
Not because they don’t want to — but because they can’t.
Here’s why:
Developers cannot put their full personal net worth on the line for decades-long promises.
Banks and investors will not guarantee outcomes that depend on future markets, costs, and public policy.
Construction costs, interest rates, insurance markets, and demand all change — often dramatically.
The uncertainty is simply too great for private parties to underwrite guarantees at that scale.
This isn’t a flaw in any particular developer.
It’s how complex, long-term projects actually work.
Because of that reality, “guarantees” in proposal-first deals are usually conditional — subject to financing, feasibility, and future renegotiation.
Why City Control Is the Only Real Guarantee
The only entity that can truly protect long-term promises is the City itself.
When the City:
keeps control of the land,
plans first,
sells parcels over time,
and controls the value created,
it doesn’t need guarantees from developers.
If markets are strong, the City can demand more.
If markets weaken, the City still controls the land and the timing.
Either way, the City remains in charge — not locked into one deal, one developer, or one moment in time.
This approach reflects how large public redevelopments are handled nationally — by cities that work with experienced planners and spread risk over time rather than concentrating it in a single transaction.
We Can’t Bet the City’s Future on a Single Roll of the Dice
The City doesn’t have to imagine the risks of relying on one large, proposal-driven deal. It has already lived them.
The recent agreement involving the Tampa Bay Rays and Hines was carefully negotiated and widely described as a path forward.
Then costs rose.
Financing assumptions changed.
The project no longer worked for the developer.
The developer stepped away.
When that happened, the City didn’t just lose time. It also lost:
millions of dollars spent on outside attorneys,
years of paid City staff time,
and momentum that can’t be recovered.
No one acted in bad faith.
The problem wasn’t intent.
The problem was tying too much of the City’s future to one deal and one developer.
Planning first — and selling land parcel by parcel — spreads that risk. One developer’s problems don’t stop everything.
That’s not slower.
That’s safer.
The bottom line
The mayor says equity comes first.
The question is how best to deliver on long-standing promises in a way that holds up over time.
Cities that work with experienced national planners and manage major public assets carefully tend to do the same thing: plan first, keep control of the land, and develop it over time.
That approach doesn’t depend on guarantees no private party can realistically make.
It avoids betting the City’s future on a single roll of the dice — and makes affordable housing, jobs, and opportunity far more likely over the long run.
1 comment
I agree completely with your recommendations! Plan first. Seek developer proposals to implement the plans only after community consensus on the plan.
Comments are closed.