Quick Summary of Candidate Positions on the Future of the Gas Plant

Mayor candidates

• Kevin Batdorf, Brandi Gabbard, Jim Large, Maria Scruggs → City-Led Planning First
• Charlie Crist → Blue Ribbon Committee review first (city remains in control)
• Ken Welch  → Master Developer First  

District 6 City Council candidates

• Linsey Grove, Doug Homeyer, Jameka Williams → FOR City-Led Planning First / AGAINST Master Developer First
• Terri Balliet and Trevor Mallory → Provided comments but did not select an approach

Readers want to know

Recently, I asked my more than 43,000 HomeRunsMatter readers—most of them St. Petersburg residents and voters—whether voters should know where candidates for Mayor and City Council stand on the future of the Historic Gas Plant District before casting their ballots.

They said yes.

Based on that response, I contacted every candidate for Mayor and every candidate for the District 6 City Council seat.  I told each candidate that I would publish their comments exactly as they submitted them.

Here are the results.

Candidates for Mayor

The Question I asked:

Which of the following approaches would you pursue for redeveloping the Historic Gas Plant District? 

City-Led Planning First — The City first develops the vision and comprehensive master plan for the district, including streets, parks, public spaces, infrastructure and development parcels. Developers then compete to build individual portions of that plan.

Master Developer First — The City first selects a master developer and negotiates the redevelopment of the district primarily through that developer’s proposal.

The responses are presented in alphabetical order.

Kevin Batdorf

Position: City-Led Planning First

His Comments

The city should maximize and leverage the value of the asset to fund infrastructure projects throughout the city.

First, we need to bring in a nationally recognized consultant—or two or three—to determine the highest and best use of the property. The study will include the possible removal or an alternative solution to the I-175 highway barrier.

The parameters for the study will simply be the highest and best use to deliver well-paying jobs. We’ll look at all scenarios, including housing and amenities, to maximize the value.

Based on the results of the study, the city will likely develop the infrastructure, including green space. Parcels will be available for private developers at market price. My “Smart Development” plan will be implemented, which means the developers will pay an impact fee based on the actual impact the project has on the existing infrastructure within a prescribed radius.

At this time, we can only speculate about the vision. The most important step is the outside consultants’ reports.

Charlie Crist

Position: City-Led Review Before a Final Decision

Charlie Crist did not choose between the two approaches exactly as I presented them. However, his response indicates that he believes the City should remain in charge of the process before any final decision is made.

His Comments

Thank you for this. The work you have put into studying the Historic Gas Plant District, weighing the benefits and the costs of every plan, is a real service to St. Petersburg. As a private citizen you are doing what our local newspaper once did every single day, and our city is better for it. Its residents and stakeholders owe you their thanks.

God gave me two ears and one mouth, and I try to respect the ratio. So let me say it plainly: voices like yours deserve a seat at the table.

You asked me to choose between a city-led planning process and a master developer first approach. I want to give you a straight answer, and the honest one is that I cannot accept the choice the way it is framed. Let me explain.

The Gas Plant District is one of the most important assets our city owns. It is not just valuable land ready for redevelopment. It is a piece of our history that has to be honored. The families who were displaced, and their descendants, deserve a development that benefits them as much as anyone else in St. Pete. And it should be a place the whole community is proud of, somewhere to live, work, and play, that helps us meet real challenges.

Whether we get there through a city-led process or a master developer, at this stage, is not really the point. Here is what I think you will agree with. Under my administration, any approach will be city-led, because you will have a Mayor with proven executive experience who stays at the table, not one who hands over the keys and hopes for the best. I have done this kind of work before, at scale. Everglades restoration. The Seminole Compact. Healthcare initiatives that helped families afford their medicine. Time and again I have brought very different people together to get something done for the folks I serve.

I will also be honest with you about how we got here. This question only comes up because of a failed process under the current Mayor. Ken is a good man, and this is not personal. But when he rejected the Moffitt Cancer Center plan, developers heard the message loud and clear that St. Petersburg was not open for business. Now they are not doing business with the city the way we need them to. It is why so many projects sit paused, like the downtown municipal marina and the Municipal Services Center. It is why job creators like Jabil are choosing to grow somewhere other than their own hometown.

So here is my commitment. If the voters trust me to lead, one of my first acts in the transition will be to establish a Blue Ribbon Committee of stakeholders, experts, and other important voices to examine the process, understand how we got here, and weigh the winning proposal on its merits. That is how you get a transparent process, guided by the people best positioned to get this once-in-a-generation opportunity right.

Every proposal that was under consideration, including the Burg Bid the Mayor selected, had real strengths and would bring real benefits to our city. Every one of them could also be made better, through negotiation or through a better decision-making process. If we find the process that led to the Burg Bid was sound, my administration will give that project the due diligence it has earned. But the voters will make a clear choice this cycle. If they reject the current administration at the ballot box, it would make no sense for the next Mayor to simply inherit and rubber-stamp its pending decisions.

Let us not forget that the current Mayor once stood right where I stand now, facing this very question. In the end, he rejected the Gas Plant plan his predecessor had approved.

I am confident voters will choose our forward-looking plan to get St. Pete back on track. But I will be candid with you. If they choose to reelect Ken Welch, then I would actually prefer a master developer first approach for this project, because the incumbent has shown, again and again, that he cannot get the Gas Plant built. He left Tropicana Field underinsured. This work needs a steadier hand than that.

Thank you again, Ron, for the chance to make my commitment clear. Let me leave you with this. Under my administration, should the voters do me the honor of electing me, this will be a city-led process, even if a master developer first plan is the one we adopt. Voters are electing a Mayor to make the hard calls. That is exactly what I intend to do, and I believe the people of St. Petersburg know it. That is why I am confident we will win this year.

Brandi Gabbard

Position: City-Led Planning First

Her Comments

As our city’s most valuable remaining asset, the Historic Gas Plant District demands responsible stewardship, the courage to ask the right questions, and the vision to create our own community-led plan rather than simply reacting to developer-driven proposals.

As the city councilmember who led council in a six-to-two vote to request a pause by the administration to complete a plan first—a call that unfortunately fell on deaf ears—I know firsthand how vital it is for us to remain in the driver’s seat.

By pursuing a true city-led approach, we can properly evaluate whether we should sell the land, protect our long-term fiscal health, honor the unfulfilled promises made to displaced families, and dictate terms that permanently prioritize our community’s needs above all else.

We must ensure that residents stay engaged and at the heart of any redevelopment that happens, especially when that land is city-owned.

Jim Large

Position: City-Led Planning First

His Comments

It gives some control to the citizens.

It promotes competition.

It provides future flexibility based on needs.

Accountability and revenue.

Maria Scruggs

Position: City-Led Planning First

Her Comments

I support a city-led master-planning process for the Historic Gas Plant.

As a descendant of the Historic Gas Plant community, my support for a city-led planning process comes from both personal experience and sound public policy. The redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant District should never have been viewed as a single development project. It should have been part of a comprehensive vision for the future of all of South St. Petersburg.

For years, millions of public dollars have been invested in South St. Petersburg through a variety of initiatives. Yet when residents are asked what has fundamentally changed in their neighborhoods, too many struggle to identify measurable, lasting outcomes. That tells me we have been funding programs without first establishing a unified vision, clear priorities, measurable goals and accountability.

I have consistently called for a comprehensive planning process that includes not only the Historic Gas Plant District, but all of South St. Petersburg. Residents, business owners, neighborhood organizations, faith leaders and community stakeholders deserve a seat at the table to help shape the future of their community. Development should not happen to the community—it should happen with the community.

A comprehensive master plan should examine housing, transportation, economic development, small-business growth, workforce development, parks and recreation, arts and culture, environmental resilience and infrastructure as one connected strategy. Without that framework, projects become isolated investments instead of catalysts for long-term community prosperity.

I was also concerned that the effort to develop a strategic plan for South St. Petersburg was contracted to an individual without documented experience preparing a comprehensive community master plan. When planning for the future of an entire community, residents deserve a process led by qualified professionals with demonstrated expertise, supported by meaningful public engagement and transparent performance measures.

As Mayor, I will restore planning as a public process—not a political process. My administration will work with residents to develop a comprehensive plan for South St. Petersburg that establishes clear goals, measurable outcomes and regular public reporting so taxpayers can see where their dollars are going and what results they are producing.

The Historic Gas Plant redevelopment represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We owe it to the families who built that community, and to future generations, to ensure it becomes part of a larger vision that creates opportunity, preserves history and delivers lasting benefits for all of South St. Petersburg.

Mayor Ken Welch’s Response

Mayor Welch is not one of the candidates I asked to select between the two approaches because his administration has already selected a master developer and is negotiating from that developer’s proposal.  However, because this article discusses the direction chosen by his administration, I offered him the opportunity to explain that approach and the reasoning behind it.

His Statement

The premise that the City has simply turned the entire 86-acre Historic Gas Plant District over to a single master developer is inaccurate.

Our approach is city-directed, community-driven and developer-executed. The City established the priorities for this public land through years of planning and public engagement, including housing, jobs, economic opportunity, public infrastructure and finally fulfilling the promises made to the African American community displaced from the Historic Gas Plant neighborhood.

Following a competitive public process, the City selected two proposals, not one. The Pinellas County Housing Authority was selected to develop an 80-unit affordable senior housing community, with an emphasis on very low-income seniors and a preference for former Gas Plant residents. The Burg Bid team was selected for the larger portion of the district with a proposal that includes more than 3,600 affordable and workforce housing units, new public infrastructure, a major public park, cultural institutions, and a workforce training and small-business success center.

Neither selection represents a blank check or a transfer of the City’s responsibility. The City is negotiating the terms, The Burg Bid proposal must undergo our Community Benefits Agreement process with additional public participation, and all final agreements require approval by City Council before development can begin.

After decades of studies, plans and unfulfilled promises, I do not believe St. Petersburg must choose between thoughtful public planning and meaningful progress. Our responsibility is to set the vision, protect the public interest, require accountability and work with qualified partners capable of turning the community’s priorities into reality.

Candidates for City Council — District 6

The Questions

City Council members do not independently select the City’s redevelopment process. They vote on proposals that come before the Council.

Therefore, I asked each District 6 candidate how they would vote on each approach.

1. City-Led Planning First

If a proposal to proceed with a City-Led Planning First approach for redeveloping the Historic Gas Plant District came before the St. Petersburg City Council, would you vote:

FOR or AGAINST

2. Master Developer First

If a proposal to proceed with a Master Developer First approach for redeveloping the Historic Gas Plant District came before the St. Petersburg City Council, would you vote:

FOR or AGAINST

Terri Balliet

Position: Did Not Select an Approach

Her Comments

I take this decision very seriously, and I don’t believe it’s responsible to commit to a vote before seeing the actual proposal that comes before the City Council.  

The Historic Gas Plant District is one of the most important redevelopment opportunities in St. Petersburg’s history. My responsibility as a council member is to carefully review the final agreement, evaluate whether it serves the public interest, and make a decision based on the facts. 
 I’ll support the approach that delivers the best outcome for residents, including strong public accountability, quality urban planning, affordable housing, economic opportunity, and long-term value for the people of St. Petersburg. I won’t prejudge a proposal before the public and Council have the opportunity to evaluate its full details. 

Linsey Grove

Her Comments

I have said throughout my campaign that this redevelopment project should be community-driven. These acres are owned by residents past, present, and future; therefore, it is important that shared co-design and decision-making with the community are prioritized.

I believe that a City-Led Planning First approach is the best way to ensure that the community’s voice and needs are centered in redeveloping the Gas Plant District.

Additionally, the Community Benefits Advisory Council can provide transparency, accountability measures, and act as another channel for resident engagement in the planning process.

Doug Homeyer

His Comments

The Historic Gas Plant District is public land with deep historical significance and enormous long-term value to the people of St. Petersburg. Before committing the property to a master developer, I believe the City should establish a clear, comprehensive, and community-informed plan for the entire district.

That plan should address streets, infrastructure, stormwater, parks, public spaces, housing, transportation, development parcels, small-business opportunities, and the commitments owed to the descendants of the Historic Gas Plant community. It should also clearly identify what land the City intends to retain, lease, or potentially sell.

My position is about the proper sequence and protecting the public interest—not opposing private development or any particular development team. Developers bring experience, financing, and the ability to build. However, they should compete to implement the City’s vision rather than being placed in the position of establishing that vision primarily through negotiations after being selected.

A City-led plan would give developers clear expectations, allow competition for individual portions of the district, preserve flexibility as economic and community needs change, and help ensure that public benefits are specific, measurable, and enforceable.

This is a once-in-a-generation public asset. The City should determine the destination before selecting who will drive us there.

Trevor Mallory

Position: Did Not Select an Approach

His Comments

I’m open to a city-led planning approach, but everything depends on the details of the specific plan. Once I’m in a position to see and know the details, I will evaluate the approach based on how it affects locals, especially those who have already been displaced. We have a great opportunity to create housing, jobs, and thriving communities, and I need to see a plan that can make good on that potential.

Having a master developer lead the process could potentially work, but it depends on the plan and on the capability of the specific developer to deliver on that plan. Residents of St. Petersburg are going to be at the center of all decision-making for me. In this case, that means I want to see plans that prioritize the people who live here, especially families who have already been displaced from their homes. And the process needs to be led by someone focused on creating the housing, jobs, and prosperity that people in our city deserve.

Jameka Williams

Her Comments

I would vote for a City-Led Planning First approach and against the Master Developer First approach.

While it’s frustrating that every time there is a new administration we start this entire process over, I believe it is best to start with a city-led plan, as we have done with many of our publicly owned assets.

Before selecting a development partner, the City should establish the vision as a community—not just with key stakeholders at the table. In doing so, it gives the public greater leverage to secure affordable housing, infrastructure and green-space investments, defined community benefits, and long-term transparency and accountability.

At the same time, we are years into this process, and I am not interested in dragging it out indefinitely. While Mayor Welch has identified The Burg Bid as his preferred development team, the Council has not yet made that decision and has agreed to a pause for an independent feasibility study to be conducted.

If elected, I will evaluate any proposals based on what comes from that study, whether the proposal includes tangible community benefits and transparent checkpoints for accountability, and whether it fulfills the commitments made to residents.

If it does, I believe we should move forward rather than continue a cycle of delays and changing direction.

My Thoughts

My preferred approach

I have stated my position throughout my series of posts on  HomeRunsMatter:   I strongly believe the City should complete its own planning first.

My reasoning comes down to three issues: value, vision and control.

Value: The Historic Gas Plant District is one of the City’s most valuable public assets. The City should create the plan, install or coordinate the infrastructure, and allow developers to compete for individual parcels so that the public—not one master developer—captures as much of the land’s future value as possible.  (See Value: We Should Not Give Away the Gas Plant)

Vision: The City, with meaningful public participation and help from nationally recognized planners, should determine the streets, parks, public spaces, development parcels and overall character of the district. Those decisions should reflect the community’s vision, not begin with the vision contained in one developer’s proposal.  (See Who Should Decide What Kind of Park St. Pete Builds)

Control: This redevelopment will unfold over decades. A parcel-by-parcel approach would preserve the City’s ability to respond to changing markets, community needs and future opportunities rather than committing most of the district to one developer at the outset.  (See Why St. Petersburg Should Keep Control of the Gas Plant)

Candidates Who Supported City-Led Planning First

I was encouraged that four candidates for Mayor—Kevin Batdorf, Brandi Gabbard, Jim Large and Maria Scruggs—clearly supported City-Led Planning First.

I was also encouraged that three District 6 City Council candidates—Linsey Grove, Doug Homeyer and Jameka Williams—said they would vote for City-Led Planning First and against Master Developer First.

Their reasons varied, but their responses reflected many of the same concerns I have raised throughout this series: preserving public control, encouraging competition, protecting long-term value, involving the community in setting the vision and maintaining flexibility as the project unfolds.

That is important. It shows that City-Led Planning First is not simply my position. It is supported by a substantial majority of the candidates who directly answered the question.

Charlie Crist’s Suggested Approach

I also believe Charlie Crist’s proposed approach is reasonable. He would establish a Blue Ribbon Committee of stakeholders and experts to review the current process, evaluate The Burg Bid and determine the best way forward.

While I believe a careful and independent review would ultimately lead to a City-Led Planning First approach, there is nothing unreasonable about assembling qualified people, bringing in outside planning expertise and making the decision after that review.

Council Candidates who did not select an approach

Mayor Welch’s Comments

Why This Matters

The Historic Gas Plant District may be the most valuable public asset St. Petersburg will ever redevelop.

The decisions made now will shape our city for generations.

They will determine not only what is built, but who controls the process, who receives the financial benefits and whether future city leaders can adjust the plan as markets and community needs change.