Four Proposals – No Clear Direction

The Tampa Bay Times reports that the City of St. Petersburg administration has narrowed the future of the Historic Gas Plant site to four proposals.

That sounds like progress.

But when you look more closely at what has been shortlisted, things get confusing:

• Two of the proposals would develop the entire site with a single partner.
• One would develop only a small portion of the property.
  It’s not clear why a proposal focused on only a small portion of an 86-acre site is being evaluated alongside proposals to develop the entire property.
  
• Another recommends the city develop the site itself.
  Why would a proposal centered on the city developing the site itself be included—except that it highlights the very issue this process has yet to resolve.

The Problem

The fact that all of these are being considered together points to the core problem: we have not yet decided what we are trying to do—or how we intend to do it.

These proposals are not different versions of the same plan.

They are fundamentally different answers to the question of what should happen on the site.

And when a process produces that kind of result, doesn’t it mean something important hasn’t been decided yet—namely, what the city is trying to do with this site.

Is this a single master-planned development?
A phased, multi-part approach?
Or a project led more directly by the city itself?

Those decisions come first.

What Should Happen Next

The next step seems clear: pause, bring in independent expertise, and define the plan before moving forward.

That’s what the St. Petersburg City Council and a broad cross-section of residents have been saying – planning should come first.

The St. Petersburg City Council, by an overwhelming 6-2 vote, has already pointed to the appropriate next step:

• Engage an independent national advisory organization—such as the Urban Land Institute, or a similar body—to help determine how the planning process itself should proceed. 

A ULI-type process would not choose a developer, nor would it serve as the project’s long-term planner.

Instead, it would provide independent guidance on how to structure a proper planning phase, including:

• How infrastructure development should be phased
• When and how land parcels should be offered
• How public engagement should shape the framework

The City Council resolution also reflects what best practices require once that structure is in place:

• Engagement of professional planners
• Meaningful involvement of residents and businesses
• A community-driven strategy that honors the past while creating lasting value

This approach ensures that decisions are made intentionally—not by default.

It protects community input.

And it places the city in a stronger position to deliver outcomes that reflect public priorities—not simply private proposals.

A Clear Message from the Community

This isn’t just a theoretical concern.

Across recent public input, a clear and consistent pattern has emerged.

• More than 400 residents and stakeholders signed onto a letter that I presented to the Mayor calling for a planning-first approach.
• More than 300 letters have been sent to the City Council expressing the same view.
• 90% of respondents in a Substack poll support defining a plan before selecting a developer.
• 83% of respondents in another Substack poll support creating an advisory council first to guide the process.

Taken together, these are not isolated opinions.

There is a shared concern underlying these responses:

That the process is moving toward decisions without first resolving the fundamental question of what the city is trying to do with this site.

They reflect a broad and consistent message from engaged members of the community:

• Define the plan for the land first
• Establish a clear, structured process
• Ensure meaningful public input before major decisions are made

The message is clear—and remarkably consistent across different forms of input:

Take the time to define the plan—then move forward with confidence.

And importantly, this is not about slowing progress.

It is about ensuring that progress is aligned with long-term community priorities.

A Moment for Leadership

Situations like this often call for a step back to ensure alignment before moving ahead.

They also underscore the importance of the right processes and leadership supports being in place to guide complex decisions.

As I discussed in a previous post, this highlights two important elements of leadership:

• First, having experienced, capable individuals in key roles who can evaluate complex information and provide clear, actionable recommendations
• Second, having a structure—such as an advisory group—that can provide independent perspective when decisions are complex and stakes are high.

What has been presented here is not a recommendation.

It is a set of fundamentally different—and conflicting—paths:

• One proposal to develop only a small portion of the site
• One proposing the city take on development itself
• And others to bring in a private partner for the full site

Presenting multiple, conflicting directions without a clear recommendation does not help move the decision forward.

It leaves the key question unanswered.  It is also exactly the kind of situation where an advisory group could help bring clarity and direction.

At a moment like this, leadership should be receiving not just information, but clear guidance.

Based on what is being presented, that guidance should be straightforward:

There is no clear direction yet.
We need to step back.
Bring in independent expertise.
And align with what the City Council has already called for—defining the plan before moving forward.

Final Thought

Pausing does not mean slowing down.  And remember the Rays have a lease on the property for at least three more years.  

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 process is moving forward. But movement alone is not progress. Progress requires direction.

And right now, the shortlist is telling us something important:

Not which proposal is best— but that we haven’t yet decided what we’re trying to build.

The Mayor should:

• Align with the St. Petersburg City Council
• Pause the current proposal process
• Form an advisory council and bring in national planning experts to define the City’s plan
• And then proceed on terms set by the public—not by default.