Before inviting developers, the City must adopt a real redevelopment plan first.

Update – November 2025: This revised version clarifies that while §163.380 doesn’t explicitly say the 30-day process (discussed below) must follow adoption of a redevelopment plan, the structure and intent of Florida’s CRA make that sequence unmistakable to me — the statutes say plan first, then invite proposals.

This is a long post.   I am hoping — and expecting — that the Mayor, City Council, and the Press will read it in full.

But for everyone else, if you just want the highlights, here they are.

I am not a lawyer but I have read Florida’s Community Development Act and this is my good faith reading of it.  

Highlights

• What’s happening now:
  In mid-November, Mayor Ken Welch plans to open a 30-day window inviting developers to submit new proposals for the 86-acre Gas Plant site — the land under and around Tropicana Field.

• Why this matters:
  The Gas Plant site sits inside the Intown Community Redevelopment Area (CRA).  As I see it, the Mayor’s 30-day process skips skips the foundational step the CRA framework is built on: the City must first adopt a redevelopment plan that meets the statute’s content requirements (§§163.360–163.362). The disposition step (§163.380) is an implementation tool that is used after that plan exists.

• Why it does not look legal:
  The City does have a Intown CRA Plan.  But it is too general and lacks the required details for the Gas Plant site- including street layout, public improvements, uses, and housing. Without an adopted plan that meets state standards, the 30-day solicitation reverses the lawful sequence of plan first, build second.

• What I’m asking the Mayor and City Council to do:
  Stop the 30-day process now and bring the City into compliance with Florida law.
  If the Mayor will not act, the City Council — acting as the CRA Board — should pass a resolution suspending the solicitation until a lawful redevelopment plan is adopted.

  Once the City begins that planning process, it can — and should — invite developers to share their ideas. That input belongs inside the planning stage, not as a substitute for it. That’s how innovation and private expertise can help — not through an open RFP, but through a structured Request for Information (RFI) process led by the City as part of defining the plan.

• Why this protects the City:
  Proceeding under an invalid process risks lawsuits, invalid contracts, and loss of public trust. Stopping now protects the City’s negotiating power and its legal footing.

• What happens without a plan:
  The Ellison/ARK/Horus proposal, which includes an “innovation hall” and large entertainment venue, illustrates the risk. With no adopted framework, developers end up defining the plan themselves — not the public. That’s exactly what state law is meant to prevent.

  The Ellison “Community Fund” 
  The Ellison group has now proposed creating a “community fund” from a share of future project profits. That might sound positive, but it raises concerns.

  If the project were fully financed and paying fair market value for City-owned land, there would be no “profits” to give back — those proceeds would already belong to the public. The CRA law already requires that all redevelopment revenues serve public goals under an adopted plan.
  
  This kind of offer often appears when a developer is trying to secure a deal, using promised “community benefits” to strengthen their proposal before basic planning and legal steps are complete.  Public value should come through the plan itself — not from a developer-controlled fund after the fact.

• What should the city do instead:
  • Engage the public.
  • Hire a nationally recognized planning and economics team to help the city prepare a Gas Plant Framework Plan that defines the grid, parks, land uses, and community benefits — before inviting any private proposals. 

• What the plan should focus on:
  Housing, jobs, and helping children succeed — not speculative entertainment projects or developer wish lists.

• How other cities have done it right:
  Cities like Denver (Stapleton) and Washington, D.C. (Walter Reed) followed this approach — planning first, development second — and achieved long-term community benefit.

• Bottom line:
  Plan first. Build right. Stop the 30-day process, adopt a lawful redevelopment plan, then invite fair, transparent competition within it.

The Full Report

A Call to the Mayor and City Council

In mid-November, Mayor Ken Welch plans to open a 30-day window inviting developers to submit new proposals for the 86-acre Gas Plant site — the land under and around Tropicana Field.

My guest column in the Tampa Bay Times today (also printed at the bottom) — “When It Comes to St. Pete’s Trop Site, Plan Before You Build” — explains why this 30-day process skips the essential first step required:  adopting a redevelopment plan that meets the state law requirements before seeking private proposals.

This 30-day “open window” for new Gas Plant proposals isn’t just rushed — it’s inconsistent with Florida’s Community Redevelopment Act (Statutes 163.360–163.380), which require cities to plan first and build second.  While I’m not a lawyer, I’ve read the relevant statutes and they seem pretty clear.    

Call For Action 

• I am asking Mayor Ken Welch to stop the 30-day process now and bring the City back into compliance with Florida law.

  Continuing under the current notice risks violating state law, exposing the City to potential lawsuits from developers or residents whose proposals are solicited under an unlawful process.

  Proceeding now could also jeopardize any eventual land sale or lease, since contracts entered into outside the statutory framework can be challenged or invalidated later.

• If the Mayor will not stop the process, I am requesting that the St. Petersburg City Council, acting as the CRA Board, adopt a resolution to suspend the solicitation of proposals until a lawful redevelopment plan has been adopted.

  Council has both the authority  and the responsibility to do so.  Stopping the process is responsible leadership. It restores public trust, protects the City’s negotiating position, and upholds the integrity of the redevelopment framework written to prevent exactly this kind of premature solicitation.

• The Mayor and the City Council should ask the city attorneys to provide a legal opinion as to how they believe this current process is legal – and address the points I make here. 

Why the 30-Day Gas Plant Process Is Not Legal

As I see it, Florida’s CRA framework operates in sequence: first adopt a redevelopment plan with required content (§§163.360–.362); then use implementation tools like notices and dispositions (§163.380) within that plan. My concern is that the Intown CRA Plan does not contain the Gas Plant–specific elements §163.362(2) contemplates.

Based on my reading of Florida’s Community Redevelopment Act, the following statutory requirements appear to be missing from the City’s current Intown CRA Plan. Each was written by lawmakers to balance the extraordinary powers cities receive under a CRA — powers to condemn, clear, and control land — with equally strong duties to plan transparently, rebuild fairly, and protect the public interest.

1. No adopted street or circulation plan

Statutory requirement:
Section 163.362(2)(a) requires the plan to show, in diagrammatic/general terms, the **street layout** (and related open-space framework).

Why it matters:
A defined street grid is the foundation of a public redevelopment plan. It establishes access, block sizes, connectivity, and equity — determining who can reach the site and how value is shared. Without an adopted circulation plan, developers effectively design the city’s streets instead of the City doing so through public process.

Why the authors required it:
When the Legislature created CRAs, it knew cities were using eminent domain to wipe out entire neighborhoods — erasing their street networks and isolating residents. Lawmakers required every plan to include a new street layout so that the public, not a developer, would decide how to restore access and rebuild the urban fabric. The street map requirement was a direct safeguard against cities replacing one disconnected enclave with another.

2. No identification of blocks, utilities, or public improvements

Statutory requirement:
Section 163.362(2)(d) calls for identifying public parks, recreation areas, streets, utilities, and other public improvements in the plan.

Why it matters:
Redevelopment succeeds only when public infrastructure — streets, utilities, and parks — is planned alongside private development. Without this mapping, the City cannot estimate costs, coordinate with utilities, or ensure fair public access.

Why the authors required it:
When CRAs were authorized, cities were receiving state and federal funds to rebuild cleared areas. Lawmakers wanted assurance that the public portions of those projects — parks, streets, utilities — would be clearly defined before land was transferred to private interests. This provision made cities demonstrate that redevelopment served a civic purpose, not just a private one.

3. No adopted building types, uses, or number of dwelling units

Statutory requirement:
Sections 163.362(2)(b)–(c) call for limits/standards on building type, size, height, number and use, and for the plan to show the approximate number of dwelling units.”

Why it matters:
These details define the character and scale of redevelopment — how much housing, what mix of uses, and what intensity of construction the public will see. Without them, the City cannot evaluate density, infrastructure demand, or consistency with its Comprehensive Plan.

Why the authors required it:
Cities were clearing neighborhoods that once had homes, stores, and small businesses. The Legislature required building types and housing quantities to be spelled out so local governments could prove that redevelopment would actually replace what was lost — housing, jobs, and opportunity — instead of just producing speculative or exclusionary projects.

4. No public-capital or cost plan

Statutory requirement:
§ 163.362(9) requires the plan to include a detailed statement of projected redevelopment costs, including amounts to be spent on publicly funded capital projects in the CRA and any indebtedness proposed to be incurred (if to be repaid with increment revenues).

Why it matters:
A redevelopment plan must identify how much public money is at stake. Without a cost plan, neither Council nor taxpayers can understand the scale of financial commitment or future debt exposure.

Why the authors required it:
When CRAs were created, they were given the power to pledge tax-increment revenues and borrow money — effectively spending future taxes today. The Legislature included this financial-disclosure requirement so cities couldn’t commit public funds or debt behind closed doors. It forced every CRA to show taxpayers the full cost of redevelopment before proceeding.

5. No time-certain for completion

Statutory requirement:
163.362(10) requires the plan to specify a time-certain for completing redevelopment that is financed by tax-increment revenues.

Why it matters:
This provision prevents open-ended projects that tie up tax-increment funds indefinitely. It forces accountability and schedule discipline.

Why the authors required it:
Lawmakers saw early CRAs becoming permanent tax diversions, draining revenue from counties and schools long after projects were complete. The “time certain” clause was inserted to guarantee that every CRA had an endpoint — when its mission was accomplished and tax revenues returned to general public use. It was a built-in check against endless extensions and political drift.

6. No findings of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

Statutory requirement:
§ 163.360(2)(a) provides that a community redevelopment plan must conform to the city’s adopted Comprehensive Plan under the Community Planning Act.

Why it matters:
Every redevelopment plan must align with the City’s adopted land-use and infrastructure policies. Without a formal finding of consistency, the plan risks internal conflict with zoning, transportation, and housing goals.

Why the authors required it:
When Florida adopted statewide growth management in the 1980s, lawmakers required redevelopment to fit within a city’s comprehensive plan so that local governments couldn’t use CRA powers to bypass zoning or land-use rules. This safeguard kept redevelopment consistent with the city’s overall vision and prevented politically driven exceptions.+

7. No restrictions or covenants ensuring adherence to the plan

Statutory requirement:
163.362(6) requires the plan to provide for retaining controls and establishing restrictions or covenants running with the land sold or leased for private use, as needed to effectuate the purposes of the CRA law.

Why it matters:
These provisions keep public control in place even after land is sold or leased. The covenants and restrictions bind developers to the adopted plan so that private projects cannot quietly diverge from public goals. Without them, a developer could redesign or repurpose property after closing, leaving the City with little recourse.
The Intown CRA Plan includes no such covenants or controls for the 86-acre site.

Why the authors required it:
The Legislature granted CRAs the power to dispose of land taken through public means, but insisted that cities retain legal control over what happens afterward. This requirement ensured that once land was sold or leased, private owners remained bound to the public plan — honoring the public purpose that justified the original acquisition of that land.

8. Improper use of the 30-day notice procedure

Section 163.380 of Florida’s Community Redevelopment Act allows a city or community redevelopment agency to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of property located within a community redevelopment area.

As I read the statute, that authority follows the earlier provisions — §§ 163.360 through 163.362 — which describe how a redevelopment plan must first be adopted and what that plan must contain.

It seems logical that the law is structured in that order for a reason: planning sections come first, then the implementation section on disposition.
To me, that sequence shows that a city should have a valid, adopted redevelopment plan in place before it invites proposals or disposes of CRA land.

Why I believe this matters:
If the City uses the 30-day process under § 163.380 before adopting a Gas Plant–specific plan that meets § 163.362’s requirements — showing the street layout, public improvements, land uses, and housing framework — it reverses that sequence.
That means private proposals could end up defining the plan instead of responding to it.
This risks turning what was intended as an implementation step into a planning exercise led by developers rather than by the public.

Why the law was written this way:
When lawmakers created Florida’s CRA framework, they had just witnessed the failures of “urban renewal,” when cities cleared neighborhoods and then sought private projects to fill the void.
The CRA law was designed to prevent that pattern from happening again.
By placing the plan requirements in §§ 163.360–163.362 before the disposition authority in § 163.380, the Act appears intended to ensure that a community-adopted plan — not a developer’s proposal — sets the framework for redevelopment.
That structure keeps public planning and civic accountability ahead of private negotiation.

The broader intent:
Based on how the Act is organized, it seems clear that lawmakers wanted cities to adopt a redevelopment plan before offering any publicly assembled land for private redevelopment.
That sequence reflected lessons from the “urban renewal” era, when deals were made before public plans existed and entire neighborhoods were lost.
The CRA framework was written to reverse that pattern — ensuring that public planning comes first, providing transparency, fairness, and a clear civic vision before any private negotiations begin.

Why this matters now

Recent developments underscore why this legal sequence is so important.
On November 4, 2025, ARK Invest and Ellison Development announced plans to create national investment funds for their unsolicited $6.8 billion proposal to redevelop the Gas Plant District — allowing individuals across the country to buy tokenized equity stakes in the project.

While the effort is framed as “democratizing access to wealth creation,” it illustrates precisely why Florida’s Community Redevelopment Act requires a duly adopted redevelopment plan before any private proposal or investment offering moves forward.  Private offerings cannot substitute for the public planning steps. 

The 95-acre Gas Plant tract remains public CRA property, and until a plan is approved by City Council, no developer — however visionary or well-financed — can lawfully define, market, or raise funds around how that land will be used.

This kind of financial momentum before public planning is what the Legislature sought to prevent when it created clear sequencing in §§ 163.362 and 163.380. The statute places civic vision and public accountability ahead of private capital — ensuring that community priorities, not investor timelines, determine how redevelopment unfolds.

Summary

Taken together, these omissions indicate that the Intown CRA Plan does not meet the statutory definition of a redevelopment plan for the Gas Plant District.

Any legal opinion claiming the 30-day solicitation is valid should address each of these points directly and explain, with citations, what part of this analysis is wrong.

What Happens Without a Plan:  The Ellison Proposal 

The risk of skipping the planning step is already visible. The only full-scale concept now circulating — from the Ellison/ARK/Horus group — shows exactly what happens when there’s no adopted redevelopment framework.

Their proposal features an “innovation hall” and large entertainment venue, each presented as a civic benefit, but no public plan or analysis demonstrates that these are city priorities. There’s also no clarity about who would fund, build, or operate these facilities, or whether they would compete with existing venues like the Mahaffey Theater, the Coliseum, or Jannus Live.

Without a city-adopted framework, proposals like this end up defining the plan after the fact — not in accordance with it. That’s precisely why the law requires planning first. The public must decide the goals and framework before developers propose how to build within it. Otherwise, the debate becomes a contest of renderings and slogans, not a process guided by public purpose and legal compliance.

The Ellison proposal is not the problem — it’s a symptom of the process. The problem is the City’s decision to invite private ideas before defining its own plan.

The Ellison “Community Fund” Proposal

The Ellison/ARK/Horus team has also proposed creating a “community fund” from a share of future development profits. While that might sound appealing, it underscores the larger issue. Offers like this often appear when a developer is trying to secure a deal before a public plan is in place — using promised “community benefits” to strengthen a proposal in the absence of a defined framework.

If the project were fully financed and paying fair market value for City-owned land, there would be no profits to “share.” Those proceeds would already belong to the public. Moreover, Florida’s Community Redevelopment Act already requires that all redevelopment revenues be used for public purposes under a city-adopted plan — not through a developer-controlled fund.

A “community fund” managed privately risks shifting public oversight to private discretion.
Public benefit must be built into the plan itself, not promised after the fact. That’s precisely why the law requires the City to adopt the plan first — so that the framework for community benefit is public, enforceable, and permanent.

The Purpose Behind the Law

Based on my review of Florida’s Community Redevelopment Act and the City’s own records, here is my understanding of what the law intended — and how it applies to the Gas Plant site today.

How the Community Redevelopment Act Came to Be

The Florida Community Redevelopment Act of 1969 — Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes — was written for property inside officially designated community redevelopment areas, the same kind of land that cities once cleared in the name of “urban renewal,” erasing entire neighborhoods. 

That is exactly what happened in St. Petersburg’s Historic Gas Plant neighborhood, where hundreds of Black families and small businesses were uprooted and a functioning street grid was erased to make way for the stadium.

How St. Petersburg Used the Law

In 1983, the City of St. Petersburg created the Gas Plant Redevelopment Area under this same law and adopted a redevelopment plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III. Acting through its Community Redevelopment Agency, the City declared the area “blighted” and then used its CRA powers to acquire and clear the land—through purchase, relocation, and, where necessary, condemnation. Those powers came directly from §§ 163.370 and 163.380 of the statute.

The CRA framework gives a city extraordinary authority: it can take private property, remove neighborhoods, and convey public land for private redevelopment, all in the name of eliminating blight. Recognizing how sweeping that power was, the Legislature imposed strict safeguards. It required that every such action be taken only “in accordance with an adopted community redevelopment plan” and that the plan itself come first.

Why the Plan Must Come First

Lawmakers recognized that when a city holds such land, it carries a public obligation to rebuild it as part of the city—not as a single private enclave. That obligation is written into the statute itself. Every community redevelopment plan adopted under the CRA must be approved first and must guide every subsequent action. 

This was a deliberate safeguard. The authors of the CRA understood that cities wielding this level of power must begin with a public map—a defined street grid and circulation plan—before inviting any private proposals. Otherwise, the same unchecked authority that once erased neighborhoods could simply be repeated under a new name.

The Role of the Street Grid

The authors of the law understood that streets are the framework of civic life: they define access, equity, and economic value. By requiring a defined grid and circulation plan before any disposition of property, the statute ensures that redevelopment restores what urban renewal once destroyed—connected streets, open access, and the opportunity for new neighborhoods to grow where old ones were lost.

Equally important, §§ 163.362 and 163.380 establish a clear sequence: the City must adopt that plan first, before any developer may buy, lease, or propose on the land.How the streets and blocks are laid out determines who benefits from the land’s value. A developer’s map will always be designed to maximize profit within a single project; a city’s map distributes value and connectivity across the broader community. When the public defines the grid, the value created by planning and infrastructure stays with the city and its citizens, not captured by the first private team to stake a claim.

If the City allows the plan to be defined or redefined through an RFP, it reverses this sequence and abandons the discipline the law was written to enforce. The “plan first” rule exists because the Legislature understood that great power must be balanced by public planning, not private proposals.

If a private group designs the layout first, the city ends up reacting to a financial model instead of leading with a civic vision—the exact outcome the Legislature sought to prevent. By requiring that the city adopt the grid and circulation system before inviting proposals, the law keeps both control and value where they belong—with the public—and ensures that redevelopment reconnects a neighborhood to the city instead of creating another project apart from it.

The Moral Obligation Today

In St. Petersburg, much has been said about “honoring the history” of the Gas Plant neighborhood and fulfilling past promises. But true honor isn’t achieved through words or commemorative plaques—it comes from rebuilding in a way that corrects what was lost. 
I see the law’s intent and the city’s moral obligation as aligned: the same statute that gave the City power to take the Gas Plant land structures the process so that the City adopts a public redevelopment plan — restoring the street layout, access, and framework for shared value — before implementation tools are used. The same streets that were once taken away must be the first element returned. Anything less repeats the pattern of exclusion under a new name.

What Should the Mayor and City Council Do

Florida’s Community Redevelopment Act (CRA) — Statutes 163.360, 163.362, and 163.380 — establishes a clear, process for redeveloping property inside a CRA, including the Intown Community Redevelopment Area that covers the Gas Plant site.  It’s the same process that smart cities follow, whether the property is in a CRA or not.  

If the City wants to move forward lawfully and wisely, the steps are clear:

• After stopping the 30-day process, work with a nationally recognized planning and economics team to prepare a Gas Plant Framework Plan that defines the grid, parks, land uses, and development goals.in compliance with CRA statutes.
• Invite developer input at this stage – not before.
  As part of this planning process, the City can and should invite developers to share how they could contribute to the plan’s goals through a structured Request for Information (RFI) process.
  
  This is the moment to ask questions like:
  – How could private investment help achieve the City’s housing, jobs, and equity goals?
  – What partnerships or innovations might complement the City’s framework once it’s adopted?
  – What strategies could help fund public improvements such as streets, parks, and utilities?
  
  An RFI process lets the City gather ideas and data while retaining control — the planning remains public, but the conversation includes private expertise. This is how real innovation happens within a lawful, transparent structure — not through an open-ended RFP that lets developers define the plan for the City.
• Begin with a 30,000-foot look at the entire Tampa Bay region — understand where St. Petersburg fits within it, what its distinctive strengths are, and what it is not. Tampa is the region’s financial, corporate, and convention hub. St. Petersburg, by contrast, has become a livable, creative, waterfront city rooted in arts, culture, local business, and neighborhood scale. Its strengths include the waterfront park system, walkable downtown, cultural and innovation districts, entrepreneurial energy, and historic neighborhoods that give it character and quality of life.

  The planning process should start from that identity — asking how the Gas Plant can build on those strengths and reinforce what makes St. Petersburg unique, not try to replicate Tampa. A regional perspective ensures the project enhances St. Petersburg’s role within the area while staying true to its civic character.

• Focus next on what truly matters for St. Petersburg’s future — housing, jobs, helping the kids who need us most reach their full potential (something no one seems to be talking about enough), and resilience.  The Gas Plant’s redevelopment should directly or indirectly advance these goals.

  • Housing: Home prices and rents are unaffordable for many.

    Some affordable and workforce housing could be built on-site, but another approach could be to lease or sell portions of the Gas Plant property at full market value and dedicate part of those proceeds — through a lockbox or permanent community fund — to underwrite affordable housing throughout the city, where land is less costly and more units can be built.

  • Helping children succeed: Too many of our children are far behind in reading and math.

    The same community fund could also invest in early learning, after-school programs, and extra teachers – investments to help the kids who need us most reach their potential and strengthen families citywide.  

    A significant number of our students are way below grade level in core skills like reading and math. The data is there and I see it first hand – I am mentor at Lakewood Elementary School and Bay Pointe Middle School.  

  • Jobs and opportunity: There are wide gaps in workforce partication and how job gains are distributed across neighborhoods.

    The plan should also support local job training and workforce development programs, particularly those outside the site, so that the economic benefit reaches the broader community.

  • Resilience: St. Petersburg has more than $5 billion in needed sewer and stormwater improvements

    The plan should include strategies that make both the Gas Plant redevelopment and the entire city more resilient to hurricanes and the resulting flooding. That means designing stormwater and drainage systems that protect surrounding neighborhoods, incorporating effective flood-control measures, and ensuring that redevelopment strengthens St. Petersburg’s capacity to withstand and recover from major storms while safeguarding residents, businesses, and essential city services.

• Engage residents, and business leaders to shape that plan through an open public process.

• Adopt the plan formally through the City Council acting as the CRA.
• Once that plan is approved under §§163.360–.362, the City can use the disposition tools under §163.380, with actions evaluated against the adopted plan. Invite qualified developers to compete — fairly and transparently — to carry out what the plan calls for.

These steps would bring the City back into compliance with state law, restore public trust, and protect it from costly legal and reputational risks — while preserving time to plan the right future for this once-in-a-generation site.

This isn’t delay — it’s due diligence. It ensures redevelopment is legal, fair, and grounded in public priorities.  It ensures that the public defines the plan before private developers shape it — the fundamental safeguard the CRA law was designed to provide.

The Legal Misstep Behind the Rays–Hines Deal

As I see it, the same issue arose in the city’s earlier process with the Rays and Hines proposal. That deal moved forward under the assumption that the broader Intown CRA Plan met the legal requirement for a redevelopment plan. But it did not include the detailed street grid, open-space design, or land-use framework for the 86-acre Gas Plant portion of the district — elements explicitly required under §163.360–§163.380 of Florida law.

If I have this wrong, I would like to see a a contrary legal interpretation that demonstrates how §163.362’s plan-content requirements were satisfied for the 86 acres.

Thus, in my opinion the City acted as if a valid redevelopment plan existed when it did not. That allowed private developers to shape the plan themselves — reversing the statutory sequence and undermining the very purpose of Florida’s Community Redevelopment Act, which is to ensure public planning comes first.

Why the 86 Acres Matter

The Intown CRA Plan never included a detailed framework for the 86-acre Gas Plant portion of the district. The rest of the CRA already had existing streets, utilities, and zoning, so it functioned under an established framework. But the Gas Plant site is entirely different — it’s one large, publicly owned tract with no street grid, park system, or defined land uses.

Again, as I read the statutes, Florida’s Community Redevelopment Act requires a detailed, site-specific plan before any CRA land is sold, leased, or offered for proposals. Because those elements were never adopted for the 86 acres, the City effectively treated the area as if it were planned when it wasn’t — reversing the legal sequence and leaving the public’s largest redevelopment opportunity without the protections the law intended.

Why Planning First Matters

The Gas Plant site is public land — assembled decades ago for community redevelopment. That history gives the City not just an opportunity but an obligation to handle it properly.

Planning first is what the law requires, and it’s also what good governance demands. Cities that skip the planning step end up reacting to private agendas instead of advancing public goals. Cities that follow the law — like Denver’s Stapleton redevelopment and Washington, D.C.’s Walter Reed project — keep control, capture value, and deliver long-term community benefit.

In both cities, the process began with a publicly led master plan that established the street grid, parks, land uses, and infrastructure framework before any developer was selected. In Denver, that plan guided 20 years of phased redevelopment at the former Stapleton Airport, producing thousands of homes, extensive parks, and billions in value that stayed with the city.

In Washington, D.C., the city completed its Walter Reed Master Plan first, adopted it publicly, and only then selected Hines as the master developer. Hines had to purchase the property at fair market value and agree to implement the adopted plan — not create one of its own. The result was a transparent, competitive process that preserved public control, ensured compliance with the redevelopment framework, and delivered long-term value to residents.

In both cases, the city-led plan set the street and land-use framework; the private partner was selected to implement that framework, not to define it.

That is exactly how St. Petersburg should proceed: adopt a clear, lawful plan first, then invite developers to compete to implement it — not the other way around.

Plan First. Build Right.

The path forward is simple: stop the 30-day process, adopt a lawful redevelopment plan, and then invite fair competition within it. That’s how to follow the law, protect taxpayers, and ensure that redevelopment of the Gas Plant truly serves all of St. Petersburg.

My Full Tampa Bay Times Column

(Published Nov. 1, 2025)

When It Comes to St. Pete’s Trop Site, Plan Before You Build
By Ron Diner

In mid-November, the city of St. Petersburg plans to open a 30-day window inviting developers to submit new proposals for all or part of the 86-acre Historic Gas Plant District — the land under and around Tropicana Field.

On paper, that sounds like progress, but it isn’t proper planning. The 30-day notice is a procedural step under Florida Statute 163.380, now being used as an open call for development ideas, something it seems the law never intended. It looks like competition without rules — no published criteria, no proof of financial capacity and no fair way to compare proposals. That’s not how most major civic projects are managed.

Florida law seems pretty clear to me: before public land in a redevelopment area can be sold or leased, a formal redevelopment plan must be in place. The statutes governing this process — 163.360, 163.362 and 163.380 — spell out what that plan must include: the street grid, land uses and other key elements that define how an area will develop. Those details come first. The city’s Intown community redevelopment area plan doesn’t appear to include them for the Gas Plant site, which raises fundamental questions about whether this 30-day process meets the intent of state law.

In short, the city’s current notice may comply procedurally, but it does not appear to do so substantively. The 30-day process seems to be designed for small parcels within established districts, rather than for an 86-acre site that should begin with a comprehensive plan, not an open call for ideas.

The same statute also requires developers to demonstrate their financial and legal ability to carry out their plans, information that the city does not appear to have requested nor established criteria for evaluating.

The real issue isn’t speed, it’s sequence. Every successful city follows the same pattern: (1) Plan first — define goals for housing, jobs and culture, (2) Design the framework — set the grid, parks and zoning, (3) Choose partners — let qualified developers compete to implement the plan.

Cities that skip the planning phase end up reacting to private visions instead of advancing public goals. Cities that have got it right include Denver’s redeveloped Stapleton Airport and D.C.’s Walter Reed.

Planning first, development second — that’s what protects the public interest. When the grid, park, and zoning are set, developers compete with clear rules. The city keeps control and receives fair market value for its land.

Some say gathering ideas can’t hurt. But without a plan, “ideas first” creates confusion — glossy renderings that reflect a developer’s business model, not public goals. Debate shifts from what should be accomplished on the land to which picture looks best.

The risk is already visible. The only full-scale proposal now circulating, from the Ellison/ARK/Horus group, includes an innovation hall and entertainment venue. Each sounds impressive, but who decided these are the city’s priorities? Who would pay to build and operate them? What evidence shows they’d succeed? Do these elements compete with or replace the Mahaffey Theater, the St. Pete Coliseum and Jannus Live? And where is the proof of the developer’s capacity for a project of this size?

What should St. Petersburg do? Stop treating a legal notice as a planning process and return to planning before you build.

A sound path forward would: 1. Hire a nationally recognized planning and economics team to create a Gas Plant Framework Plan defining the grid, parks and land uses. 2. Engage residents and local stakeholders in shaping it. 3. Adopt the framework before any land is sold or leased. 4. Then decide whether to issue one or several structured requests for proposals to qualified developers.

Those choices — how many parcels, what uses, what timing — belong inside the planning process, not outside it.

Under the circumstances, the city should pause discussions with developers, adopt a formal redevelopment plan and restore public trust. Doing so would strengthen its legal standing, negotiating leverage and civic credibility.

Independent civic partners such as Envisioning the Gas Plant can help. This community-based initiative brings together residents, business leaders, and experts to offer input before commitments are made — not to oppose City Hall but to help it succeed.

The Gas Plant is St. Petersburg’s generational opportunity to connect growth and shared prosperity.

Plan first. Build right.

— Ron Diner, founder of HomeRunsMatter.com