On February 5, St. Petersburg City Council voted 6–2 to ask St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch to pause his selection process for the Gas Plant site and plan first. This was just two days after the bids were submitted.
But after the vote, the Tampa Bay Times reports that the Mayor intends to continue moving forward. As there were only two bids to develop the entire property, I assume that means he intends to select one of them. His stated rationale: the City has already spent enough time planning, and now is not the time to pause the process.
Yet the City Council’s 6–2 vote opposed moving forward with any developer selection before completing a comprehensive planning process. Their resolution indicated the process should be led by independent, professionally qualified planners and guided by City residents, City-based businesses and employees, and organizations representing City residents — so redevelopment reflects community perspectives and advances long-term public benefits.
The question is simple: Why should a developer be selected before that process is complete?
I have a meeting next week with Mayor Welch.
I would like to bring with me a letter signed by hundreds of St. Petersburg residents urging the Mayor to pause and create a planning process first.
If you agree that the Mayor should follow the City Council’s 6–2 vote and pause — and have not signed on — please:
Add Your Name: Urge the Mayor to Pause and Plan First
https://homerunsmatter.com/plan-first-mayor/
More than 300 Home Runs Matter readers signed the letter urging the City Council to pause and plan first. Shortly thereafter, the City Council voted 6–2 to do exactly that. Our voices mattered then — and they matter now.
Even If You Select First — Two Is Not Enough
Even if one were to accept the premise that selecting a developer should come first — a sequencing approach we do not support — the City would still have a fiduciary obligation to pause to ensure robust national competition.
Especially when both proposals offer to buy the land for substantially less than its potential long-term value — which could be as much as $1 billion once infrastructure is built and paid for by the City.
Major redevelopment districts across the country routinely attract numerous experienced firms. When only two complete proposals emerge, it signals the process did not generate the level of competition this asset warrants. Why wouldn’t the Mayor want to pause?
This potential billion-dollar decision is taking place at a moment when the State of Florida is actively considering significant changes to property tax policy, including proposals that could reduce or eliminate local property tax revenue.
If municipal revenue sources are constrained in the coming years, careful stewardship of major public assets becomes even more critical.
What National Planning Firms Told Me
Over the past several weeks, I have spoken directly with four national land planning firms that have worked on large-scale public land redevelopments across the country.
Each conveyed essentially the same point:
In virtually every successful large public land redevelopment in the country, the City defined the framework first — zoning, infrastructure sequencing, and public objectives — before committing control to a single developer.
To test that understanding independently, I asked both Google and ChatGPT to identify examples of large public land redevelopments where the process worked successfully. The projects consistently cited — from Denver’s Stapleton to Washington’s Wharf and Walter Reed, to Philadelphia’s Navy Yard and New York’s Hudson Yards, among many more — all involved a defined public framework before private development control was committed.
I then asked for examples where cities selected a master developer first and allowed the developer to shape the overall framework. Even in those cases, the cities had already adopted specific plans, zoning structures, infrastructure obligations, and public requirements before approvals moved forward.
In other words, even projects sometimes described as “developer-led” did not begin with the City stepping aside from defining its own structure.
That is why planning first is not an unusual demand. It reflects how major cities steward assets of this scale.
That Is Exactly What City Council Voted To Do
Six Council members — a clear majority — voted to pause and plan first.
That position is consistent with how major cities handle redevelopment of large public assets.
Before selecting a development partner, cities typically establish:
Formation of a structured advisory council
Engagement of independent national advisory expertise
Definition of a clearly articulated, community-informed redevelopment framework
Establishment of infrastructure sequencing and parcel strategy
Determination of whether development should proceed parcel-by-parcel, in phases, or under another defined structure
Cities set the rules first. Then they decide how to invite developers.
Allowing private proposals to shape the public framework reverses that order.
This is not ideological.
It is institutional discipline.
The Cost of Getting This Wrong
The Mayor has expressed concern about wasting time.
But negotiating without a defined framework is how time and money are truly wasted.
We risk:
Diverting staff from other urgent City needs
Spending millions on outside legal and consulting fees
Repeating past negotiation cycles that consumed enormous time
If Council ultimately refuses to approve an agreement negotiated without a proper framework — as its 6–2 vote suggests — then months of negotiation will have been unnecessary.
Acceleration now could create far greater delay later.
Why This Matters to You
This is about control and value — who decides, and who benefits.
This land belongs to the public. Once infrastructure is built, it may be worth close to $1 billion. No one is offering anywhere near that today.
The difference between selling too early and structuring this properly could mean hundreds of millions of dollars over time — money that could fund affordable housing, flood protection, infrastructure, parks, public safety, or reduce pressure on taxes and utility rates.
Planning first ensures the City controls the framework — not a private developer.
If You Care About the History
Planning first ensures the community defines how history is honored before land is transferred.
If You Care About Taxes, Utilities, Resilience, and Affordable Housing
Proper planning returns the greatest long-term public value to address all of these.
If You Agree
If you believe:
The City should define the framework before choosing a developer
A structured advisory council should be formed first
Independent national advisory guidance should precede any next steps
And public control of this land should be protected
Please add your name:
Add Your Name: Urge the Mayor to Pause and Plan First
https://homerunsmatter.com/plan-first-mayor/
This is not about stopping progress.
It is about doing it correctly.
