The Tampa Bay Times reports that two local developers — both of whom have submitted proposals related to the Historic Gas Plant site — are in court involving two other projects in which they partnered in St. Petersburg.
According to the article, the disputes involve The Nolen condominium project and The Central redevelopment of the former police headquarters site. The lawsuits include claims of repeated construction delays, missed milestones, payment disagreements, lien filings, and management disputes. Both sides deny wrongdoing, and the cases are ongoing.
Who is right and who is wrong is for the courts to decide. That is not the purpose of this post.
What is relevant is what situations like this point out when decisions must be made about the Historic Gas Plant — 86 acres of publicly owned land that will shape St. Petersburg for generations.
First: There Are Real Risks in Putting All Your Eggs in One Basket
All Development Involves Risk
Every development project carries risk.
Large development teams can have experience, resources, and track records that indicate they are positioned to carry a project forward over many years. But no one can predict with certainty what market shifts, financing pressures, partnership changes, construction challenges, or other unforeseen events may arise over time.
Timelines shift. Market conditions change. Costs rise. Projects can be delayed – sometimes for years. Disagreements can occur. That is true in small projects and large ones alike, as the article describes in the cases of The Nolen and The Central.
The broader point is that development is complex.
If a project involves a single building or a few acres of privately owned land, the consequences of delays or disputes primarily affect the parties involved.
Why 86 Acres Magnifies the Stakes
But the Historic Gas Plant site is 86 acres of publicly owned land. It is not a small project. It is a once-in-a-generation redevelopment that will shape St. Petersburg for decades.
When a city grants long-term control of land of this scale to a single master developer under a decades-long agreement, risk becomes concentrated. If delays, disputes, financial pressures, or other complications arise, the entire 86-acre project can slow down or stall. Unlike a single private building, the City cannot easily pivot to another developer or move forward parcel by parcel once full-site control has been granted.
Some argue that contracts can include protections — including provisions that allow land to revert back to the City if obligations are not met. But enforcing those provisions can take years and involve significant legal expense. That process can create uncertainty for surrounding neighborhoods and investors. During that time, progress can halt, and momentum can be lost.
On a site of this size and public importance, that kind of disruption is not just a private matter. It affects the City, its residents, and the long-term future of downtown.
When Community Priorities Can Be Pushed Aside
When a city places the entire redevelopment of 86 acres under a single long-term master development agreement, it is not only financial risk that becomes concentrated. Over time, if timelines extend or financial pressures increase, priorities can narrow toward completing core components and stabilizing the project. In those circumstances, elements that matter deeply to the community — historic recognition, affordable housing commitments, workforce opportunities, public space, cultural preservation — can become more difficult to protect.
Planning First Reduces Concentrated Exposure
Alternatively, as many of us have been proposing, the City could complete the master planning first and then sell or lease parcels individually over time.
In conversations we have had with four national planning firms that work with cities across the country, this phased, city-led approach is consistent with how large publicly owned redevelopment sites are most frequently handled. In that model, development risk is distributed rather than concentrated. If one parcel encounters delays, disputes, or changing market conditions, the entire 86-acre redevelopment does not stall. The City retains flexibility, maintains leverage, and can adapt as conditions evolve.
When the City retains control through planning first and phased development, it is better positioned to protect those commitments over time.
Second: Public Land Requires Real Competition
Structure Comes First
Before choosing any long-term development partner, the City should determine whether a single master developer controlling the full 86-acre site is in fact the appropriate structure.
In many cities across the country facing large-scale redevelopment of publicly owned land, the trend has been for the city to retain greater control over the master plan, infrastructure, and phasing before selecting individual development partners. That approach allows the public entity to set the vision first and invite private participation within that framework.
That structural decision should come first.
If the City Proceeds Under the Mayor’s Current Plan
If the City were to proceed under the current full-site master developer framework, it is important to understand both its relevance and the competitive landscape. Under a full-site master developer model, the outcome is essentially “winner takes all.” One entity would control the planning, phasing, and development of the entire 86-acre site under a long-term agreement.
That makes the concentration of risk and competition especially significant.
At present, there are only two full-site master developer proposals.
One of those proposals has been submitted by one of the parties involved in the litigation described above. Who is right and who is wrong in that dispute is for the courts to decide. Nothing here suggests otherwise.
But if, for any reason — whether structural, legal, financial, or otherwise — one of those two proposals were not able to move forward, the City could find itself effectively negotiating with only a single full-site option.
That is not an accusation. It is simply a matter of competitive dynamics.
Why Competition Matters on 86 Acres
If you were selling a highly valuable property and held an open house, and only one — or even just two — qualified buyers appeared, you would pause. You would ask whether the structure, timing, or process limited broader interest.
The Historic Gas Plant site is not just any property. It is 86 acres of publicly owned land in one of Florida’s most attractive markets. It should be capable of attracting national-level interest and robust competition.
If meaningful competition is not present, that is feedback from the marketplace. On land of this scale and importance, the City has a responsibility to step back, decide what kind of place it wants to create, and then invite strong national and regional developers to compete under that clearer framework.
When public land of this scale is involved, competition matters. Leverage matters. Process design matters.
And those questions should be resolved before entering into a decades-long master development agreement.
What City Council Has Already Recognized
City Council’s recent resolution recognized the importance of getting the structure right.
At its core, the resolution says the City should determine the development framework first — and then move forward within that framework.
It called for:
• Forming an independent Community Advisory Council
• Bringing in independent third-party expertise
• Allowing the City to determine the overall development framework before entering into a binding long-term agreement
Where We Go From Here
In practical terms, that means the City should answer foundational questions such as:
• Do we want a single master developer model?
• Do we want to complete a full master plan first and then invite multiple developers by parcel?
• Should the City retain greater control and phase development over time?
Those structural choices shape everything that follows.
For a detailed breakdown of all eight submissions related to the Historic Gas Plant site, you can also review my prior analysis on Home Runs Matter.
Before I Meet With the Mayor
I am meeting with the Mayor next week. I will urge him to support City Council’s approach and pause the current process so that the City can determine the appropriate development framework first.
If you agree that we should slow down and follow Council’s plan, I encourage you to sign the letter calling for that pause.
You can add your name (if you have not done so) – here
https://homerunsmatter.com/plan-first-mayor/
We have time.
Let’s use it wisely.
