The Gas Plant, Part Two: Why Selling the Entire Site at Once Is Too Risky — and Could Cost the City More Than $1 Billion
A quick clarification up front
When I say the City should “do this itself,” I do not mean the City should act as a real estate developer (or master developer), or build buildings.
What I mean is that the City should do the planning work that only the City can do, including:
laying out the street grid
defining blocks and parcel sizes
designing parks and public spaces
planning infrastructure and utilities
setting phasing and timing
adopting form-based development rules—how tall buildings can be, where they sit on the lot, how parking is handled, and how buildings relate to public spaces
That planning work creates the framework.
Private developers would still build the projects later, on individual parcels, under clear rules, at fair market value.
This post explains why selling the entire site all at once, before that planning work is done, is far too risky.
A note on context
This is the second post in a short series about the future of the Gas Plant site.
In the first post, I explained why the City can do this planning work—why laying out streets, parks, infrastructure, and development rules is normal city business, and why St. Petersburg can hire the same national planning expertise that developers rely on.
This post explains why selling the entire site at once, before that planning work is done, risks giving away more than $1 billion in public value as the land appreciates—and why it also exposes the City to loss of control over timing and outcomes if assumptions prove wrong or a developer is unable to complete the project as planned.
This is not about intent—it’s about irreversible risk
The City is currently asking for proposals to redevelop the entire Gas Plant site in a single transaction.
This is not about distrust of developers or questioning anyone’s motives. It is about risk management when dealing with a once-in-a-generation public asset.
Selling land of this scale all at once—before streets, parks, infrastructure, and phasing are designed—means making one large, irreversible bet on timing, execution, and assumptions that must hold for decades.
If those assumptions prove wrong, the City cannot undo the decision, reset the strategy, or recover lost value.
Why planning first matters so much
Planning first does three essential things:
it replaces guesswork with clarity
it creates land value rather than giving it away
it allows decisions to be made in stages instead of all at once
Streets, blocks, parks, utilities, and public spaces are what create land value. Until those elements are designed, no one—City or developer—can accurately price what the land is worth.
Selling the entire site before that work is done forces everyone to guess. And guessing with 86 acres of public land is not a strategy.
Done correctly, this site could generate well over $1 billion in long-term public value, especially as land values increase over time.
Those dollars matter. They represent resources the City needs for housing affordability, infrastructure, workforce development, student success programs, and other priorities that affect daily life across St. Petersburg.
Selling the entire site at once, before the plan is in place, effectively gives that future value away up front—leaving the City with fewer tools to meet long-term needs.
The risk of loss of control
Selling the entire site at once doesn’t just concentrate financial risk—it eliminates the City’s ability to adapt.
Control here does not mean micromanaging buildings. It means retaining the ability to adjust phasing, respond to changing markets or civic needs, learn from early phases, and prevent one failure from becoming permanent.
Once the land is transferred in a single deal, that ability is lost. This is a structural consequence of selling everything up front.
Concentration risk
Large, complex projects that span 20 or 30 years rarely unfold exactly as planned.
Leadership changes. Markets shift. Financing tightens. Ownership structures evolve.
When a single developer controls the entire site, any disruption becomes a site-wide problem. Projects stall, timelines stretch, and disputes escalate.
At that point, the City’s leverage is limited to enforcing contracts—not correcting course. That is not meaningful control.
A simple way to think about it
You would never put all your eggs in one basket, especially when the asset is meant to serve the city for generations.
Selling the entire Gas Plant site in one transaction does exactly that: one buyer, one timeline, one execution strategy, one set of assumptions.
If something goes wrong, the City cannot rebalance or change direction. The land—and the value it could have generated—is gone.
A personal example of managing risk
I spent many years at Raymond James, and I was fortunate to receive options on company stock – which I exercised. Raymond James has been extraordinarily successful, and holding that stock worked out very well.
But as I began to think about my future and ultimate retirement, I decided I couldn’t keep all of my savings in one company—even one I knew well and believed in. I gradually sold portions of that stock, not because I lacked confidence in Raymond James, but because I couldn’t afford the risk of having my entire retirement tied to a single outcome.
That wasn’t pessimism. It was responsible risk management.
The Gas Plant site puts the City in a similar position.
The Warren Buffett comparison
Warren Buffett has said that when he’s gone, his family’s wealth should not be placed into a single complex or risky strategy, but instead diversified to protect long-term value.
Even then, his heirs retain the ability to rebalance if circumstances change.
The City does not have that option.
If St. Petersburg sells the entire Gas Plant site at once and the strategy fails, the land cannot be retrieved, the risk cannot be spread, and the loss cannot be undone. That makes this approach more dangerous, not less.
Planning first spreads risk and protects value
A plan-first, parcel-by-parcel approach allows the City to capture value as it is created, spread risk across time and participants, adjust as conditions change, and protect more than $1 billion in long-term public value.
This does not slow development.
It reduces the chance of irreversible failure.
Why this matters now
Once proposals are submitted, expectations harden.
Once land is sold, options disappear.
A short pause to plan is not delay.
It is due diligence.
How the City can retain the ability to adapt responsibly—without politics or favoritism—will be the focus of the next post in this series.
The bottom line
This isn’t about slowing development.
It’s about protecting more than $1 billion in public value, preserving the City’s ability to adapt over time, and avoiding irreversible loss of control by not betting the future of the city on a single roll of the dice.
