Part 3 of a 3-part series on public stewardship, leadership, and fiduciary responsibility.
The City’s Own Appraisals Say the Gas Plant Land Is Worth Far More Than What Developers Are Offering To Pay. So Why Is The Process Still Moving Forward?
That is now one of the biggest questions facing St. Petersburg.
The city has received two independent appraisals valuing the St. Petersburg Gas Plant redevelopment property at $380 million and $390 million — before major infrastructure improvements are even added.
Yet the two major development proposals currently under consideration by Mayor Ken Welch offer substantially less for the land while also expecting the city to pay for major infrastructure improvements — estimated at $275 million.
At the same time, the St. Petersburg City Council has already expressed significant concern about moving forward with major redevelopment proposals before additional city planning and public evaluation occur.
So why isn’t Mayor Welch pausing to more fully evalulate alternatives, long-term public value, and whether the public is truly receiving the best possible outcome before irreversible decisions are made?
The Question Raised In Parts 1 and 2
Over the last two posts, I’ve raised what I believe is a simple question:
When people entrust others with responsibility over valuable assets, what obligation do those individuals have to protect and maximize value before making major decisions?
In Part 1, I posed a hypothetical question about someone responsible for selling valuable property on behalf of others. I asked readers:
“Should someone responsible for selling valuable property fully test the market before agreeing to a deal?”
98% answered yes.
In Part 2, I discussed a real-world Florida example involving state-owned land connected to a proposed Tampa Bay Rays stadium project in Tampa. I then asked readers:
“Should government obtain independent appraisals before committing valuable public land to private development?”
96% answered yes.
People overwhelmingly agree on the principle — responsibility.
Responsibility — protecting and maximizing value for the people who place their trust in others.
And now that brings us home to St. Petersburg and the Gas Plant redevelopment site.
New to this topic? Start here:
Understanding the Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment Debate
A guide to the issues, proposals, tradeoffs, and the case for a city-led approach.
The Stakes at the Gas Plant
The St. Petersburg Gas Plant redevelopment site — current home to Tropicana Field and the Tampa Bay Rays — is one of the most important public assets in the history of St. Petersburg.
This is not just another real estate transaction.
The site carries:
- enormous financial value,
- historic significance,
- economic implications for generations,
- affordable housing implications,
- and major redevelopment opportunities.
Mayor Ken Welch currently has three redevelopment proposals under consideration.
Two proposals — Ark Ellison Horus (“Ellison”) and The Burg Bid (“Burg”) — involve redevelopment through a single master developer structure. While both use that general model, they propose very different visions for what would be built, how the site would evolve, and what the future of the district would look like.
The third proposes a different city-led approach in which the city would first guide planning and infrastructure and then determine how redevelopment proceeds over time. Supporters of this approach (which include Home Runs Matter) argue that this will preserve greater public control, create more competition over time, and generate far greater long-term value for the city.
These are three different proposals representing fundamentally different approaches to how one of the most important public assets in St. Petersburg should be planned, controlled, and developed for decades to come.
That is precisely why the decision should not simply become one mayor and one administration choosing between competing approaches without broader city planning, public evaluation, and long-term consensus – including whether a city-led approach is a better alternative.
What The Developers Would Pay — And What They Wouldn’t
According to the submitted proposals to develop the whole site:
- Burg proposes paying $275 million for the land.
- Ellison proposes paying $202 million.
But both proposals also expect the city to fund major infrastructure improvements including streets, utilities, and related public improvements.
Burg also expects the city to fund a major public park.
A major emphasis of the Ellison proposal is a bridge and “Unity Arch” connection to Campbell Park estimated at approximately $60 million, which appears dependent on government funding becoming available. Not a guarantee from Ellison.
New Appraisals Paint a Very Different Picture
The city has now received two independent appraisals valuing the St. Petersburg Gas Plant redevelopment property at approximately $380 million and $390 million.
Importantly, those appraisals estimate value before major infrastructure improvements are added.
In plain English:
Independent professionals believe the raw land itself is already worth substantially more than what developers are offering to pay — even before taxpayers fund roads, utilities, parks, and infrastructure improvements.
If the land itself is already worth $380–390 million before infrastructure improvements are added, why is the city seriously evaluating proposals offering substantially less — while also being asked to pay for the infrastructure itself?
Mayor Welch – Why Not Pause?
With City Council already signaling caution – and with new appraisals raising major questions about value, structure, timing and alternatives – why not pause and reassess?
Why not use this time to more fully evaluate alternatives, long-term public value, and whether the city is choosing not simply the best proposal – but the best overall approach for St. Petersburg?
The Question
When government is responsible for one of the most valuable public assets in a city’s history, what level of leadership should the public expect?
My answer is this: with appraisals raising major questions about value, with fundamentally different visions for the future of the site, with City Council already calling for additional planning and evaluation, and with extraordinary long-term opportunities for St. Petersburg still on the table — now is the time to pause, bring people together, fully evaluate alternatives, and make sure the city gets this right.
In Part 1 of this series, the person entrusted to advise on selling valuable property had a responsibility to act in the best interests of the people who trusted them and to fully evaluate value before moving forward.
The responsibility now in front of Mayor Ken Welch is different in scale — but not in principle. The people of St. Petersburg are relying on their city’s leadership to carefully evaluate alternatives, protect long-term public value, and ensure this extraordinary opportunity delivers the greatest long-term benefits to the city and its residents.
Because public stewardship, leadership, and fiduciary responsibility are exactly what this moment calls for – principles essential to getting this right.
