Tampa Bay Rays ballpark funding debate spills onto social media

Public debate over a proposed Tampa Bay Rays ballpark at Hillsborough College’s Dale Mabry campus is spilling beyond government chambers and onto social media.

Politically active Tampa Bay residents are already raising arguments over land use, taxpayer funding and the scope of the deal even before Hillsborough County officials discuss funding details publicly. The online discourse mirrors many of the same tensions already emerging in formal negotiations, particularly around whether voter-approved Community Investment Tax dollars will be leveraged as part of the proposal.

Debate this week played out in the comments of a Facebook post by Steve Cona III, who is President and CEO of the Associate Builders & Contractors Gulf Coast Chapter. Cona shared takeaways from a recent Tampa Bay Chamber meeting where Rays CEO Ken Babby outlined the project’s financing structure and economic impact.

In that thread, participants quickly questioned the use of public land and potential tax dollars for the project.

“It was one of the more informative breakdowns I’ve heard. Over half the project (54%) is privately funded, and the Rays are taking on the responsibility for cost overruns and long-term maintenance of the stadium,” Cona wrote.

“Beyond baseball, this is about real economic impact. We’re talking new facilities for Hillsborough College and an economic engine projected to create tens of thousands of jobs across our region.” 

The state has already taken a key step, with Gov. Ron DeSantis and his Cabinet approving the conveyance of land to Hillsborough College — framing the move as a way to support redevelopment of the project without directly contributing to the ballpark itself. But social media exchanges show that reasoning is far from universally accepted.

Karen Cox Jaroch — State Director for Heritage Action of America and a Hillsborough County conservative activist who was a leading opponent to the failed Go Hillsborough transit initiative in 2016, as well as subsequent tax referendums — said she does not support CIT funding for the Rays ballpark. She argued that taxpayers should also be compensated for public property at the Hillsborough College campus used for its development.

“I’m not opposed to the Rays decision to abandon their current tax payer funded stadium in St. Pete if that helps them prosper, but not a dime of our CIT funds. A RED LINE FOR ME!” Jaroch said. “Furthermore, taxpayers need to be justly compensated if giving them the HCC Dale Mabry campus. Stadium needs only 20-25 acres but they are getting over 100! We also should get a % of naming rights if forking over tourist taxes to them.”

Kim Droege, a television presenter for the Tampa Bay Arts & Education Network and Tampa Tiger Bay Executive Committee member, questioned the deal in response to Jaroch. 

“I’m still uncomfortable with how the whole land donation went down,” Droege wrote.

Jaroch responded, arguing that the campus, “given away in exchange for a tiny stadium,” leaves the Rays a “large real estate empire for themselves. Makes me very uncomfortable!”

Droege said she was “puzzled” about who had the authority to donate public land to the Rays. Cona clarified that the “land will be leased, not given.” Jaroch chimed in to point to the Hillsborough College Board of Trustees, adding that “they are Gov. DeSantis appointees.”

“The land is easily worth $250 million. Let’s see if the lease terms reflect that value. The opportunity cost of selling the land to private owners would generate tax revenue not seen if stadium built, this it being ‘given away.’”

Cona defended the land donation, however, noting that land owned by the state “creates a net loss in revenue,” and arguing that leased property “expands the tax base and creates more revenue for the county.”

Official debate about public funding for the ballpark still looms ahead. County Commissioners have already authorized staff to begin formal negotiations with the Rays and their partners, although no funding has been approved and any eventual deal will return to the board for a public vote. Commissioners are expected to discuss the Rays proposal publicly as soon as mid-April.

District 7 Commissioner Joshua Wostal quickly responded to Cona’s post with nothing but a neutral face emoji, inciting further response himself. Wostal has criticized the proposal to use CIT funding after repeatedly assuring voters who renewed the tax that it would not be used to build new professional sports facilities.

“Stop grandstanding,” President and CEO of Grouphealthflorida.com Inc. Thomas A. Kaspar Jr. responded.

Meanwhile Tom Rask — a longtime Pinellas County activist known for his role in defeating the 2014 Greenlight Pinellas transit referendum — agreed with Wostal’s emoji, declaring he does not agree with Cona even though he defended his stance.

“My sentiments exactly,” Rask wrote. “Steve Cona and I are going to be on opposite sides of this issue, but knowing Steve, I know he is acting in good faith.”

Randall Reid, on the other hand, called on Wostal to reconsider his position even though he understands his position.

“While there is nothing I admire more than an elected official feeling bound by promises made, I hereby grant you the proxy of the entire Reid family for our portion of any restricted funds!” Reid wrote. “Seriously I hope there is a way to make it work because, as Steve points out, the long term economic impact has to be massive when comparing having an MLB team and a 100 acre sports and entertainment destination district versus not having either.”