Third poll on Rays deal finds some support, but opposition among close observers

In a new poll paid for by a group that’s against the proposed terms of a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium and surrounding development, about half of those surveyed said they support the plan.

But the plan for the new ballpark and Historic Gas Plant District found less favor among those who said they were familiar with the deal’s financial details: Among that group, half opposed.

It’s at least the third poll that has been conducted publicly about the stadium deal. All three skew in favor of the stance by the group that paid for the survey. Stephen Neely, an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of South Florida, has reviewed all three polls. The latest “has a clear partisan intent behind it,” he said, but like an earlier poll commissioned by the Rays, it’s methodologically sound and performed by a trustworthy pollster.

The competing polls represent the battle lines that have been drawn over the deal that would involve $600 million in public funding — $287.5 million from St. Petersburg and $312.5 million from Pinellas County tourist taxes. The ballpark would be the heart of a 65-acre redevelopment for which the city would contribute another $130 million for public infrastructure.

The Rays would pay for the rest of the stadium, pegged at $700 million, along with any cost overrun. And the team, with development partner Hines, would be responsible for buying the city-owned land around it and turning it into the Historic Gas Plant District. The latest timelines for the deal have a stadium opening for the 2028 season.

But the terms must be approved by St. Petersburg City Council members and Pinellas County commissioners.

Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy, a nonpartisan firm that has done polling on elections and political issues for hundreds of news media organizations, surveyed 625 registered voters in St. Petersburg by phone from May 29 through May 31. The poll was paid for by No Home Run, a group founded by former Raymond James Financial executives who argue that the proposed stadium and Gas Plant deals are bad for the city and taxpayers.

Ron Diner, one of No Home Run’s founders, said at a news conference Thursday that the group spent $15,000 on the poll. “Eight or 10 people who are concerned” about the deal pitched in to pay, he said, adding that none of them have a development interest in the Gas Plant or any other city-owned property.

One of those donors was oil magnate Bud Risser, who in 2012 led an aggressive group that applied the pressure that ultimately doomed the first design of the St. Pete Pier. He told the Times he contributed a few thousand dollars to the poll.

Risser said he would not lead a similar effort against the Gas Plant, other than sending out email blasts over the past week urging his contact list and City Council members to get the mayor to renegotiate the deal.

“He’s got a whole lot more support than I thought in this stage in the process,” Risser said, referring to Diner’s efforts. “I would call that a pleasant surprise.”

Three-quarters of respondents said they were familiar with the plan, though only a third of them said they were aware of the deal’s financial terms. Among the entire group, 51% said they supported the terms, 36% opposed them and 13% were undecided.

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Loading...

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

Support was higher among men, voters under age 50 and those who described themselves as baseball fans. Registered Republicans had the highest support rate, at 56%, while Democrats were more likely by far to be undecided. There was little difference among different racial demographics.

Among only those who described themselves as familiar with the deal’s financial elements, the poll found, support was lower, with 42% in favor, 50% against and 8% undecided.

“In most polling, it’s the people who know the most that support the most — that’s kind of the norm,” said Brad Coker, Mason-Dixon’s president. “So when it went reverse, as a pollster that does a lot of this stuff, to me that was eye-catching. I don’t see that a lot.”

Coker confirmed that those results were based only on broad initial questions about how much respondents knew about the proposals and what they thought of them. The survey didn’t quiz respondents to measure their knowledge of the deal.

Later questions in the survey were framed around No Home Run’s criticisms of the deal — such as the fact that the Rays, as renters, would not pay property taxes on a new stadium, and estimates pegging the $105 million price tag for the Gas Plant land as “significantly below market value.” Respondents were more opposed when asked these questions, which Coker said were written with No Home Run’s assistance and intended to gauge the effectiveness of the group’s messaging points.

A poll commissioned by the Rays and conducted in March reported broad support for the stadium and Gas Plant proposals. In a similar fashion to the No Home Run poll, the Rays poll framed most of its questions around the team’s arguments in favor of a new stadium, such as its position as the crown jewel of a redevelopment that would turn “empty parking lots into property tax-paying businesses.”

Asked about the No Home Run poll Thursday, the Rays did not directly address its results.

“We look forward to the culmination of all the great work that’s been done by so many to keep the Rays in St. Petersburg and Tampa Bay for generations to come,” team president Matt Silverman said in a statement provided by a spokesperson.

St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch also did not comment on the poll when asked Thursday.

“City staff has negotiated a fair deal that keeps the Rays in St. Pete, invests in our community, and creates a vibrant, cohesive Historic Gas Plant neighborhood, all while capping the City’s overall contribution and limiting the City’s risk,” he said in a statement shared by a city spokesperson.

The Rays and No Home Run polls followed a survey earlier this year by the League of Women Voters of the St. Petersburg Area, which opposes the deal. That poll reported “overwhelming opposition,” but Neely, the USF professor, criticized the poll’s methodology, calling it “really problematic.”

Neely’s opinions on the No Home Run poll largely mirrored what he thought of the Rays poll. He had some quibbles — No Home Run’s poll may have overrepresented older voters, and he’s become more skeptical of phone-only polls in an era when fewer people answer calls from unknown numbers — but he said the demographics looked solid. Methodologically, it was sound, and he said he trusts Mason-Dixon’s work.

But none of the polls so far have asked what Neely called “the real policy question”: If this is the deal required to keep the Rays in Tampa Bay, do you support it?

“I think they’re not asking the real question,” he said. “That’s the only knock I can put on it.”

Times staff writer Colleen Wright contributed to this report.