Mayor Welch Set to Choose Between Four Trop Redevelopment Proposals

Mayor Welch is set to announce his choice between four redevelopment proposals for the Historic Gas Plant District, currently home to Tropicana Field. Here's a closer look at the housing component of each.

***

Quick Reference:

So-called “affordable” or “workforce” housing is produced through a public-private partnership. The government gives a private developer or landlord a subsidy, such as a tax incentive, public land or cash. In exchange, the developer/landlord must set aside a certain number of lower-priced units at a rate which will not exceed 30% of a household’s income. These units are usually not required to remain permanently affordable, though it varies based upon the terms of the agreement.

Market-Rate: Rent is set based on whims of the market & for maximum profit.

Workforce: Rent set for families earning between 80%-120% AMI ($65,700-$98,520 in St. Pete, 2022 HUD Income Limits). In many cases, these prices are very close to or even at market rate, and are generally still profitable even without a subsidy.

Affordable: Units subsidized for families making below 80% AMI (<$65,700 in St. Pete, 2022 HUD Income Limits).

Very Low Income: Units subsidized for families making below 50% AMI (<$41,050 in St. Pete, 2022 HUD Income Limits).

***

50 Plus 1 Sports:

This is the only proposal in which the developer plans to enter into a 99-year ground lease with the city, thereby preserving public ownership of the land itself. This setup includes a revenue sharing agreement, which the developer claims could net the city around $3 billion through the first 40 years.

With 6,748 total housing units, this is the largest amount of total on-site housing. However, only 2,024 of those units will be priced for families earning 80% AMI or less. Only 674 units will be priced for families earning 50% AMI or less, a mere 10% of the entire total. The remaining 4,724 units will either be market-rate or “workforce”.

Despite the land remaining public, these apartments will still be owned, maintained and controlled by for-profit corporate landlords, with no guarantee of permanent affordability.

To finance the affordable/very low income units, the developer plans on utilizing the LIHTC program. It's not guaranteed that the developer will be able to secure the more competitive tax credits, which means there will either be a lower number of "affordable" units at the end of the day, or the developer will come asking for cash from the city despite their pledge not to use city tax dollars.

Restoration Associates:

This plan would involve purchasing certain parcels from the city and allowing for the possibility of a land lease in certain cases, meaning some of the land could remain under public ownership. Of course the apartments themselves would not be under any sort of public ownership.. The plan contains several different scenarios, resulting in more or less units depending on what happens with the Rays. If selected, there would be at least 2,800 total units. Of those, the proposal only specifies 800 for families making <80% AMI, and 230 for families earning <50% AMI. 920 units are categorized as either market rate or “workforce”. The remaining 1,080 units will be either "workforce" or "affordable", but the exact amount of each is not specified in the proposal.

The developer plans to finance the subsidized housing through a mix of federal, state and local sources, heavily relying on competitive LIHTC tax credits to fund the "affordable" component. Like the previous proposal, the number of subsidized units could vary drastically or require additional funding to complete. This developer will seek a variety of other taxpayer handouts to fund the project as a whole including “land write downs, tax increment financing support, entitlement land use support and the building of common area infrastructure”.

Sugar Hill:

Considered a top contender, this plan contains a total of 4,906 on-site units of housing. If you include an additional 300 off-site units, over a quarter of the total housing will be set aside for households making less than 50% AMI – the most of any other redevelopment plan (this is not reflected in the graphic above). Still, the vast majority will either be market rate or workforce. Like the previous two proposals, Sugar Hill will rely heavily on LIHTC, meaning the number of low income units could shrink or change without any additional city or county money. In fact, the developer even suggests at one point in the proposal that the city should reinvest the money made from selling the land to fill funding gaps.

There has been a great deal of criticism of Sugar Hill in the news leading up to Mayor Welch's announcement. It’s important to note that Sugar Hill is the biggest challenge to the Rays/Hines proposal which seems to be favored by the local ruling class, with glowing endorsements from the Tampa Bay Times, Chamber of Commerce and more. These criticisms, however, are not without warrant.

Lead developer JMA Ventures has been previously blasted for it's history of bait & switch. Similar behavior has been observed with DDA  – a major development partner with Sugar Hill –  who scrapped plans to offer mostly "workforce" housing at a west St. Pete development despite already receiving city approval. Another Sugar Hill partner, Blue Sky, was allegedly paid $2 million by the Church of Scientology to abandon an affordable housing project in Clearwater last year.

Rays/Hines:

Considered the leading proposal, the Rays/Hines plan has the full endorsement of much of the local ruling class establishment, including the Chamber of Commerce and the Tampa Bay Times. This plan, however, appears to be the biggest rip off for the public, relying on a measly $97 million land valuation for the entire 86-acre site – a rate of $1.1 million per acre. By comparison, the property directly across the street from Lot 6 of the Trop, which was home to the now-closed Dr. BBQ, was sold for $4.5 million back in August -- a rate of over $15 million per acre.

This proposal also offers the least amount of on-site “affordable” housing – a measly 731 units. The remaining 4,997 on-site units will be either market rate or “workforce”. The Times editorial board has lauded this proposal for the limited amount of affordable housing, saying that “concentrating it risks creating a site that doesn’t fulfill its full potential”, a latently classist and racist sentiment.

Mayor Welch is almost certain to select one of these proposals during his State of the City address on Monday, January 30th. However, the details will still need to be negotiated over the next several months before a final contract is presented to city council for approval in late summer or early fall. Be ready: it's going to take a fight to ensure those 86-acres remain under public ownership and housing WE can afford!