St. Pete City Council Candidates Weigh In On Historic Gas Plant District Proposals

ST. PETERSBURG, FL — The four shortlisted developers presented their proposals to redevelop the Historic Gas Plant District, including the Tropicana Field site, on April 30.

Residents heard from the following development teams at the event:

• ARK Ellison Horus, LLC: Led by Ark Ellison Horus and Kettler, major elements of this proposal include thousands of new housing units - including more than 1,900 designated as affordable, workforce and senior housing - research space, labs, and conference facilities; a new facility for the Woodson African American Museum of Florida; and a state-of-the-art performance theater; and parks and open space. It’s estimated the project would have a more than $1.2 billion annual economic impact and create nearly 20,000 jobs.
• Foundation Vision Partners: Their proposal calls for their team to manage the redevelopment of the area and breaking up the project among multiple developers.
• Pinellas County Housing Authority: This proposal calls for the construction of a 1-acre senior housing development, leaving the remainder of the land available for other projects.
• The Burg Bid, LLC (Blake Investment Partners): Led by Blake Partners and the Related Group, this project includes an $8.1 billion total development investment projected to generate more than 30,000 jobs and more than $2.7 billion in long-term tax revenue. It proposes 3,600 affordable and workforce housing units, and a broader mixed-use plan that includes housing across all income levels, office, hotel, retail, museums, and public space.

Patch asked all St. Petersburg City Council and mayoral candidates the following questions about the proposals and the recent presentations:

• What were your general thoughts about the finalists for the district's redevelopment?
• Which proposal do you think is best for the district? Why?
• What do you think is most needed in the district?
• Do you have anything else you'd like to share?

The following candidates didn’t respond to Patch questions:

• Courtney Bermudez (City Council District 2 race)
• Lisset Hanewicz (City Council District 4 race, incumbent running unopposed)
• Trevor Mallory (City Council District 6 race)
• Richie Floyd (City Council District 8 race, incumbent running unopposed)
• Paul Congemi (Mayoral race)
• Charlie Crist (Mayoral race)
• Brandi Gabbard (Mayoral race, current District 2 city council member)
• Ken Welch (Mayoral race, incumbent)

Answers from the candidates who responded are below. Some responded to the questions directly, while others provided a statement about the plans for the district. The responses are published in alphabetical order, and are unedited for spelling, grammar, and content.

Terri Balliet (City Council District 6 race)

What were your general thoughts about the finalists for the district's redevelopment?

I appreciate the level of thought and creativity that went into each of the proposals. It’s clear there’s a shared recognition that this site is deeply important to our city’s history and future. What stood out most to me is the opportunity we have to get this right, not just in terms of development, but in how we honor the legacy of the Gas Plant District while creating something that benefits the entire community.

Which proposal do you think is best for the district? Why?

I think it’s more about making sure the final plan reflects the values our community has consistently voiced. That means meaningful economic opportunity, thoughtful design, and real investment in the people who live here. I’m focused on ensuring whatever moves forward is inclusive, financially responsible, and creates long-term value for residents.

What do you think is most needed in the district?

What’s most needed is a balanced approach, one that includes housing people can actually afford, accessible public spaces, and opportunities for small businesses and local entrepreneurs to thrive.

Do you have anything else you'd like to share?

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and it’s going to take real collaboration to get it right. I’ve spent my career bringing people together to solve complex challenges, and I believe that same approach is needed here. If we stay focused on community, accountability, and long-term impact, we can create something that truly reflects the best of St. Pete.

Kevin Batdorf (Mayoral race)

Before choosing a proposal or a developer, some basic analysis needs to be completed. An independent study to determine what is the highest and best use of the property should be completed. The study should not be influenced by the current administration’s priorities.

Only after we determine how to maximize the site’s potential and benefits to ALL of St. Petersburg, should we entertain proposals.

My priorities would be:

1. New, well paying JOBS
2. Affordable Housing to accommodate those jobs
3. Walkability for the re-development
4. An iconic piece of art

Income from re-development will be dedicated to offset a large portion of citywide infrastructure improvements.

Housing costs citywide are high because we don’t have enough supply for the current demand. Solutions might include:

1. Smaller lot sizes in some areas. I’d like to see a Tiny House Village.
2. Allowing more ADU permits.
3. Incentivizing Smart Housing Development

Linsey Grove (City Council District 6 race)

• What were your general thoughts about the finalists for the district's redevelopment?

All of the proposals were very different in their approach and vision for this project. I think they are representative of the various drivers of power in our city--those that want our city to be more of a technology and innovation hub, those who see the development potential of our urban core, those who want to create a more accessible city for all residents, and a mix of all three. Each proposal included ways for the community to be involved to some degree, which I think speaks to the advocacy of our residents in being a part of this historic project and process.

• Which proposal do you think is best for the district? Why?

From the beginning, my criteria for a proposal that is best for the district have always been driven by what is best for the community in the long-term. We only get one shot to design and implement a project that honors and acknowledges the history of the Gas Plant District, addresses affordability and accessibility issues in the city, and creates a space that can integrate the things that make our city unique (arts, culture, the natural environment, recreation, and history). I appreciated that each proposal included different parts of the community in unique ways, whether in their advisory boards, informing their plans, or even allowing the city to retain ownership.

• What do you think is most needed in the district?

We desperately need affordable housing options for workers, families, seniors, and others who are cost-burdened, accessible, affordable spaces for small businesses, pedestrian, bike, and public transit options, third spaces for community connection, arts, culture, and entertainment, and green space.

• Do you have anything else you'd like to share?

I hope we can continue to have conversations about the community needs and how they will be a part of the Gas Plant District redevelopment.

Gabriel Hament (City Council District 2 race)

What were your general thoughts about the finalists for the district's redevelopment?

After work, I attended the entirety of the Open House in-person from 5:30 PM to its conclusion around 8:30 PM.

Each finalist team cares deeply about St. Pete and seeks to deliver on the promises previously made to the Gas Plant neighborhood over 40 years Ago.

Two proposals are mutually exclusive (The Burg Bid and Ark/Ellison/Horus), one proposal is an “open-source” plan-over-time approach (Foundation Vision Partners), and the final proposal is for just a half-acre which can likely be integrated with any of the other proposals (Pinellas Housing Authority).

Before answering each question in turn, I think it is vitally important to discuss the history of the Gas Plant District.

St. Pete would not be the thriving city it is today without Black pioneer families’ 11th hour support of Peter Demens’ effort to bring the Orange Belt Railroad to St. Pete. Creditors were closing in on the railroad, and Black laborers helped complete the project right before lenders seized the assets of the railroad. (see pgs. 55-57, 61 in Raymond Arsenault’s St.

Petersburg and the Florida Dream 1888-1950). St. Pete was not favored by Henry Plant who had a stranglehold on commerce in the region through the Port of Tampa and his Tampa-based railroad. Plant very much would have preferred St. Pete remain a backwater peninsula, dependent on Tampa’s port and railroad for access to national markets. (see Arsenault at pgs. 61, 66)

I agree with the Mayor that the City of St. Pete ought not to delay public input and subsequent negotiations, as promises made in the 1980’s, when a whole community was uprooted and displaced, are long overdue.

Both Ark/Ellison/Horus and The Burg Bid accomplish what I believe to be four vital objectives: (1) honoring the commitment to the families and descendants of the Gas Plant with the Dr. Carter G. Woodson African American Museum of Florida as a focal point of the 86 acres; (2) prioritizing affordable and workforce housing; (3) prioritizing women and minority-owned businesses and vendors throughout the development process; and (4) designating ample park space and connectivity with adjacent neighborhoods and the downtown core.

The Foundation Vision Partners approach can accomplish those objectives because it is an open-source, parcel-by-parcel approach.

The Pinellas Housing Authority proposal for senior affordable housing can be integrated into any of the above proposals.

I appreciated the Ark/Ellison/Horus concept of democratizing access to investing in the development with a minimum $500 buy-in.

Which proposal do you think is best for the district? Why?

At this time, I think candidates and elected officials should allow the public input process to unfold organically. Over the next few months, I expect the proposals to integrate feedback from residents and stakeholders and then for the Mayor to select a development partner or partners for the Council’s ultimate approval. It is too early for me to weigh in at this stage in the process.

What do you think is most needed in the district?

Honoring the heritage of the Gas Plant District is critical. The Woodson Museum should be a focal point of the plan.

This redevelopment is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for affordable housing expansion on a scale that would significantly mitigate the region’s housing crisis. Additionally, open park space is a priority for me along with a comprehensive community benefits package.

Do you have anything else you’d like to share?

These answers were drafted and edited by me, independent of artificial intelligence, after working a full day as an Assistant Public Defender, so please pardon any typos or inartful drafting.

Douglas Homeyer (City Council District 6 race)

• What were your general thoughts about the finalists for the district's redevelopment? I attended and listened to the four proposals on April 30th and walked away thinking there is a lot more work that needs to be done communicating to the residents of District Six (D6) and St. Petersburgers. As I read through all of the proposals on the city website and talked to residents in D6. I learned we need great leadership and communication to make this a beautiful and wonderful development for our community now and 50 years from now.
• Which proposal do you think is best for the district? Why? I can't answer this right now until the city goes through its due diligence over the next few months and lays out information that the residents of D6 and myself don't know. To put it bluntly;We don't know what we don't know.
• What do you think is most needed in the district? Leadership and understanding the vision of the residents of D6 desire and wants.
• Do you have anything else you'd like to share? We have a HOLE in the City Council D6 and I am THE CANDIDATE THAT WILL LISTEN, WORK TIRELESSLY,AND LEAD THE RESIDENTS OF D6. We have a lot of moving parts that will happen over the next four years. Being the southside growth, Center for the Arts, the Marina redevelopment, The Rays fulfilling their contract and the decisions to be made concerning the Trop, the growth of downtown, affordable housing and affordable businesses opportunities. As I said we have multiple moving parts to address and I am the person who can bring PEOPLE TOGETHER AND GET THINGS DONE!

James Large (Mayoral race)

I think the proposal from the housing authority is a “no brainer”. Parcel that out.

The other three each possess some strengths. However, I find the foundation vision proposal the most beneficial to the city as a whole. Retaining ownership and parceling out development makes the most fiscal sense to me.

Combining some of the flare of the Burg Bid with the economic vision of the Ark Elison plan might benefit the area over time.

We must balance history with the needs of the city. The greatest need today is public trust, supported by real, tangible benefits to the people of St. Petersburg (Jobs, affordability, opportunity).

My final thought is that the Rays do not have a new deal as yet. They should remain a part of any conversation at this time. I will reevaluate the gas plant proposals after I become mayor and that includes keeping the Rays in St Pete if the deal falls through in Tampa.

Maria Scruggs (Mayoral race)

I. General Impressions of the Finalists

Attending the presentation in person provided valuable perspective on the redevelopment proposals for the district. Two key points became especially clear. First, the current administration’s decision to grant a single developer ownership over the largest available piece of public land—the Historic Gas Plant—raised significant concerns about the concentration of control in one entity. Second, upon hearing about all four proposals, it was evident that each had the potential to contribute positively to the Historic Gas Plant’s (HGP) future. However, the design concepts presented seemed more reflective of what developers perceived the African American community wanted, rather than the outcome of a process that directly engaged with community members.

II. Preferred Proposal for the District

In the absence of a transparent planning process, the next best option would be to select Foundation Vision Partners. Their proposal is structure around a four-step process in which the city retains ownership of the Historic Gas Plant site. This approach involves Foundation Vision Partners developing the horizontal infrastructure, while the three other partners are responsible for creating the vertical structures. Notably, these partners have prior experience with the Hines/Rays deal, and their proposal incorporates lessons learned from that project.

III. What the District Most Needs

There is a persistent conversation in the community about “the promises” made to the African American descendants of the HGP. It is crucial that these promises translate into dollars and cents. While homeowners and churches were previously compensated financially, little effort has been made to assess the total economic losses faced by displaced residents. The needs of the HGP need to be developed through a thoughtful and meaning process that engages the city as a whole around the substantive needs of the people such as jobs that pay higher enough wages for residents to afford to live in St. Petersburg, support for small businesses that increase their profits and decrease their debt, housing that individuals can afford based on current income levels.

IV. Recommendations for Addressing Losses

I recommend that the St. Petersburg City Council pass a resolution to define the economic losses tied to the displacement of residents from the Historic Gas Plant area. Such a resolution should call for the establishment of an independent task force comprising various community stakeholders to oversee the process. This task force would be responsible for defining the scope and nature of losses—including property loss, business loss, wage suppression, loss of generational wealth, and exclusion from redevelopment. Additionally, the task force should build a verified claims data system, determine appropriate valuation methodologies, and produce a final report to serve as the basis for policy decisions and as a guide the redevelopment of vertical infrastructure of the HGP.

Jameka Williams (City Council District 6 race)

Although I believe the process is moving ahead more quickly than it should—especially with a Downtown Partnership funding an independent study that includes resident feedback—I appreciated the opportunity to review each proposal.

Of the finalists, The Burg Bid stands out as the most favorable. It does the strongest job of honoring the history of the Gas Plant District, and the fact that the bidders are local and offering a higher valuation adds to its appeal.

That said, no proposal is complete without deeper affordability. I would like to see elements of the Housing Authority’s plan incorporated to ensure seniors and long-time residents have access to truly affordable housing. Any final agreement should include clear protections: permanent affordability tied to income, a right-to-return policy for displaced families, and strong accountability measures to keep the project on schedule.

We’ve seen too many developments begin with affordability promises only to shift to market-rate housing later, and we cannot allow that to happen here.

More broadly, this redevelopment must reflect the character and history of St. Petersburg. Growth is important, but it should be rooted in community, not just outside investment. This is an opportunity to create something that is both economically vibrant and deeply equitable—and we should expect nothing less.