Tampa Bay Rays Ballpark Funding Debate Divides Community

A public funding fight over a proposed Tampa Bay Rays ballpark is no longer confined to government meeting rooms. Residents, business leaders, and political activists across the Tampa Bay region are taking the debate to social media, and the exchanges are getting pointed.

The flashpoint this week was a Facebook post by Steve Cona III, president and CEO of the Associated Builders and 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 projected economic impact. The comments section quickly turned into a proxy battle over land use, taxpayer exposure, and the boundaries of a voter-approved tax fund.

At the center of the dispute is a proposal to develop a new ballpark on the Dale Mabry campus of Hillsborough College. Ron DeSantis and his Cabinet have already approved conveying that land to Hillsborough College, framing the action as support for redevelopment without directly funding the ballpark itself. Critics are not buying that distinction.

Cona laid out what he described as a favorable structure for taxpayers. He noted that 54 percent of the project would be privately funded and that the Rays would absorb cost overruns and long-term stadium maintenance responsibilities. He also cited projected job creation and new facilities for Hillsborough College as part of the deal’s broader community benefit.

But the responses to his post cut straight to the friction points that have dogged the proposal since it surfaced.

Karen Cox Jaroch, state director for Heritage Action of America and a Hillsborough County conservative activist with a track record of opposing tax-funded public initiatives, drew a firm line. She said she has no objection to the Rays leaving their current publicly funded stadium in St. Petersburg if the move helps the franchise, but she will not support tapping Community Investment Tax dollars for the new project.

“Not a dime of our CIT funds. A RED LINE FOR ME,” Jaroch wrote in the thread.

She went further, raising concerns about the land transfer itself. The stadium footprint requires roughly 20 to 25 acres, she noted, but the team is receiving access to more than 100 acres of the Dale Mabry campus. She argued that taxpayers should receive fair compensation for any public property transferred as part of the deal and should also be entitled to a share of future naming rights revenue if tourist tax dollars are committed.

Kim Droege, a television presenter for the Tampa Bay Arts and Education Network and a member of the Tampa Tiger Bay Executive Committee, echoed concerns about the land deal. “I’m still uncomfortable with how the whole land donation went down,” Droege wrote in response to Jaroch.

The online debate tracks closely with tensions already visible in formal negotiations. Hillsborough County officials have not yet publicly discussed funding details, but the CIT has become the clearest fault line in the conversation. That tax, approved by voters for specific community investment purposes, is a political third rail for many residents who see its use for a professional sports venue as mission creep.

What makes the current moment significant is the sequence. Public pressure is building before funding terms have even been laid out officially. That puts county officials in a position where any proposal that leans on the CIT or other public revenue streams will arrive into an already-charged environment.

For the Rays, the financing pitch that worked in a chamber meeting, where 54 percent private funding and cost overrun protections sound like responsible deal-making, faces a harder audience on platforms where residents can respond in real time and organize opposition quickly.

The project still has vocal supporters. Business community voices point to the economic activity a new stadium and mixed-use development could generate. But the social media thread that surfaced this week suggests that the coalition the Rays and county officials need to build extends well beyond chamber members, and that the land math may prove just as contentious as the money.