Many Hillsborough County residents say a new Tampa Bay Rays ballpark could bring jobs and community pride, but they are skeptical about public financing with a widespread belief they have been left out of the process, according to a new survey.
The survey of registered voters, released Wednesday, comes as local governments weigh contributing nearly $1 billion in subsidies for the stadium and voters prepare for a broader property tax ballot question that could sidetrack the plan.
ALSO READ: TSA members accused of conflicts as tax vote clouds Rays stadium plan
The results were compiled by researchers at Florida State University and San Jose State University using the responses of 612 active voters, with about a third living in three ZIP codes nearest the proposed Hillsborough College site in Tampa's Drew Park neighborhood.
While support for the idea of a new ballpark is evident in perceptions of its benefits, respondents were more divided on whether public dollars should be used. At the same time, confidence in the decision-making process itself appears notably low.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents said they believe there should have been a public vote on whether taxpayer money should be used for the project.
Only a small share said they trust city leaders to make the right decisions on the stadium, and just about 1 in 5 felt residents have had a real say in how the plan has unfolded.
ALSO READ: Rays CEO Babby makes stadium pitch to Drew Park CRA board
Even so, most agreed the project would bring tangible benefits. Large majorities said a new ballpark would create jobs, boost entertainment options and serve as a point of civic pride.
“Many residents recognize what a ballpark could bring,” said Timothy Kellison, associate professor of sport management at Florida State University, who led the study. “What they’re less sure about is whether their voices have been part of the decision.”
The findings come as the proposed $2.3 billion stadium — tied to a larger mixed-use development — continues moving through a complex financing structure involving the city, county and state.
The plan includes contributions from multiple tax sources and reserves, alongside major private investment from the Tampa Bay Rays.
ALSO READ: Rays' stadium proposal feels pinch of state property tax vote, Bucs' renovations
Support for the financing itself was split, with roughly half of respondents opposing the use of public funds. Trust and transparency indicators were also weak, with many respondents saying local leaders have not been open about costs or responsive to nearby neighborhoods.
The survey was fielded between April 16 and June 9. Researchers note there were no meaningful differences in responses collected before and after June 2, the day the Legislature placed the property tax measure on the November ballot.
Survey results
Public Funding
Support using public funds to build the ballpark
Community Benefits
The ballpark will create jobs across the Tampa area
The ballpark will be a source of community pride
The ballpark will give people more things to do and enjoy
Public Input & Trust
Residents have had a real say in decisions about the project
City leaders have taken seriously the views of residents near the site
City leaders have been open and honest about costs and benefits
There should have been a public vote on the use of public funds
I trust city officials are making the right decisions regarding the ballpark
Party Registration
| Neighborhood | County | Combined | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 24% | 26% | 25% |
| Democrat | 33% | 32% | 32% |
| Independent | 30% | 35% | 33% |
| Other | 13% | 8% | 9% |
Gender
| Neighborhood | County | Combined | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Man | 60% | 56% | 57% |
| Woman | 38% | 39% | 39% |
| Non-binary / Another gender | 0% | <1% | <1% |
| Prefer not to say | 2% | 4% | 4% |
- Responses were collected through an online questionnaire sent to 29,634 active registered voters in Hillsborough, randomly selected from those with an email address on record in the county voter roll.
- The usable response rate is 2.1%. Responses were collected April 16 to June 9.
- Respondents were grouped by those in three ZIP codes closest to the proposed stadium location (198) and elsewhere in the county (414).
- Note that total percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding error.
- Those who completed the survey earlier in this window did not differ significantly in their attitudes toward the project from those who completed it later.
