10/19/2026
Here is the transcript of Councilman Albritton from last week's Council vote on The Landings (please forgive formatting, spelling or any missed words as this is copied and pasted):
136:42 COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ALLBRITTON
All right. This is one of those decisions where I believe we need to be thoughtful about what is being
asked of us tonight, what is not being asked of us, and what we stand to gain or lose by moving forward.
I understand the concerns of the residents who live near the Landings. Their concerns deserve to be
heard, taken seriously, and addressed whenever possible. They are our constituents, our neighbors, and
the people who will live with the consequences of whatever decision we ultimately make. We owe them
more than a promise to listen. We owe them a genuine effort to understand their concerns and
determine whether we can address them.
I believe that effort has begun. The developer has met with residents and city representatives and, to his
credit, has demonstrated a willingness to listen and make changes where possible. That does not mean
every concern will be resolved, nor does it guarantee that the final proposal will be acceptable. But it
does suggest a willingness to work toward a solution rather than simply insist that the project proceed
as originally envisioned. That& #39;s important, because if we want responsible development in Clearwater,
we should encourage a process in which residents are heard, developers are willing to adapt, and the
city protects the public interest. That is what negotiations are for.
I want to emphasize what is actually before us tonight. We are not being asked to approve a finished
sports complex, sign off on every detail, or commit ourselves unconditionally to a final agreement. We
are being asked to allow negotiations to begin or continue, so that the city and the developer can work
together through the details, examine the terms, address concerns, and determine whether an
agreement can be reached that serves Clearwater& #39;s interest.
There is a substantial difference between authorizing negotiations and approving a final project.
Negotiations allow us to ask difficult questions, establish conditions, seek protections for residents, and
determine whether the financial and economic benefits justify the city& #39;s participation. They allow the
developer to demonstrate that the project can be shaped into something that works for the city and the
surrounding community. And just as importantly, they give us the information we need to make a
better-informed decision when the final agreement comes back before council.
At that point, we will have another opportunity to examine what has been negotiated, evaluate the
protections that have been secured, and decide whether the final proposal deserves our approval. If the
agreement does not adequately protect the city and its residents, we will have to confront that fact.
Moving forward tonight does not eliminate the responsibility to exercise sound judgment, here or later.
But refusing to negotiate now would eliminate the opportunity to find out what might be possible.
We should also recognize the potential economic significance of this proposal. The figures presented to
us indicate that the project could generate more than $7.7 million for the city through taxes and county
sales tax revenue. In addition, Pinellas County, through its TDC, Tourist Development Council, is
expected to contribute $85 million toward the project. Those are substantial sums, and they warrant a
serious examination of what this development could mean for Clearwater.
Beyond those figures, we must consider the broader economic effects: the potential to attract visitors,
generate spending at local restaurants and businesses, support jobs, increase activity in the surrounding
area, and strengthen Clearwater& #39;s position as a destination for sports, recreation, and tourism. Those
benefits should not be accepted on faith. They should be examined carefully, supported by credible
projections, and weighed against the costs, obligations, and risks the city might assume. We need to
understand the full financial picture, including the city& #39;s responsibilities, the lease terms, the long-term
maintenance, the operating arrangements, and the protections needed to ensure the public receives a
fair return.
That is precisely why negotiations matter. We have an opportunity to explore whether we can secure
the proposed economic benefits while addressing legitimate neighborhood concerns. We should
determine what safeguards we can negotiate, what changes are practical, and what commitments the
developer is willing to make. We should ask whether enforceable provisions can mitigate traffic, parking,
noise, lighting, operating hours, access, and other neighborhood impacts. We should seek clarity about
how the facility will operate, who will be responsible for its upkeep, and how the city& #39;s financial interests
will be protected over the life of the agreement. These are not reasons to avoid negotiation. These are
reasons to conduct them carefully.
I recognize that some residents may believe this project should not move forward under any
circumstances. I respect their right to hold that position. But our responsibility as council members is to
consider the interests of the entire community, including the residents closest to the site and the
broader public that will bear the consequences of our decisions. We cannot dismiss neighborhood
concerns in the name of economic development, nor should we dismiss a potentially valuable economic
opportunity without first determining whether we can address those concerns. Those two
responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. Our job is to see whether we can honor both.
Clearwater has worked hard to create momentum for investment, tourism, and economic activity.
Opportunities of this scale deserve serious consideration. But economic development should never be
an excuse to abandon public accountability, and neighborhood opposition should not automatically end
a conversation before we fully explore the details. The test is whether we can negotiate an agreement
that is fair to the city, responsible to taxpayers, and attentive to the people who live nearby.
I can tell you that as I sit here today, I have not reached a final judgment on this project. There are
questions that deserve answers, financial details that deserve scrutiny, and neighborhood concerns that
deserve continued attention. But I do believe we should give the process a chance to produce those
answers. Tonight, we have an opportunity to keep the conversation going without surrendering our
right and our responsibility to say no later if the final agreement does not meet the city& #39;s standards.
If the negotiations produce a reasonable agreement that protects our residents, safeguards the public
interest, and delivers meaningful economic benefits to Clearwater, then we have accomplished
something worthwhile. If they do not, we will have learned that before making a final commitment. So I
support going into negotiations, getting all these questions we have answered, and then making a final
decision, which will not be tonight, by the way.
