St. Pete Beach Did Not Circumvent the Growth Management Act

When Amendment 4 supporters dispute that St. Pete Beach is a good example of the flaws in Amendment 4, they often try to distinguish SPB by claiming that the city "circumvented the Growth Management Act".

Specifically, the Hometown Democracy website states:

The Hometown Democracy process requires that a referendum on a plan change shall occur only at the END of the state-mandated review and public-hearings process.  State law has long held that no land-use change can occur without two public hearings.  In St. Pete Beach, however, a developer-backed political action committee wrote up petitions to change the local comprehensive plan.  They got petitions signed and put them on the ballot.  The voters passed the petitions.  Petition opponents filed suit saying the petitions were misleading and that the petition process violates state law because no public hearings were held.  

 The problem with Hometown Democracy's arguments is that they have been repudiated by the rulings of the Judge in the St. Pete Beach litigation.  In the case of Kadoura v. Huhn, et al., (Civ.Case 08-12498-CI-19), the plaintiff made a variety of arguments, including that St. Pete Beach's election on the petition measures violated the Growth Management Act.   On April 21, 2010, the Judge entered an Order that made several findings regarding these arguments, including the following:

 "This Court finds that Section 3.15 [of the St. Pete Beach City Charter] is not ambiguous.  It does not preclude submitting the plan to the voters prior to submission to the City Commission and State growth management officials.  But it clearly does require that the voters approve the plan in its final substantive form before the City Commission adopts it."  Order, p. 4.

The Court also stated:

 "Plaintiff argues that the charter provision is preempted by the Growth Management Act.  This has essentially already been ruled on by the Second District in Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of St. Pete Beach, 940 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).  In that case, the court upheld three charter amendments requiring the voters to approve or, at least advise on, various provisions relating to land development and zoning against a claim of preemption.  Plaintiff suggests that the referendum must take place after consideration of the plan or amendment under the Growth Management Act.  That is not the Second District's holding.  The court recognizes that there must be a referendum in St. Pete Beach before the measures are finally adopted, but it does not preclude such a referendum before submission of the plan to growth management officials pursuant to state statute.  [emphasis added]

Thus, contrary to Hometown Democracy's claims, there was no violation of the Growth Management Act when St. Pete Beach's petition measures went on the ballot prior to the full hearing process and submission of the plan amendments to growth management officials!

Numerous lawsuits remain pending against St. Pete Beach regarding its efforts to implement its Amendment 4-style regulations (I stopped counting after 6 lawsuits, but it may be 8 or more at this point), but I am aware of no case where the Judge has ruled that St. Pete Beach's petition and election process (i.e. putting citizen-initiated comp plan changes on the ballot) circumvented or violated the Growth Management Act. 

Thus, the people of Florida should know that Amendment 4 supporters are wrong when they claim that St. Pete Beach circumvented the Growth Management Act when it put its citizen petitions on the ballot.  If the Hometown Democracy folks disagree, their legal team needs to step up and cite some facts and case law in support of their position. 

Click Here to see more analysis of the flaws in Amendment 4 / Hometown Democracy, including "Why Comp Plans Should Not be on the Ballot" and "Why Amendment 4 Does Require Special Elections."