Like every city council or commission in Florida, the St. Petersburg council has a municipal duty to act in the best interest of its people. Thankfully, most of the time that means following the polls. Sometimes, however, doing the "right thing" means taking actions that are not favored by the people or supported by the polls. That's precisely where the St. Petersburg Council finds itself now on Amendment 4.
Superficially, it may seem that the Council is trying to subvert the "will of the people", but that's just not the case. The truth is that, unlike most Floridians, the St. Petersburg Council has learned from the mistakes made by the people of St. Pete Beach (population 10,000) and Yankeetown (population 700).
In 2006, the people of St. Pete Beach adopted Amendment 4-style rules by amending our city charter to require a citizen vote on comp plan changes. It seemed like a great idea at the time. Little did we know then how wrong we were! In 2008 we put our new Hometown Democracy rules to the test and approved changes to our comp plan by a vote of the people. However, the process proved so overbroad, impractical and costly that in 2009 we repealed many of those requirements by amending our local city charter by an overwhelming majority vote of the people. Yankeetown also adopted Amendment 4-style rules, but afterwards found the rules to be overbroad, and its voters also amended their local city charter to scale back the overbroad scope of those rules.
The problem with Amendment 4 is that it has the same overbroad scope as the regulations that St. Pete Beach and Yankeetown tried to repeal. Since Amendment 4 is a constitutional amendment, it trumps the local charters of Florida's cities and counties, and Floridians won't have the legal power to "fix" it with amendments on the local level.
The St Petersburg City Council sees this, and is braving the backlash from bloggers and columnists. Are they "morally wrong" to take actions they believe will protect their city from the harm we've suffered in St. Pete Beach? I don't think so.
If bloggers and columnists want to observe and comment on the true moral hazards of Amendment 4, they should take a closer look at St. Pete Beach, where a two-day trial attacking the will of our city's voters was prosecuted by none other than Ross Burnaman, the special interest lawyer who co-founded Amendment 4. Luckily, Burnaman's arguments were rejected by the Judge, but his unsuccessful lawyering added to the many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees our city has been forced to pay in defense of our disastrous experiment with Hometown Democracy.
When the people of St. Pete Beach tried to implement Hometown Democracy by giving our citizens a vote on comp plans, Hometown Democracy's founder took our city to court to challenge the will of our voters.
Now that's just wrong!
Read More about Amendment 4 Here, including Why Comp Plans Should Never Be Put on the Ballot and Why St. Pete Beach Proves the Flaws in Amendment 4
As a St Pete resident who is watching the Beach die before my very eyes, I implore people to visit St Pete Beach and see for themselves the empty stores, the vacant lots, and the "for rent" signs everywhere. With the current climate of litigation that exists on St Pete Beach, no one wants to take the chance on building anything. The people speak at the ballot box and a minority element of the city goes to Court and challenges the election results. Time after time. Appeal after appeal when they lose in Court. HTD A4 is not democracy. It is rule by the minority, any minority that has the money to start a court case. The cost to St Pete Beach in hope, prosperity, and quality of life is overwhelming. PLEASE think for yourselves - do not listen to all those neat sound bites and cutesy slogans. Visit St Pete Beach. Walk Corey Avenue. Talk to the merchants. Drive Gulf Blvd. Then in November VOTE NO TO A4 . . .
ReplyDeleteClarence Anthony got paid $26,942 from April to June to trash Amendment 4 -- and make the same misleading statements as you do in your blog. You as an attorney should get paid even more than a mayor from a little unkown town.
ReplyDeleteJan: Thanks for posting! I don't know Clarence Anthony so I can't confirm or deny what he has or hasn't been paid, but I can tell you this: I've never been paid a dime for writing and speaking about Amendment 4, and I never will. I do this because I love St. Pete Beach and I want to save it from having Amendment 4's rules forced back upon us after our citizens voted overwhelmingly to repeal it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, even if Anthony or anyone else is paid to speak against Amendment 4, what does that matter? The truth is still the truth, whether the speaker is paid or not.
The real question is why do you think that anything Anthony or I have said is misleading? I'd love to know, and I encourage you to write back with specifics as to what's been said that isn't factually correct?
Unlike some bloggers, I take great pains to make sure that everything I say is correct, and if someone can show me fact/data/info to show me that I'm wrong, I'm happy to publish a correction and to stop saying the same wrong things in the future. I only wish the Hometown Democracy folks would do the same...
So, thanks for contributing to the conversation, and please feel free to elaborate on what I've said that is misleading. I think that's a conversation that would benefit all Florida voters.
The only thing morally wrong about the whole St Pete Beach Hometown Democracy debacle is that the law suits against the city are trying to turn over the election by majority of the St Pete Beach voters for our new Comprehensive Development Plan. The voters new what they voted for and any of the Ballot language questions or anything else dreamed up by the litigants is morally wrong in it's effort to turn around the majority will of the residents.
ReplyDeleteSham on them.
How come you don't know a thing about the Amendment if you have been writing about it for so long? Why do you people continue the myths (and I am being kind here) about Amendment 4? What happened in St. Pete Beach was not Amendment 4--apples and oranges.
ReplyDeleteRead this-
ReplyDeletehttp://stpetebeachtruth.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-about-st-pete-beach-and-florida_12.html
Lynn: I'm glad we're both being kind...that's how I like it here on this blog. Again, the things I'm writing aren't myths. Unlike the things posted in many of the Hometown blogs I've seen, I back up my statements with facts. I'm also happy to publish comments from Hometown supporters, even if they contain factually incorrect statements.
ReplyDeleteSo, for example, you've posted a link to Bett Willett's blog on St. Pete Beach. That's fine with me. I've stated in recent blogposts on this blog why the claims made by Bett Willett are false. She's just plain wrong, and I explain in detain why she's wrong.
For example, its a completely false claim that Ms. Willett makes when she says that St. Pete Beach "bypassed" Florida's growth management laws. Unlike Hometown Democracy, however, I back up my statements by referring to the actual court documents. She can type word "Truth" on the header of her blog, but I've got the truth in the substance of my words.
Lynn, again, if you really think that I'm spreading myths, then by all means provide the details that support your claim. Let's have a real discussion! But leave the empty campaign slogans at the door.
Oh, and please explain why you think St. Pete Beach and Amendment 4 are "apples and oranges".
It looks like the St Pete Beach case is destined to be dragged into the A4 debate to the bitter end. It's too bad because it is not a relevant example to use to oppose A4. The St Pete Beach charter amendment issue mirrors in many ways the broader discussion across the state between ordinary citizens and those who subscribe to the traditional Ponzi pattern of Florida growth. Former SPB councilman Metz was quoted as saying that the hotel and business interests invested $342,000 in the election in order to influence the commission consensus. Imagine that kind of money in an town election with a population of 10,000. Sounds very much like the proportion of money behind the anti-A4 groups. Metz said "This is not about the democratic process, but whoever has the most money to get it done."
ReplyDeleteBut the apples and orange analogy is correct. St Pete Beach in 2006 was all about the dispute between citizens and largely beach front developers and hotel owners. There was no process, no way for the respective interests to play out in an orderly way. No rules to play by. Amendment 4 is very clear about process where citizens can have a seat at the table and express the public interest.
Peter: Welcome to the Blog! If you really think St. Pete Beach is fruit salad (apples & oranges), then I encourage you to read the posts on this blog, and you will see that SPB is a clear example of the flaws of Amendment 4.
ReplyDeleteWhoever told you there was no process or rules in St. Pete Beach didn't give you all of the facts.
St. Pete Beach in 2006 was very orderly and according to the rules: the people of SPB voted to amend our city charter to adopt Hometown Democracy-style requirements for citizen referendum approval of comp plan changes. There was spirited debate between the city's pro and anti-development folks, but the anti-development folks won by a narrow margin.
Then in 2008 some comp plan amendments were put on the ballot pursuant to a separate provision of that allows citizen petitions. Its true that the anti-development folks were blindsided by this, but it was legal and the comp plan amendments passed by an overwhelming margin. The city then followed all of the state-mandated notice and public hearing requirements, and the DCA ruled that the plan amendments were in full compliance with Florida's growth management laws.
Where Hometown Democracy folks get all tripped up is they think that because St. Pete Beach's referendum vote happened at the beginning of the process, then this means that St. Pete Beach is apples and oranges and not a good analogy, but that's just wrong.
Why? St. Pete Beach is relevant not because of how the comp plan changes got on the ballot, but because of what happened after they were put on the ballot.
When St. Pete Beach put its comp plan changes on the ballot, Florida law forced the city to do what all cities will be forced to do under Amendment 4: summarize their 200 page comp plan changes in 75 word ballot summaries. That's what we did in SPB, and that's what all cities will have to do under Amendment 4. Same thing.
By the way, summarizing a 200 page comp plan in 75 words is impossible, and when Florida law forced us to do it, we sued for being "deceptive". All Florida cities will be subject to the same liability under Amendment 4.
So Peter, when you say SPB and Hometown Democracy are apples and oranges, what do you mean? How can that be true when SPB was sued for doing what all Florida cities will be forced to do under Amendment 4? It's the exact same thing!
If you don't believe me, believe Ken Weiss, the lawyer for the folks who are suing St. Pete Beach, who has said that the "central issue" in the litigation has been the ballot summary issue, something that all Florida cities will be vulnerable to under Amendment 4.
Do you disagree?
In regards to Mr. Hing, truth is truth, facts about developments,developers, are not in the interests of us who live here. Brown bags perhaps pay off many, however, we the people, the taxpayers, the renters, those on social security and low income workers pay their infrastructure, roads, schools, etc, for forever. Have you received one of those bags for your nonsense reports.
ReplyDeleteGee, Anonymous, I'm sorry that you feel so disgruntled. Luckily for us in St. Pete Beach, there's been no corruption here, and there's been no corruption in most of Florida's small towns and cities.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what "facts" about developers you're referring to, but general unfounded accusations don't do much to rebut the specific point's I've been making.
I'm hoping that someday I'll meet a die-hard Amendment 4 supporter who will talk specifics rather than deferring to vague generalizations or false accusations of corruption when they have no valid answers or responses to the arguments I've been making.
As for me, for the bazillionth time, I've never been paid for my blogging on this issue. I do it because I love St. Pete Beach, because I believe Hometown Democracy-style regulations have been, are and will always be harmful to my city, and because I believe all Floridians deserve to hear some clear, accurate, specific information about tragic tale of our city and why our experience is relevant to the Amendment 4 debate.
As perplexing as it may seem to the anti-development folks, my views and efforts on this issue are not for sale.
And I'm still waiting for someone to present the facts to prove that my points are "nonsense".