Why the Facts Disprove Harry Metz's Claims That St. Pete Beach Violated Florida's Growth Management Laws

Many Amendment 4 supporters have relied on the commentary "What Really Happened in St. Pete Beach," by former St. Pete Beach Commissioner Harry Metz*, as a source of facts in support of their claims that the events in St. Pete Beach had nothing to do with Amendment 4.

Last week, I explained why I agree with Metz's claim that much of the legal expense incurred in St. Pete Beach resulted from ballot challenge litigation that arose when St. Pete Beach put its comprehensive plan amendment on the ballot in 2008 (though, unlike Metz, I think this is actually a good argument against Amendment 4).

However, the main thrust of Metz's commentary is that St. Pete Beach violated Florida's Growth Management laws.  Specifically, Mets asserts:

1. that "developer controlled St. Pete Beach City commission misused the city's ordinance initiative process to submit changes to our city's land use plan in a public referendum without going through Growth Management requirements, and that "the developer controlled city commission ignored state law."
2. that "the individuals whose property was rezoned had no public notice, nor were they able to voice any objection at public hearings prior to the vote, as required by the Growth Management Act."  [emphasis added].
3. That "In the first lawsuit, the court ruled that Florida's Growth Management Act procedures must be followed, and that the commission could not use the ordinance initiative provision to change the land use plan. but the city and the developers ignored the court's order."

Taken as a whole, Metz essentially asserts that 1) the City of St. Pete Beach violated Florida's Growth Management laws when it settled a lawsuit with pro-development litigants and put its comprehensive plan amendment on the ballot in 2008 before completing the GMA's review and approval process, and 2) that the Court has ruled that St. Pete Beach violated the Growth Management Act by doing so.

However, as reported in the St. Petersburg Times on April 25, 2010, these claims are not true.  According to the St. Pete Times, Judge Demers (the trial judge) ruled in favor of the City on four of the seven counts in the lawsuit (with the remaining three counts going to trial later this year), finding that:

1. The City's settlement agreement was not illegal,
2. The City properly advertised the referendum,
3. The election was not unconstitutional, and 
4. The City's actions did not violate the Growth Management Act.

Thus, its really not me saying that Metz is wrong on the facts; its Judge Demers and the St. Petersburg Times.  As of this date, Judge Demers has ruled against the claims that St. Pete Beach violated Florida's Growth Management laws, and those rulings went to the heart of Metz's factual assertions that are so often quoted by Amendment 4 supporters.

Thus, Metz and other Amendment 4 supporters are wrong when they claim or imply that St. Pete Beach violated Florida's Growth Management laws:  those claims were rejected by the Court.

When Metz and other Amendment 4 supporters claim that the St Pete Beach growth management litigation "has nothing to do with Amendment 4," I 'd say that reasonable minds can differ.  I agree with Metz that there are aspects of the SPB's growth management lawsuit that are unique to St. Pete Beach, and it is also true that regardless of whether a comprehensive plan amendment is approved only by a city Commission or by the commission plus a vote of the people, the substance of the comprehensive plan amendment and the public hearing process are subject to administrative challenges.

Metz and other Amendment 4 supporters are clearly wrong, however, when they cite the growth management issues as proof that St. Pete Beach has absolutely nothing to do with Amendment 4.  As I showed in my last blog post, even if Florida's cities never suffer a single growth management lawsuit, they will still face ballot challenge lawsuits under Amendment 4 like the ones being fought in St. Pete Beach.  And since even Harry Metz admits that St. Pete Beach's ballot challenge lawsuits caused most of the expense of St. Pete Beach's litigation nightmare, I'd say those lawsuits are very relevant to the Amendment 4 debate.

I hope this will provide some satisfaction to those who think that I disagree with them on everything and that I'm willing or unable to concede anything.  I'm also hoping that this will help make it clear that there are things that we can (and should) agree on, which in turn will put a clearer perspective on those things about which we agree to disagree.

In my next blogpost, I'll talk about  "What About St. Pete Beach and Florida Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4", which is another blogpost that many Amendment 4 supporters have cited as a source of facts in support of Hometown Democracy.


*footnote:  I tend to take these things for granted, but just to be clear, I want everyone to know that absolutely nothing in this or the prior post is or is intended to be an attack on Harry Metz or in any way an expression of disrespect.  While I disagree with some of what Mr. Metz has said, and while I may disagree with his views on many issues, I respect his service as a city Commissioner and as a man who strives for what he thinks is best for his community.    Unfortunately, personal attacks tend to raise their ugly heads whenever folks talk about things they are passionate about, and I hope it is clear to everyone (and especially to Harry) that when I'm talking about why I think what Mr. Metz is wrong, I'm not attacking him or intending anyone else to think I am attacking him.    This may seem like a lot of unnecessary overkill, but I felt I needed to say it to try to be clear.

Click Here to see More about Hometown Democracy and St. Pete Beach