Election Season in St. Pete Beach: The Game is Afoot!

Campaign season has begun in St. Pete Beach.  Lawn signs have begun to sprout like April flowers, and candidates have begun the time-honored pursuit of voters at public debates, private meetings and the checkout line at Publix.

Fliers and discussion have also begun to circulate regarding the ballot measures that will appear on the March 2011 ballot to repeal provisions of the City Charter requiring a vote to approve changes to our comprehensive plans.  Unfortunately, as the March 2011 election draws near, it seems some folks want to revive the debate about the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, as if the Comp Plan is what's going to be on the ballot.  It clearly is not.

The plain truth is that the March 2011 ballot issue(s) are not about the 2008 Comp Plan.  They are about whether, after having attempted to implement the 2006 Charter Amendments, we the People of St. Pete Beach want to continue voting on our comprehensive plans, or whether we want to restore to the City Commission the approval power for such matters.

I believe all this talk about what's right or wrong about the 2008 Comp Plan creates the false impression that the March 2011 ballot measures are a vote to accept or reject that particular comp plan, when in fact their scope is much broader and more important.

The March 2011 ballot measures are not about the details of a specific Comp plan, but rather about the PROCESS of how our city reviews ans approves our comprehensive plans, i.e., whether we should continue to implement the novel, unprecedented Hometown Democracy-style provisions we adopted in 2006, or whether it is best to repeal them.

The issues addressed by the March 2011 ballot measures clearly transcend the limited, narrow and irrelevant focus of any discussion about the 2008 Comp plan.  I believe that anyone who uses the March 2011 ballot measures as a means to either support or block the 2008 Comprehensive Plan is exploiting our electoral process to the detriment of the best interests of the people of St. Pete Beach.

In order to walk the true path to Unity, we must set aside the agendas and begin an honest, informed discussion about these ballot measures.  Arguments about the 2008 Comp Plan (as a reason to vote either for or against the March 2011 ballot measures) have no place in such a discussion.

The people of St. Pete Beach deserve better than that.

Bob Manning (1940-2011): An Irreplaceable Voice in St. Pete Beach's Development Debate

Bob Manning - THE St. Pete Beach Insider

Of the many voices raised on both sides of St. Pete Beach's ongoing debate on development, few (if any) were as determined, ubiquitous and influential as that of Bob Manning. 

Bob manifested his deep love of the City of St. Pete Beach and his fervent hope for its revitalization by crafting and tirelessly exercising his own distinctive style of grassroots activism...most notably, as a keen observer of our city's political events, as Editor and Pundit in Chief of the St. Pete Beach Insider, and as an ardent supporter of Save Our Little Village (the pro-development PAC). 

There was no mistaking Bob's views regarding the numerous lawsuits by residents Bill Pyle and Bruce Kadoura challenging the city's efforts to redevelop, and the impact of the City's self-imposed, Hometown Democracy-style requirement that all changes to the city's comprehensive plan be approved by a vote of the people.  As Bob often said to me during our many conversations about the St. Pete Beach litigation:  "My City is now broken because of our experiment with Hometown Democracy.  We need to fix it."


I honestly can't decide which is a stronger tribute to the power of Bob's advocacy:  1) the numerous residents who found in Bob's commentary a clear expression of the frustration they themselves felt with the costs and delays caused by the litigation against the City, or 2) the fact that Bob's work on the St. Pete  Beach Insider inspired the recent formation of a new "limited growth-oriented" PAC (the St. Pete Beach Chronicle) which will strive to present a response to the views and perspectives expressed in Bob's newsletter.

For my part, I have always regarded Bob with a deep sense of respect; not because we shared the same views (we disagreed as often as we agreed in matters of city politics), but because of his dedication to researching the many arcane details of the city's development plan, the meticulous care he devoted to insuring that his commentary was always solidly grounded in fact, and his willingness to devote so much of his time to sharing his views with his community.

It is true that Bob was often sharply critical of those whose words or deeds did not satisfy his personal measure of that which is in the best interests of the City, but in my eyes he was by no means a negative person.  In a village that has long suffered from unrestrained discord and vitriol, Bob was one of the few whose uniquely wry wit and mischievous humor often tempered his harshest criticisms. 

Most important, Bob Manning deeply loved St. Pete Beach, and he was a man who spared no expense of time or effort to do what he felt was needed to help his city attain its full potential as the most beautiful place on earth.    And for that, in my eyes, he was and will always be a true friend of St. Pete Beach.

St. Pete Beach Commission Gives Residents a Chance to Vote on Development Issues

The St. Pete Beach Commission Discusses Voting Rights

In March, 2011, the people of St. Pete Beach will have a chance to vote on whether to keep, or to scrap, several key provisions of the City Charter that have been the crux of controversial litigation that has cost city taxpayers nearly a million dollars.

As reported in the St. Petersburg Times (1/9/2011: SPB Voters Face Big Question in Development Wars), the St. Pete Beach city commission has agreed to put four items on the ballot in March which, if passed by city voters, would put an end to the city's controversial and unprecedented experiment with "Hometown Democracy"-style voting rights.  Click Here to See the Text of these newly-passed Resolutions.

Among the Charter provisions up for possible repeal will be Charter Section 3.15 (which requires voter approval of certain comprehensive plans and plan amendments), and Charter Section 3.18 (which requires voter approval of development code changes to height of structures).

Commissioner Jim Parent Disputed Info from Plaintiff Bill Pyle

Much was said during the Commission meeting both for and against putting these charter provisions on the ballot.  Here's my take on what was said:

Arguments raised by folks in favor of giving SPB residents a chance to vote on these provisions included:

• The provisions sparked costly litigation when the City tried to implement them by putting a comp plan  on the ballot in 2008
• A majority of St. Pete Beach voters (64.2%) voted against Amendment 4 (the state-wide "Hometown Democracy" that would have given similar voting rights to all Florida voters), thus clearly indicating that the people of St. Pete Beach have had second thoughts about such provisions.
• It is virtually impossible to craft 75-word ballot summaries of 100 page comprehensive plans/amendments in compliance with Florida election law, and unless they are repealed, the Charter amendments will subject the city to further ballot challenge lawsuits when the city needs to make future changes to its comprehensive plan.
• The city's ability to redevelop has been severely impaired by the impact of these provisions.
• By enacting the resolutions, the City Commission is not taking voting rights away from citizens, but rather is giving citizens an opportunity to vote on whether to make changes to the City Charter regarding the city's land use rules.

Plaintiff Candidate Bruce Kadoura opposed the resolutions

Here is my understanding of the arguments made by folks who opposed giving St. Pete Beach residents a chance to vote on these provisions:

• The City Commission should not put the provisions on the ballot because:
• If the ballot measures pass in March, it would terminate the right to vote that was created by those provisions.
• Terminating the right to vote on comprehensive plans would be like impairing a fundamental and constitutionally-endowed right to vote.
• The belief that it is possible to craft simple, clear, effective 75-word ballot summaries regarding comprehensive plans, but that the litigation resulted because the City commission was unable or unwilling to do so.
• Putting these provisions on the ballot will cause more division amongst city residents.
• Instead of putting these provisions on the ballot, the City should reach a settlement with the two local residents who had filed lawsuits against the City.

I've shared my take on the pro and con arguments made at the January 6 meeting because I think these arguments will probably be among the major themes and topics of discussion/debate between now and March, and I for one will be very interested to observe how the debate will unfold.

For my part, I hope the ongoing debate and discussion will be grounded in reason and fact...a tall order when hot-button issues like land development and voting rights converge.

St. Pete Beach's Litigation Saga: Kadoura Ruling Ends One Chapter, Begins Another

Photo by Rosemary Manning

New Year's Day in St. Pete Beach.

To me it seems fitting that Judge Demers' final rulings in Bill Pyle and Bruce Kadoura's lawsuits against the City arrived on the eve of the New Year, a time when folks reflect on where they have been, where they are now, and where they would like to be.  

As reported by the St. Petersburg Times ("Judge Tosses St. Pete Beach Comprehensive Plan"), Judge rejected many of Pyle and Kadoura's claims that the 2008 ballot language and the Settlement Agreement were improper, misleading and invalid.

However, Judge Demers did rule in favor of Pyle and Kadoura on several counts.  As a result, under the current provisions of the City Charter and Judge Demers' rulings, the City's Comprehensive Plan must be put back on the ballot for approval by the voters before it will be fully enacted (which in turn requires yet another set of 75 word ballot summaries (which in turn places the City at risk for yet another round of lawsuits challenging the ballot summary language)).

So here we stand, the people of St. Pete Beach, at the threshold of a new year, made both richer and poorer by the long journey of the past year. 

The conflict and turmoil that arose between our residents has, in my view, been no less costly than the crippling legal expenses born by both the City and the plaintiffs.  And the end result of that conflict (i.e. the Demers rulings) brought neither complete satisfaction nor complete finality to anyone.

While many unanswered questions remain, the Demers rulings have at last provided more clarity and guidance regarding the legal standards that the City must satisfy when putting a Comprehensive Plan or Plan Amendment on the ballot under the current version of the City Charter.

Now that we are newly-equipped with this hard-won knowledge, I hope the people of St. Pete Beach will chart a course for the New Year that makes the most of what we have learned and restores both Unity and Prosperity to our community.

Amen!

[Revised on 1/3/2011 to clarify regarding the effect of Judge Demers' opinion]