The St. Pete Beach Paradox - Part 2

I was very pleased that a comment to my last blogpost was posted by "Ken", whom I believe (but I'm not certain) is Ken Weiss, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the ballot-challenge litigation against St. Pete Beach.  In his comment, Ken proffers a suggested alternative 75-word ballot summary that inserts some new language about building height.

First of all, it's really great to get this kind of feedback...especially if Ken really is Ken Weiss...because this would be the first suggested ballot language that I've seen from folks who had issues with the City's ballot language.  Hopefully now we can have an informed, reasoned discussion about these ballot language issues and the challenges that these issues raise for the City.

Anyway, before I share Ken's suggested ballot language, let's take a look at the original ballot summary the City used in 2008 (the language that started the lawsuit and that the Plaintiff argued was deceptive):

OK, so now here is the new ballot summary language suggested by Ken:

Ken's suggested ballot language adds language that opponents of the City's 2008 comprehensive plan have frequently emphasized as being, in their minds, critical to full disclosure:  a specific disclosure of 146 feet as an increased building height.

I certainly can appreciate that folks who abhor the height increases included in the 2008 comp plan would want to have language such as that proposed by Ken included in the ballot summary.  However, after reviewing Ken's proposed revisions, it seems to me that Ken's revision leaves unresolved many of the fatal problems that I discussed in my last blogpost, as well as raising new problems.

Let's start with the "easy" stuff, i.e. the unresolved problems.

In my last blogpost, I discussed the fact that, in his ruling in the St. Pete Beach Ballot Challenge litigation, Judge Demers ruled that the City's 2008 ballot summary needed additional information describing the legal effect of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. 

Specifically, Judge Demers ruled that the summary needed additional language explaining that the proposed plan intended to incentivise commercial redevelopment, would allow increases in building height and shifts in residential and commercial density without further voter approval, and created incentives for affordable housing.  

After reviewing Ken's proposed ballot summary revisions, it seems to me that his revisions have the same deficiencies that Judge Demers found in the City's ballot summary.  To better illustrate the problem, I've taken Ken's proposed ballot language and I've added all of the additional language that, in my view (and as discussed in MUCH greater detail in my last blogpost), would be necessary to satisfy Judge Demers' requirements as stated in his ruling (my best effort at crafting the briefest possible Demers-mandated additional language is highlighted in blue):

Final wordcount:  132 words (76.0% over the 75 word limit).

Thus, by my reading of Judge Demers' ruling, and using the fewest possible words, it seems to me that Ken's proposed ballot summary language does not contain all of the disclosure required by Florida election law and Judge Demers, and when the additional language required by Judge Demers is added, Ken's proposed ballot summary is 76% over the 75 word limitation imposed by Florida election law.
 
It seems to me that there are other problems with Ken's proposed ballot language.  It's my understanding that the City's proposed 2008 Comprehensive Plan did not allow increased building heights up to 146 feet throughout the City;  it's my understanding that such height increases were only allowed in the 1.0 mile zone known as the Large Resort District. 

Thus, even if Ken's proposed summary, (as revised by Judge Demer's additional language), could somehow be made to satisfy the 75-word rule, Ken's ballot summary would still be subject to legal challenge as being deceptive and misleading.  Why?  Because Ken's language fails to specify that the height increases are not city-wide and are limited to a specific area, and in fact might create the false impression that 146-foot building heights would be allowed everywhere in St. Pete Beach.

Of course, these are just my own personal views and observations of this very complex issue.  However, I think this illustrates how extremely difficult (if not impossible)  it is apply Florida's election rules and regulations to the review, approval and implementation of a city's comprehensive plan(s).

Finally, thanks very much to Ken for proffering his suggested ballot language.  If there are any errors or inaccuracies in my analysis, I welcome any and all constructive comments and corrections...I've always tried to be the first one to acknowledge my mistakes.  Though I remain convinced that it is not possible to craft a 75 word ballot summary of a comprehensive plan that satisfies Florida law, I hope this is but a beginning to an ongoing, reasoned and respectful discussion about this important issue.