I Believe

Last night I received a telephone call that, in a single heartbeat, brought sharp and clear perspective to many of the things I've been seeing and hearing lately.

Late last week, my father, KayMane Lew Hing, began to feel unwell, and on Friday he was hospitalized for a serious medical condition that will be the primary focus of my attention for the foreseeable near future.

Since I'm not sure what is in store in the coming weeks, and how much time and energy I will have to devote to this blog, I wanted to take a moment from the travel arrangements and other details I'm dealing with this morning to say a few brief, incoherent and hasty words of closure regarding the topics I've been discussing.

The clarity and substance of my father's values, and his unwavering dedication to creating a life for his family and community that is sustained and enriched by those values, is the standard by which I have strived to live my own life. 

It is from him that I learned to fight for what you believe, for what is right, and to do so in a way that is fair and true. 


And that is what I've done, to the best of my ability, on this Blog.  Regarding the March election, folks can vote however they want...unlike many who are involved in this debate, I'm not trying to sway votes one way or the other.  But I have developed some strong beliefs along the way that I think Dad would expect me to express.  These things are not about an election.  They are about what I believe is right.

So, with the clock ticking, and in a much more abbreviated than I had ever intended, here is What I Believe about St. Pete Beach:

• I believe St. Pete Beach is one of the World's most beautiful places to live.
• I believe the residents of SPB share a love of and dedication to the future of their City unlike the residents of any other city in the state of Florida.
• I believe that the Bill Pyle and the CRG folks have the right to have used the legal system to preserve and protect what they feel is right.   I know many folks in town strongly disagree, but the American legal system is something I believe in unconditionally, and it is a fundamental element of American Exceptionalism that my Dad fought and sacrificed dearly for in Korea.
• I believe that the SOLV folks also care deeply about the quality and future of our city, and, like Pyle, had every right to use the legal system and the terms of the city charter.
• As such, I believe that attacks on the person and character of anyone involved in this debate, SOLV, CRG or anyone else, are base, unwarranted and accomplish nothing but undermining the very foundation of our precious community.
• I believe that it was not possible to create 75 word ballot summaries for the 2008 Comp plan, or any comp plan, that would satisfy Florida law and the standards set by Judge Demers in the Pyle decision.
• I do NOT believe that any member of the past or present City commission lied, deceived or acted with malice or ulterior motive in the drafting and approval of the 2008 ballot summaries.  I believe the commission did the best it could to satisfy a impossible standard, and the failure of the ballot summaries to satisfy the standards set by Judge Demers are more a reflection of the flaws in the City Charter than the actions and motives of the commission.

In short, none of the folks on either side who are the subject of the scathing rhetoric lately are deserving of such comments. 

It isn't right.  That's what Dad would say, and I've made every effort to say it as as clearly, as honestly and fairly as humanly possible.

Thanks for reading and commenting...everyone!

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. 

The St. Pete Beach Paradox

As most St. Pete Beach residents know, our City was sued after we voted on a Comprehensive Plan in 2008: the main charge against the City was that its 75 word ballot summary describing the Comp plan was misleading.

When Judge Demers issued his ruling in the case, he ruled partly in favor of the City and partly against the City. When ruling against the City, the Judge found that the City's 75 word ballot summaries describing the City's 100 page comprehensive plan needed to include more information to satisfy the disclosure requirements of Florida election law.

After Judge Demers' decision was issued, some folks have said they think the City deceived the voters...that the City could, and should, have drafted 75-word ballot summaries that provided all of the necessary description of the City's proposed 100 page comprehensive plan according to Florida law.

I wasn't so sure. My gut says it would be next to impossible to create a 75-word ballot summary of a comp plan that cannot be challenged in Court, but since Judge Demers made some very specific comments in his opinion about what he thought was missing from the summaries, I decided to find out for myself whether it is possible to follow Judge Demers' opinion and revise the ballot summaries to include all of the missing disclosures and still satisfy the 75 word limit imposed by Florida law.

The more I looked into this the more I saw what I'm now calling The St. Pete Beach Paradox: Our City Charter requires that we vote on comprehensive plans and amendments, but Florida law requires that putting those plans on the ballot requires a 75 word ballot summary...yet putting Judge Demers' rulings into practice forces the city to add more information than can be condensed into 75 words.

In other words, adding sufficient words to a ballot summary to provide full disclosure in satisfaction of Judge Demers's standards causes the City to violate the 75-word rule, and attempting to satisfy the 75-word rule by deleting words from the ballot summary causes the City to violate Judge Demers' disclosure rules...thus creating an endless loop of election law violations that the City cannot ever hope to avoid.

Please click on the video link below to see a short video where I describe what I found: