St. Pete Beach & Hometown Democracy

Red Light Cameras: The Next Lawsuit Nightmare for St. Pete Beach

2011-05-22T08:08:00.000-04:00

Like many St. Pete Beach residents, I am pleased and relieved that our city has enjoyed a few months respite from the caustic and divisive rhetoric about condo canyons and the Right to Vote. We deserve a break. We need a break. And with any luck, the present state of relative tranquility will become the New Normal in St. Pete Beach.

The staggering legal costs of the St. Pete Beach development war has taken a huge toll on our city's resources. The last thing we need is a whole new issue that will cost the city even more legal fees.

That's why I was more than a little disturbed when I saw this morning's May 22, 2011 St. Pete Times Story about the rising number of successful and costly legal challenges to Red Light cameras. This story reveals that clever lawyers are successfully challenging Red Light Camera fines/tickets, and are causing cities that have installed those cameras to incur substantial legal fees defending those fines/tickets. As a result, city legal fees relating to red light cameras are increasing, cities are being forced to hire additional personnel to review the camera videos, and the increased number of legal challenges is taxing city resources and causing a backlog of unprocessed tickets, which leads to more tickets subject to legal challenge, which leads to more lawyers and lawsuits, which leads to more legal fees....

It is my understanding that Red light cameras have been marketed to the St. Pete Beach Commission as not only a means to reduce accidents, but also as a source of revenue from the traffic fines the cameras generate, and that the last city commission approved an ordinance allowing the installation of red light cameras in our city.

I was not able to attend the commission meeting when this ordinance was debated. However, I'd bet my fiddle that the commission wasn't aware of the alarming trend of increased legal challenges and legal costs associated with the implementation of Red Light Cameras.

I think the new commission needs to thoroughly examine the potential for increased legal fees and expenses before taking any action to install and implement Red Light Cameras on St. Pete Beach. Otherwise, we may be adding Ted Hollander to the list of lawyers who make their living suing our beautiful city.

I Believe

2011-02-20T13:16:00.000-05:00

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

2011-02-13T21:36:00.000-05:00

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

2011-02-13T09:58:00.000-05:00

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:

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

2011-01-30T16:44:00.000-05:00

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

2011-01-22T19:08:00.000-05:00

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

2011-01-09T12:36:00.000-05:00

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

2011-01-02T16:12:00.001-05:00


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]

My Christmas Wish for St. Pete Beach

2010-12-25T10:11:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas to All!

For so many of us, Christmas is a time of openness and sharing, a time when the bonds of love and goodwill so essential to happiness and fulfillment in life are renewed and strengthened with family, friends and neighbors.

Of course, we all know that while St. Pete Beach is the most beautiful place on earth to live and play, the dramas playing on our little island often proffer a stark contrast to the warm glow and comforting tones of a Hallmark Christmas special.

So this is my Christmas Wish for St. Pete Beach: that in the new year, we the people of St. Pete Beach will restore the peace and tranquility that results from a shared vision of the future of our city, that we will set aside the hostile divisiveness that Howard Troxler so gleefully satirizes in prose and verse, and that we will confirm the trust and confidence we have in those who serve in the administration and governance of our city.

Let there be Peace on the Beach!

Amen.

Moving Ahead in St. Pete Beach, One Jellybean at a Time

2010-12-18T08:13:00.000-05:00

The November 29 ruling by Judge Demers against St. Pete Beach in plaintiff Bill Pyle's ballot language challenge lawsuit illustrates the challenges facing St. Pete Beach as it struggles to bring an end to the bitter polarization and costly litigation that has plagued our City since 2006 (when we embraced the core principles of Florida Hometown Democracy). Just about everyone agrees that a full repeal of the 2006 charter amendments is necessary, including the City Commission, the editorial board of the St. Pete Times, and a majority of the citizens who attended the special meeting of the Commission on December 13th. There is a very small minority of folks who view the Judge's ruling as proof that the City's 2008 ballot language was misleading, but look carefully and you'll see that the Judge isn't saying that the City was deceptive. He's simply ruling that the City failed to satisfy its own self-imposed rule that it fully and completely describe its proposed 150-page comp plan in a 75-word ballot summary.

Despite the clear impact of these rules on our City's governance, the impossibility and magnitude of the problem continues to be very difficult to describe. A few months ago, I compared the task of drafting a 75-word ballot summary of a 150-page comp plan to describing the Bible in 75 words, but some folks are still confused.

So here is another way to look at the problem:

Think of your favorite flavor of jellybean (everyone has a different favorite). Now think of a gallon jug full of jellybeans, with each tasty bean being one of the many words needed to adequately describe each of the many elements of a 150-page comprehensive plan.

And now think of a teacup of those jellybeans as the 75 words you're allowed in a ballot summary.

St. Pete Beach embraced the principles of Hometown Democracy in 2006 by amending its charter to require all comp plans and amendments to be approved by a vote of the people. In doing so, we injected Florida election law requirements into our local land use process and found that Florida's election laws (i.e. the 75-word ballot summary rule) were not designed to handle approval of complex, voluminous documents like comprehensive plans. More important, by putting our comp plans on the ballot, we unwittingly and naively exposed ourselves to the crippling expense of legal challenges when voting on complex comp plans made it difficult or impossible to comply with Florida's election laws.

In short, we the people of St. Pete Beach gave folks like Plaintiff Pyle the right to drag the City into Court and challenge the propriety of a comp plan (which was approved by an overwhelming majority vote of the people) if the City failed to fit a gallon jug's worth of descriptive jellybeans (and especially his favorites) into the 75-word ballot summary teacup.

When Judge Demers ruled against the City, it was irrelevant that it's IMPOSSIBLE to adequately describe the comp plan in 75 words. it was the City, not the Judge, who adopted that impossible standard...the Judge's job was simply to confirm that the City failed to fit all the beans into the teacup.

The SPB ballot litigation illustrates one of the great dangers of the Hometown Democracy experiment: it creates a highly litigious environment where cities can incur massive litigation costs because their good-faith efforts to foster redevelopment and revitalization failed to satisfy an impossible election law standard.

The solution to this problem is not to attempt to fit Pyle's favorite jellybeans into the 75-word teacup.

The solution is to throw away the cup.

The solution is to repeal our local Hometown Democracy provisions and eliminate the impossible requirement of summarizing complex, lenghthy comp plans in 75-word ballot summaries.

The solution is to stop counting jellybeans, and to start sharing them.

Moving Ahead in St. Pete Beach, One Jellybean at a Time

2010-12-17T20:11:00.000-05:00

Please click here to go to this blogpost..

Under construction...hacking code....squishing bugs....post will be back online shortly....

St. Pete Beach's Holiday Lighted Boat Parade Sets Sail!

2010-12-11T10:25:00.000-05:00

Now that election season is behind us, it's time to get into the Spirit of the Season and appreciate the qualities that make St. Pete Beach such a wonderful place to live. Here are some pix from last night's SPB Holiday Lighted Boats Parade!

Yes & No on 4: Both Sides are Wrong about St. Pete Beach's Legal Fees

2010-10-03T11:19:00.000-04:00

The truly sad thing about the Amendment 4 debate is how wrong BOTH sides/campaigns are when it comes to St. Pete Beach.

The "Yes" campaign goes wrong by denying that St. Pete Beach has anything at all to do with the consequences of Amendment 4's "prime directive", (i.e., putting comprehensive plans on the ballot). But the "No on 4" campaign also goes wrong, but in a different way: the "No" campaign is wrong about St. Pete Beach because many of its claims are either broad, over-generalized statements or do not adequately sort out the complex, tangled mass of factual details and nuances that are the essence of the St. Pete Beach debacle. In this regard, I agree with today's statement by Howard Troxler of the St. Petersburg Times that the "No on 4" campaign has made claims that are so overstated that it "hurts their own cause."

For example, the "No" campaign has stated that St. Pete Beach's enactment of Amendment 4-style regulations "decimated their economy." The campaign's videos feature vistas of closed businesses and vacant lots, and the message is that this economic devastation was caused by St. Pete Beach's amendment of its city charter to require a vote on comprehensive plan amendments. The truth is that St. Pete Beach is one of hundreds of Florida cities with declining property values, vacant storefronts and once-thriving businesses struggling to save their going concerns. Florida has been hit with an economic crisis of unprecedented scope and severity, and the truth is there is just no way to really tell how much of St. Pete Beach's current woes were caused by the impact of it's Amendment 4-style rules and how much are the result of the overall, nationwide crisis.

The effectiveness of the "No on 4" campaign's argument about jobs is also also undercut because it is so overstated. The "No" folks have cited statistics about how many jobs will be lost because of Amendment 4, but I think most Florida voters know that the construction industry was a huge factor in Florida's jobs market, and that many of the lost jobs factored in to those reports are construction jobs that probably won't be coming back any time soon regardless of whether Amendment 4 passes or not.

But for me, the campaign talking point that really sticks in my craw (do we have craws?) is about the legal fees of St. Pete Beach. The "Yes" folks have fervently denied that the SPB legal fees have anything to do with Amendment 4, and I've blogged about why that claim is inccurate. But the truth is that the "No on 4" campaign is also wrong. I've seen various amounts claimed by the "No" folks about the legal fees incurred by St. Pete Beach as a result of enacting our Amendment 4-style regulations (I think $750,000 is the number most used).

Simply put, the $750,000 in SPB legal fees asserted by the "No" folks as relevant to the Amendmnent 4 debate is just as inaccurate as the denials and $0.00 asserted by Hometown Democracy. Like many other issues under Amendment 4, BOTH sides are overstating their case. As I've said before, Amendment 4 supporters have a point when they say that some of the legal fees incurred by St. Pete Beach are not the sort of fees that other Florida cities would incur under Amendment 4.

Why is this true? Well, back in 2006, when St. Pete Beach first was considering and then passed its Amendment 4-style rules, there was litigation over whether adding a citizen referendum vote to the growth management process was kosher. But the St. Pete Beach version of Amendment 4 failed to include Amendment 4's requirement that the vote come at the END of the process. Whose fault was that? Well, the blame for that lies with Citizens for Responsible Growth, the folks who drafted the language of the amendment and to got it on the ballot. So when it was passed, then another PAC (Save Our Little Village) got signatures and got their version of a comprehensive plan on the ballot. Was that according to Amendment 4? No. It was pursuant to different city charter provision that allows citizens to gather petition signatures and put initiatives on the ballot. The result: litigation over whether the SOLV initiative (which passed in St. Pete Beach by an overwhelming majority vote) violated growth management laws.

With me so far? I hope so, because this is the point of the story where BOTH campaigns drive into the ditch. Hometown Democracy would be right if the story ended there, but unfortunately it didn't. After the SPB election in 2008 (when the SOLV initiative won the vote of the people in St. Pete Beach), one of the CRG folks started a new round of litigation, suing the City alleging that the ballot language used to describe the comprehensive plan amendment was deceptive and misleading, and I've previously blogged about why, contrary to Hometown Democracy's claims, those litigation expenses are a valid comparison to the litigation that could threaten all Florida cities if Amendment 4 passes.

But the "No on 4" campaign also gets it wrong. Why? Because most of the litigation that arose prior to the 2008 ballot language challenge lawsuits doesn't relate to the causes of action that could arise under Amendment 4, and while I haven't seen a breakdown of the figures that go into the $750,000 total asserted by the "No" folks, I think it's safe to say that a good chunk of those fees relate to the lawsuits that arose before the 2008 ballot language challenges. Those legal fees should not be included in the Amendment 4 debate.

In fairness to both of the campaigns, it is virtually impossible to get good, accurate figures regarding the St. Pete Beach litigation. St. Pete Beach was the test case in Florida for the Hometown Democracy concept, and over a dozen separate lawsuits have been filed since 2004 alleging numerous different claims, some of which are relevant and some of which either relate to the unique circumstances of St. Pete Beach. Often multiple lawsuits were consolidated for administrative and billing purposes, making it virtually impossible to segregate which fees are directly and generally relevant to Amendment 4 and which related to the unique circumstances of St. Pete Beach.

Under these complex circumstances, it is not surprising that both the "Yes" and "No" campaigns succumbed to the temptation to oversimplify the facts to advance their respective agendas, but both need to do a much better job of providing accurate information about what happened in St. Pete Beach. The "Yes on 4" folks understate the legal fees incurred by St. Pete Beach that are relevant to the Amendment 4 debate. The "No on 4" folks overstate the legal fees when they make their argument. As with most complicated issues, the truth lies somewhere in between.

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

2010-09-18T12:23:00.000-04:00

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:

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."
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].
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:

The City's settlement agreement was not illegal,
The City properly advertised the referendum,
The election was not unconstitutional, and
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

Agreeing to Agree on Amendment 4? Part 1

2010-09-15T07:32:00.000-04:00

I was very pleased to receive comments from several Amendment 4 supporters in response to my request for facts supporting their view that the St. Pete Beach litigation is not a prime example of the flaws of Amendment 4.

One commenter ("Annonymous") cited the commentary "What Really Happened in St. Pete Beach," by former St. Pete Beach Commissioner Harry Metz, in which he states his view of the events in St. Pete Beach and his opinion that they had nothing to do with Amendment 4.

Another commenter (Lynn Anderson) cited "What About St. Pete Beach and Florida Hometown Democracy / Amendment 4", a blogpost on a Hometown Democracy blog which recites some of the history of the St. Pete Beach litigation.

A third commenter ("Vote Yes", a regular follower of this blog whose comments and criticisms of my coverage of this issue prompted my last blogpost) offer some factual assertions in support of his position.

I am pleased to have received these comments because, in reviewing the information presented in those posts, I see that there is less disagreement about the facts than anyone realizes, and I'm hopeful that in responding to these comments, perhaps we can make some progress and find some common ground in our discussion about Amendment 4 and the facts about the St. Pete Beach litigation. Since the subject matter is a bit detailed, I'll tackle each of the three commenter's comments in a separate post.

OK, so let's start with "Anonymous" and her reference to the commentary by former St. Pete Beach commissioner Harry Metz. Metz states that the St. Pete Beach litigation has "nothing to do with Amendment 4", and that if Amendment 4 had been in place in St. Pete Beach, "none of the conflict would have taken place."

In support of his conclusion, Metz makes several factual assertions about the events in St. Pete Beach, and he also comments about the resulting lawsuits. This may come as a surprise to some, but I agree with several of his comments (more about this in a minute).

However, as reported in the St. Petersburg Times, many of Commissioner Metz's factual assertions are incorrect. I'm hopeful that by presenting a careful, step by step explanation, we can find some common ground about what happened in St. Pete Beach.

According to Metz, the bulk of the St. Pete Beach litigation is centered on two of the dozen or so lawsuits that have been filed: one of these lawsuits deals with allegations that St. Pete Beach violated Florida's Growth Management Act when it put its comprehensive plan amendments on the ballot in 2008, while the other involves allegations that the ballot language used by the City was deceptive and misleading.

I'll start with something Commissioner Metz asserts that I DO agree with. Regarding the lawsuit about ballot language, Metz writes:

"The...lawsuit against the city asserted that the ballot language for these ordinances misrepresented them, with the intention of deceiving the voters...Much of the legal expense incurred by the city relates to the ballot language case. Again, nothing to do with Amendment 4." [emphasis added]

I agree with Commissioner Metz that much of the legal expense from the St. Pete Beach litigation relates to the ballot challenge case. The ballot challenge litigation is clearly the crux of the entire St. Pete Beach litigation. As reported in the St. Petersburg Times, significant effort and expense was expended by the city engaging in weeks of settlement negotiations that ultimately were unsuccessful, and a trial on the ballot language challenges was just concluded on August 19 that consumed an entire day in court. The importance of the ballot challenge litigation was further emphasized when, in April of this year, attorney even Ken Weiss (the attorney for the three individuals suing the city) stated that his clients "would drop all the lawsuits" if the city would agree to ballot language favored by his clients.

So I agree with Metz regarding the magnitude of the ballot challenge litigation. However, I disagree with his statement that such litigation "has nothing to do with Amendment 4." As I have said again and again, the St. Pete Beach ballot challenge litigation arose because Florida's election laws required the city to summarize its 150-page comp plan amendments in 75 word ballot summaries. No matter how hard you try, its' impossible to compress a 150-200 page document filled with complex land use regulations into a 75 word summary in a way that is immune from legal attack by someone who feels their interests or concerns have been omitted. And just like the plaintiffs in the St. Pete Beach (who felt that the city failed to include THEIR prime concerns within those precious 75 words), every other Florida city will be subject to similar challenges if Amendment 4 passes.

I also disagree with Metz's statement that "none of the conflict would have taken place" in St. Pete Beach if Amendment 4 had been in place because even if Amendment 4 had been in place, and even if the election had taken place after all of the public hearings and approvals by the City and by Florida's growth management officials, the City still would have put the comp plan amendments on the ballot, and the ballot summaries used by the City would still have been challenged by the St. Pete Beach plaintiffs. Under Florida law, there is absolutely no difference between the ballot summaries the City put on the ballot under the City's charter and the ballot summaries the City would have submitted under Amendment 4, and the lawsuits would still have happened if Amendment 4 had been in place in St. Pete Beach because the language of Amendment 4 does nothing to insulate cities from the liability and expense of ballot challenge litigation once they have been forced to put their comp plans and comp plan amendments on the ballot.

I hope that Amendment 4 supporters will agree that litigation over ballot language is a serious risk and an inevitable consequence of enacting Amendment 4, because in doing so they would not only be agreeing with me, they would also be agreeing with Hometown Democracy founder Leslie Blackner. When questioned by Politifact about St. Pete Beach and the likelihood of ballot challenge litigation spreading throughout Florida under Amendment 4, Ms. Blackner confirmed that litigation over ballots and summaries would result from Amendment 4 (though she opined that most of the lawuits would filed by developers).

So this is why I'm saying that St. Pete Beach's ballot challenge litigation is a good example of the costly consequences of Amendment 4. The St. Pete Beach plaintiffs' attorney Ken Weiss agrees that the ballot challenges are the crux of the St. Pete Beach litigation. Former Commissioner Harry Metz agrees that much of the legal expense arose from the ballot challenge litigation. Hometown Democracy founder Leslie Blackner agrees that ballot challenge litigation will result from the passage of Amendment 4. And the facts are backed by the St. Petersburg Times.

It seems to me that rather than disputing whether ballot challenge litigation (like St. Pete Beach's) will arise under Amendment 4, the more meaningful discussion would be this: Given that costly ballot challenge litigation is a risk and an inevitable consequence of Amendment 4, do the benefits of Amendment 4 sufficiently outweigh those risks and costs to favor passage of Amendment 4?

Of course, Metz's commentary also includes allegations that St. Pete Beach violated Florida's Growth Management laws. Since this post is already so long, I'll tackle the Growth Management issue in the next post.

Look Here for More Information about St Pete Beach and Amendment 4

Agreeing to Disagree on Amendment 4

2010-09-11T12:57:00.000-04:00

I'll be the first to admit that my expectations when I first started blogging about St. Pete Beach's experience with its comprehensive plan changes were a bit naive.

I expected that after I presented some clear, indisputable facts and setting the record straight on what really happened in St. Pete Beach, we would quickly progress to an interesting discussion between supporters and opponents about the relative merits of Amendment 4. Instead, I've received a surprising amount of negativity and denial about what actually happened in St. Pete Beach, which is surprising because the nature of the litigation is a matter of public record. I must say that I'm disappointed that it appears that some of the most important conversations about the merits and weaknesses of Amendment 4 are likely never to happen, because in order for that to occur, there needs to be a basic agreement as to the simple facts.

Here is the tail end of a recent exchange in the comments section of my recent blogpost on September 4, 2010. The comment is posted by an anonymous Amendment 4 supporter under the alias "Vote Yes on":

Supporters have responded to your specious claims saying that St Pete Beach is not and has not been an example of Amendment 4. It is not an example of Amendment 4. Your masters, the Florida Chamber, hired campaign consultants last year and the game plan they devised was to use that as part of the campaign message intended to distract and confuse voters. You have been trained and are following their game plan. They think that if you keep saying St Pete Beach is Amendment 4 people will eventually believe it. You've based your opposition on a false premise. Supporters are not going to waste time arguing over St Pete Beach because it is not valid. And we don't have to prove it to you. So you've got to come up with a better reason. And you can sit there and beat your chest saying that it really is an example but we disagree. To argue with you over why and how is not productive. It is not an example so there is no point in arguing over your failed premise. You wouldn't conceed anything. And they wouldn't let you conceed, either. And we know they've instructed you to keep trying to argue about St Pete because their hope is that it will keep that failed premise alive, but I trust that voters will see through all of the false claims. We can agree to disagree on the St Pete premise. And I know they won't let you give that one up. Because you've established a (virtual) political connection with St Pete Beach, they will have you continue with the blog every week and keep shouting and pounding your chest saying, "Everyone!!! Listen!!! I'm over here and it really is an example!!! It really is, I swear!!! And I really am a resident over here so I do have some credibility!!! Please believe me!!! I want them to argue with me!!! That will add some legitimacy to my claims!!!"

And meahwhile there's only a couple of us reading this silly blog.

"Vote Yes on"

I've received similar comments from Amendment 4 supporters in the past. Here's my response to Mr. "Vote Yes" and the others who have made similar comments:

Dear "Vote Yes":

It's clear that we disagree and that we agree to disagree.

I think we can also agree that the readership of my "silly blog" is, well, modest.

You are mistaken in your belief that I am controlled by "masters", that I'm being "instructed" to say or do anything, and/or that anyone has the power to prevent me from "conceding" anything. Nobody has "trained" me to say what I'm saying...that's a laughable concept since I reject campaign tactics, and I'm dealing in a level of factual detail far beyond what either the Hometown Democracy campaign or the No on 4 campaign have deigned to examine.

My blog content is my own, and if by some lucky chance you were to produce some factual information that disproves what I've presented, I am ready, willing and able to say in my blog "hey, I was wrong, I've changed my mind", and there's nothing and nobody who would stop me from doing so. Unfortunately, no such information has been provided by anyone.

Again, I'm not really arguing with you. Our dialog hasn't really even progressed to the point where we could have a real argument. Facts are facts. Neither you, nor me, nor anyone can "concede" about whether the sky is blue, whether grass is green, or whether ballot language/challenge lawsuits occurred in St. Pete Beach as a result of putting comp plan amendments on the ballot. Those are just the facts.

I think part of the problem is that folks tend to hear different things when they hear the same words being spoken. For example, when I say "St. Pete Beach is an example of the flaws of Amendment 4", supporters tend to interpret that statement to be an assertion that the language of SPB and Amendment 4 and/or the events of SPB are identical, and they respond by claiming that St. Pete Beach is different because, for example, the comp plan amendments in St. Pete Beach arose from a citizen petition, rather than from the city.

Unfortunately, when I say "St. Pete Beach is an example of the flaws of Amendment 4", the Hometown Democracy folks don't seem to hear what I'm saying. I agree that there are some distinctions between that is a distinction, but those distinctions are irrelevant. My point is and has always been that when St. Pete Beach put its comp plan amendments on the ballot (which is precisely what Amendment 4 seeks to do), the city suffered negative effects, especially in the form of lawsuits which focused not on how the comp plan got to the ballot, but rather on how the city draft its ballot summaries once the comp plans got onto the ballot. I just don't see how that can be a matter of dispute.

Of course, you say that Amendment 4 supporters have "responded" to my claims. Well, yes, technically I've received a lot of "responses", but none of them have disproven any of the facts I've presented. The "responses" I've received have been personal attacks, sarcastic comments about diminutive following of my blog, and blanket, unsubstantiated statements that I'm wrong. That's ok if we are arguing about something ephemeral, like religion or philosophy, where there are no hard facts or objectively "right" answers, but it doesn't work in matters of FACTS.

I don't need or want to "argue" with you to "add legitimacy" to my claims...the facts speak for themselves to any and all who care enough about this issue to take a good look. What we can "argue" about, if we ever were to progress to that point, is what impact those facts can/should have on the question of whether Amendment 4 should or shouldn't be passed. For example, I was really hoping to be able to have a rational, civilized conversation with a Jill Yelverton or a George Niemann, or even Leslie Blackner or Ross Burnaman (which would be ideal) where we could, as a starting point, recognize the fact that:

Overdevelopment is a serious problem in Florida
Many Floridians are deeply concerned, frustrated and angry about the problem of overdevelopment and the impact that overdevelopment has had on Florida and its economy
Putting comp plan amendments on the ballot is one possible approach that is designed to address the problem of overdevelopment, and
Putting comp plans on the ballot does have negative side effects (i.e. exposing cities to liability under Florida election law for ballot language challenges and Growth Management Act challenges).

Having laid down that groundwork, we could then have a great debate/discussion about the real issue, namely, whether the possible benefits of enacting Amendment 4 (i.e. slowing/stopping development approval) is worth the detrimental effects of putting comp plans on the ballot (i.e., the cost of litigation, impact on Florida's economic recovery, etc). Now that would be an interesting debate that we could have and where we could "argue".

Unfortunately, we haven't gotten that far because you seem to be denying that ballot language challenges (and the resulting cost/impact on Florida's cities) are a possible consequence of enacting Amendment 4, and that's just not true.

As I've said before, any Florida voter who truly understands the risks of Amendment 4 and decides to vote for it anyway, that's their choice, and that's the American way. Folks may be so angry about overdevelopment that they decide they are willing to put up with the risk of lawsuits resulting from passing Amendment 4, and if that's how folks feel, then I respect that.

And in all of this, I just don't see why it's necessary to be disrespectful.

Hometown Democracy Operatives Support Amendment 4 with False Claims on WMNF Radio

2010-09-04T20:06:00.000-04:00

On September 2, 2010, Hometown Democracy founder Leslie Blackner and communications director Wayne Garcia appeared on Rob Lorei's Radioactivity Live Call-In Show on Tampa's WMNF (88.5 FM) to discuss Amendment 4.

No opponents of Amendment 4 were included in the discussion, which is very unfortunate, because during the course of the interview a number of completely false claims were made by the Hometown Democracy folks, and nobody was there to set the record straight for the benefit of Mr. Lorei's listeners.

The most egregiously false claims were made by Mr. Garcia regarding the relevance of St. Pete Beach and the staggeringly costly morass of litigation that resulted from the city's attempt to implement Amendment 4-style land use regulations.

When asked by Rob Lorei to address the claims of Amendment 4 opponents that the St. Pete Beach's failed "experiment" is proof that Amendment 4 would be bad for Florida, Mr. Garcia said the following:

"The fact of the matter is that Amendment 4 was not tried out in St. Pete Beach. St. Pete Beach did enact a mechanism for its voters to be more involved in its growth process. The big fight, all the litigation, all the things that people point to and say 'look at all the terrible things that have happened' didn't happen because of the land use votes out there. They happened because of litigation over how it was attempted to be repealed. So it wasn't a fight over the land itself as much as they then tried to repeal the voters being involved. It was a fight over democracy."

Mr. Garcia went on to say:

"It really has not been tried out. So there is no place in the State we can point to because this is a statewide problem."

The problem: Mr. Garcia is just plain wrong!!! Mr. Garcia's statements are a complete misstatement of the actual facts of what happened in St. Pete Beach. In 2006, the voters of St. Pete Beach amended their city charter to require voter approval of comprehensive plan amendments (a requirement similar in all material respects to what is required by Amendment 4). When the city put comprehensive plan amendments on the ballot in 2008, those amendments were passed by an overwhelming majority vote, and lawsuits then were filed challenging the propriety of the ballot summaries used by the city when the comp plan changes were put on the ballot.

Contrary to Mr. Garcia's claims, the St. Pete Beach litigation did NOT arise because of attempts to repeal its Amendment 4-style voting requirements. The St. Pete Beach litigation arose because the city put its comp plan amendments on the ballot (as all Florida cities will be forced to do if Amendment 4 passes). If the Hometown Democracy folks don't want to believe me, they should believe Ken Weiss, Esq., the attorney for the guy suing St. Pete Beach. In a May 18, 2010 settlement letter to the City, Attorney Weiss said:

"The central issue in this litigation has been the assertion by my clients that there must be full disclosure in the ballot summaries that the voters are approving the threefold increase in height and density...[I]t seems apparent to the objective observer (and probably the judge) that the only reason not to include specific language on height and density is because of the fear that the voters might not approve the plan. The Commission is only being requested to provide ballot summaries which will tell the voters the truth."

Thus, straight from the "horse's mouth", it is clear that the Hometown Democracy folks are clearly wrong to deny that the St. Pete Beach lawsuits are similar to the lawsuits that could threaten all Florida cities if Amendment 4 passes. As I explain in great detail in a prior post, if Amendment 4 forces cities to put their comprehensive plan amendments on the ballot, Florida election law requires those amendments (often hundreds of pages filled with complex land use details) to be condensed into a 75-word ballot summary...and Floridians will soon learn what we learned in St. Pete Beach: that it's impossible to summarize a 200 page comp plan in 75 words in a way that can't be challenged by lawyers as being "deceptive", "misleading" or "incomplete."

Mr. Garcia was also wrong to claim that Amendment 4 hasn't been "tried out" in any other Florida city. The charter amendment adopted by St. Pete Beach in 2006 and Amendment 4 share the same basic premises and mandates: both require comprehensive plan changes to be approved by a vote of the people before they can be enacted by a city*. The litigation in St. Pete Beach arose from the city's attempt to in 2008 to comply with the requirement when it put its comprehensive plan changes on the ballot, not from any attempts to repeal those regulations.

In short: St. Pete Beach tried Amendment 4--we tried it by actually putting our comprehensive comp plan amendments on the ballot in 2008. The result: Massive delays, costly litigation, and volatile polarization of the city's residents that has torn our small beach community to pieces. That's the plain truth, and a similar fate awaits all Florida cities if Amendment 4 passes in November.

While Mr. Garcia referred in passing to St. Pete Beach's repeal of its Amendment 4-style regulations, the truth of the matter is that after suffering the disastrous consequences of trying to put comprehensive plan amendments on the ballot, the people of St. Pete Beach voted by an overwhelming majority vote to repeal most of its Amendment 4-style rules in favor of rules with drastically reduced scope. Unfortunately, if Amendment 4 passes, Floridians won't be able to repeal it once it's in place because cities lack the power to repeal constitutional amendments once they have been enacted.

There is no excuse for Hometown Democracy's misrepresentations of the facts. Hometown Democracy co-founders Leslie Blackner and Ross Burnaman are both lawyers, and Ross Burnaman has personally been involved in St. Pete Beach's litigation as one of the lawyers suing the city.

In other words, they should know better than to say false things about St. Pete Beach...and Floridians deserve to have straight and true information when they go to the polls in November.

*Amendment 4's requirements are even broader than what we adopted in St. Pete Beach (St Pete Beach only requires a vote on comp plan changes affecting more than 5 parcels of land, while Amendment 4 requires a vote on all comp plan changes, even those affecting only one parcel).

Amendment 4's Hidden Danger #1: It's Impossible to Create a "Lawyer-Proof" Ballot Summary that Describes a Comprehensive Plan in 75 Words or Less.

2010-09-04T13:02:00.000-04:00

Florida Amendment 4 (also known as "Hometown Democracy") seeks to give Floridians a final referendum vote on all comprehensive plan changes. It may seem like a good idea to folks who are frustrated with sprawl and overdevelopment, but voting for it is like bringing a piece of furniture into your home that looks nice but is infested with bedbugs...it's full of hidden dangers that can make your home and town unliveable and are very difficult to exterminate once in place.

Amendment 4's biggest (and most hidden) flaw is that by requiring all comprehensive plan changes to go on the ballot, Florida election law requires that those comp plan changes (which often involve hundreds of pages of complex land use language) must be summarized in a ballot summary that is 75 words or less, which exposes cities to massive litigation costs due to ballot language challenges.

Why is trying to create a 75 word ballot summary of a comprehensive plan change such a problem? What's the big deal?

The problem is that it is impossible to adequately summarize hundreds of pages of land use changes into a 75 word ballot summary, and if Florida's cities are forced to undertake this impossible task, they will be vulnerable to costly lawsuits challenging those summaries as deceptive and incomplete...which is precisely what happened in St. Pete Beach.

In 2008, St. Pete Beach put proposed comprehensive plan changes on the ballot. We did this because in 2006, we made changes to our city charter which (like Amendment 4) required that future changes to our comprehensive plan must be approved by a vote of the citizens. So when we put our comprehensive plan changes on the ballot in 2008, Florida election law forced the city to summarize the 150 pages of changes into a 75 word ballot summary.

Here's what the comprehensive plan change looked like....150 pages worth.

On Election Day, 2008, our comp plan was approved by the voters of St. Pete Beach by an overwhelming majority vote. Happy Day, right? Wrong! After the comp plan was approved by the voters, St. Pete Beach was promptly sued by a resident who alleged that the city's 75 word ballot summaries were "rife with deceptive and misleading statements" and that they omitted "material facts." Ironically, the plaintiff alleges that the city's 75 words were deficient, but in his complaint he cannot even describe what is missing from the city's ballot summaries in less than 75 words!

The litigation that started in 2008 is still ongoing, and in 2010 alone St. Pete Beach has incurred over $200,000 in legal fees defending the vote of the people. By comparison, St. Pete Beach spent only $33,000 on litigation in 2001. Similar problems threaten all Florida cities if Amendment 4 passes, since all Florida cities will also be forced to undertake the impossible task of crafting 75 word ballot summaries of comprehensive plan changes that involve hundreds of pages of complex land use changes.

The problem with summarizing comprehensive plans in 75 words under Amendment 4 is that you just can't fit everything that everyone cares about into those 75 words. No matter how hard you try, there will always be someone who can file a lawsuit alleging that what is most important to THEM was left out, and that the ballot language was "misleading" or "deceptive" or "incomplete." And like a swarm of bedbugs, land use lawyers thrive by feeding on these legal vulnerabilities...with all Floridians suffering for it.

So why will fixing the problems caused by Amendment 4 be as difficult as exterminating a house full of bedbugs? The reason is simple: Amendment 4 is a statewide constitutional amendment. Once Floridians figure out how overbroad and damaging Amendment 4 really is, local cities won't have the legal authority to alter or modify the scope of Amendment 4's rules to suit the needs and desires of the local population.

By comparison, once St. Pete Beach's voters realized the mistake they'd made by adopting their Amendment 4-style rules, we repealed their broad scope in favor of a much more restricted set of rules...but we were able to fix our mistake because we had the power to undo the changes we'd made to our local city charter. But since Amendment 4 is a constitutional amendment, no Florida city will have the power to undo its requirements once it's been approved, even if a majority of the city's voters want to alter or repeal it.

So, just like a bedbug infestation, once Amendment 4 is approved, Floridians will stuck dealing with the vexing problems that come with it for a very, very long time.

Vice Mayor Jim Parent Triumphs Over Ruttencutter Attacks in Amendment 4 / St. Pete Beach Exchange

2010-08-22T08:51:00.000-04:00

St. Pete Beach Vice Mayor Jim Parent's outspoken opposition to Amendment 4 recently drew hostile fire from not one, but two of the city's former vice mayors: Harry Metz and Ed Ruttencutter. While Metz and Ruttencutter both dispute that St. Pete Beach proves Amendment 4's flaws, Ruttencutter's venomous, demeaning, insult-laden criticism of Parent clearly resonated with Amendment 4 supporters (so much so that the Hometown Democracy campaign posted it on one of their blogs).

Most folks who are "Ruttencuttered" respond in kind, and, as a result, demean themselves as they drag themselves down to that sordid level. To his credit, VM Parent retained both his dignity and his focus, and demonstrated the soundness of his reasoning and the quality of his character by posting the following response:

{Blogmeister Note: Bolding and italics are added by the Blogmeister for emphasis and did not occur in the original}

Dear Mr. Ed:

I was finally able to breach my civility filter and distill the points I think you were trying to make.

I am an advocate of discussion grounded in a solid basis of facts, well-reasoned, and that point me toward a sound conclusion. That is what I (and I believe, other prudent citizens) need to experience to be persuaded by what is being calmly and civilly discussed.

The main reason why I think the approach you used to distinguish St. Pete Beach from Amendment 4 is not persuasive is because of the focus on form rather than substance. As an engineer I put a high value on substance.

For example, you are absolutely correct that the 2009 vote on our Comprehensive Plan was based on the initiative provisions of Section 7.02, Article VII of the City Charter; I don't think I've ever said or implied otherwise.

It is completely irrelevant to the Amendment 4 debate that the 2008 St. Pete Beach ballot issue arose under Section 7.02 rather than Section 3.15. The crux is not how an issue got on the ballot; it is what happened after our voters made their choice; i.e., the ballot language lawsuit attacking our City and how that relates to Amendment 4.

The true parallel between the 2008 St. Pete Beach election (that led to a lawsuit) and Amendment 4 is that, in both scenarios, Florida election law requires that the ordinances amending the Comp Plans be summarized in 75 words or less.

Let me say that again (no weather forecast, no farm report).....

The true parallel between the 2008 St. Pete Beach election (that led to a lawsuit) and Amendment 4 is that, in both scenarios, Florida election law requires that the ordinances amending the Comp Plans be summarized in 75 words or less.

The lawsuit we have directly in front of us is attributable to at least one voter, who seems to believe that his opinion as to what is most important, to him personally, should be THE ballot language. What about what is most important to me? Or to you? Or my neighbor? Or people in Pass-a-Grille? Or Joe SixPack? Or Susan ChampagneMagnum? The ballot is a 75 word SUMMARY of a 200 pape Plan not the ENTIRE Plan.

There was quite a bit of supplementary information available; from different "sides", supporting different opinions, and from the City, in the form of the actual Comprehensive Plan. If Amendment 4 were actually to pass, informed voters will, of course, need to read and understand the 200 page comp plan document and how it is impacted by amendments.

What matters is the fact that our 2008 election proves that when cities are compelled to put their Comp Plans on the ballot (whether it's because of Hometown Democracy or any other charter provision), Florida election law requires comp plan changes be summarized in 75 words or less which obviously exposes cities to massive litigation costs arising from ballot language challenges.

Your condemnation of the 75-word ballot summaries used by the city in 2008 is also flawed because it fails to address the practical limitations of complying with the ballot summary requirement.

For example, you criticized the city's failure to create a ballot summary that explained that the ordinance would:

"triple maximum allowed building height, almost triple the number of hotel rooms allowed, allow condos along most of the length of the east side of Gulf Blvd., and require that all new buildings be built almost up against the sidewalk, put condos all over areas of the city where they were previously not allowed, including most of Corey Avenue, the Upham beach neighborhoods and up Blind Pass Road."

Content aside, the problem with your criticism, or course is that you've just used 69 of the 75 allowed words to describe what matters to YOU, without leaving any room for describing any of the other plan elements or any of the other non-plan descriptive verbage necessary to have a valid ballot summary, and that might be important to ME.

While you may feel that green standards, energy efficiency and other such items are "BS", simply inserting what YOU think is important and leaving out what OTHERS feel is important leaves the City open to lawsuits from the OTHERS.

Personally, I think the recent oil well blowout disaster makes energy efficiency leading to oil independence and a focus on living GREEN not just "feel good stuff" as you put it, but rather a critical pat of living to day and in the future. The same way I feel toward beach access improvements which were not in the ballot summary. I was bummed.

Of course, I'm not saying that what you value (building height, etc) is more or less important than what others, or I, may value (green standards, etc.). What I'm saying is that it is impossible to squeeze EVERYTHING into 75 words, so someone is always going to feel that something important was left out, which in turn leaves the city open to costly lawsuits. This is why Amendment 4, putting Comp Plans on the ballot, is a bad idea.

I could explain other logical reasons about why Amendment 4 is a bad idea, but this email is already too long, so I'll save those ideas for a later time.

Let me add, your statement that I "put myself" on the commission is simply untrue.

While you may have some idea of how to "put yourself" on the commission, I became a candidate for District 2 commission fully expecting to run a spirited campaign against the incumbent commissioner who,by the way, appointed me to the Historic Preservation Board and who I contacted prior to qualifying myself to run, as a matter of "honor thy sponsors."

Unfortunately, no one else qualified by the deadline, leaving the District 2 seat unopposed. I became the District 2 Commissioner of St. Pete Beach, not because I "put myself on the commission", but rather because neither the incumbent nor anyone else was willing, or able, to step forward and run.

In my opinion, the failure of others to commit to a term of public service is not a valid basis to criticize my willingness to devote the time and energy to serve my community as a city commissioner. A job that I enjoy very much.

By the way, to answer your question referring to "whatever hell-hole" I came out of......Ohio, but I've never thought of it that way. "Beautiful Ohio, where the golden grain Dwarf the lovely flowers in the summer rain." -- "Beautiful Ohio" - Ohio's state song.

Jim Parent, Vice Mayor, St. Pete Beach

Kudos to Vice Mayor Parent for refusing to take Ruttencutter's bait, and for presenting such a clear explanation of why Ruttencutter's argument is wrong: The critical importance of St. Pete Beach to the Amendment 4 debate lies not in how the City's comp plan got on the ballot, but rather in the chaos and costly devastation that occurred after the comp plan was put on the ballot!

Vice Mayor Parent's response was posted on August 14, 2010. As of today, August 22, Ruttencutter has failed to respond or to present any facts or arguments to refute Parent's rebuttal.

It therefore is clear that the Battle of the St. Pete Beach Vice Mayors is now over, and current Vice Mayor Jim Parent is the winner! Floridians should heed Parent's words before voting on Amendment 4 in November!

Read More about Amendment 4 and why Putting Comp Plans on the Ballot is a Really Bad Idea!