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

The St. Pete Beach Commission Discusses Voting Rights

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

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

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

Commissioner Jim Parent Disputed Info from Plaintiff Bill Pyle

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

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

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summaries of 100 page comprehensive plans/amendments in compliance with Florida election law, and unless they are repealed, the Charter amendments will subject the city to further ballot challenge lawsuits when the city needs to make future changes to its comprehensive plan.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

Plaintiff Candidate Bruce Kadoura opposed the resolutions

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Rosemary Manning

New Year's Day in St. Pete Beach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen!

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