Let’s review the bidding…  

            The mediation, negotiations, or settlement talks, whatever you want to call them, are over.  They failed.  The lawsuits are still active; the City is still being held hostage with precious tax dollars being drained from our treasury to defend against those who are contesting the will of the people of St. Pete Beach.  “Let the people vote”…remember that?  What started out as an appeal by the plaintiffs (Bill Pyle and Bruce Kadoura) to Mayor Finnerty to see if together they couldn’t resolve just a couple of issues (impact fees and beach access) in exchange for dropping the lawsuits, grew to much more than that.  It finally culminated in a proposal to create a committee, not appointed by the City Commission, which would review building and development plans and then make recommendations to the City.  The Commission wisely rejected that concept, the plaintiffs would not back off, and that was the end of any settlement possibility.  Commissioner Leonard later reported that he had spoken to or heard from about a hundred residents on this issue and that only two of them had urged him to vote to accept that proposal; the rest had urged him not to.

            Although the mediation session deliberations remain shielded under a confidentiality agreement, the appearance has been left that the whole exercise was just a ploy by the Weiss/Pyle/Kadoura camp to delay any judicial processes and to avoid having Bill Pyle and Ralph Lickton be deposed relative to those cases.  It looks like nothing short of a complete repeal of the new Comp Plan will satisfy them.

             What are the roots of the opposition?  Ironically, it may be simply that the opponents were ignorant of what was contained in the plan.  In the very first negotiation session (before any mediation was contemplated), the Pyle team indicated a lack of knowledge of details and asked for copies of the plan and related documents, all information they should have been aware of before they ever went to court.  It’s almost as if one or two individuals read the plan (erroneously some might argue) took items out of context and then passed along misinformation that encouraged the litigation.

            While I had expressed skepticism over any negotiating with these individuals, I give Mayor Finnerty an “A” for effort for trying to rescue the City from their siege.  Last week when asked his feelings about what had transpired, the Mayor said, “angry!”  He now realizes that there is really no dealing with Weiss, Pyle, and company.

            On November 3, the question of whether or not to exempt certain mandatory or minor proposed changes to the Comp Plan from requiring voter approval (except those related to height, density, and intensity) was on the ballot.  That measure passed by a 60-40 majority.  A Political Action Committee (PAC) was formed to try to defeat this issue.  A review of the monetary contributors to that PAC, available at City Hall, shows all the usual suspects, the CRG faithful.  Again, misinformation, easily disproved, was the basis of the opposition.  A vote to approve the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Plan is coming up in our March election (see elsewhere in this issue).  Pyle has already appeared at the podium in City Hall to register his objection to the ballot language and underlying content.  Stand by for more misinformation and court action.

            Finally, an anonymous effort was started up just before the Holiday season, entitled Take Back Our City (TBOC).  TBOC circulated pre-printed post cards designed to be addressed to those suing the City urging them to stop their lawsuits.  While I understand their frustrations, I disagree with the implication that we need to take back anything.  The last three municipal elections have shown that the voters are clearly in control of this City.  The naysayers are losing their clout.  The expense of defending against their lawsuits has resulted in cutbacks to city staff and services.  I too would ask that the lawsuits be dropped; but, as we have learned, there is about as much chance of that happening as being able to teach Elmer Fudd to pronounce “wabbits” correctly.

Bob Manning

           

 

ANOTHER OBSERVATION (07/10/2010)

The following communication was sent by attorney and resident Pat Anderson to District Two Commissioner Jim Parent on June 8, 2010.  In it she expresses the irritation and frustration engendered by the continuing legal wrangling and mounting legal expense to the taxpayers of St. Pete Beach.  This e-mail was previously printed in the PARADISE NEWS and is included here with the permission of Ms. Anderson.

From: Patricia Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:26 PM
To: Jim Parent
Subject: Ken Weiss' latest letter

Dear Jim,

Let's see.  First, Mr. Weiss attacks the vote as invalid because the ballot language was misleading.  Now that the City is considering VOLUNTARILY (the Judge has not ordered a new election) holding a new election, Mr. Weiss says he will try to enjoin the election.  HUH????  Which is it?

Furthermore, headed into that June, 2008 election the new comp plan could fairly be characterized as "the SOLV plan."  After the voters approved the plan, however, it became the voters' plan and should be referred to that way.  And that being so, it is entirely appropriate that the City defend the plan and the citizens' vote.  Mr. Weiss appears to be operating from an assumption that our voters were tricked into approving a plan that was endlessly discussed, advertised, argued over and generally thrashed out nine ways to Sunday.  You will recall the election result was not even close and was a resounding "yes" to the new plan.

On the other hand, it is entirely misleading to the electorate -- who by now are onto these tricks --  to say the new plan allows a tripling of the height of structures.  Mr. Weiss very well knows, or should know if he has read the plan, that the new 146' permissible height ONLY applies in the Large Hotel District and ONLY to parcels of at least three acres and ONLY if the landowner chooses to completely redevelop the property.  These narrowing restrictions mean that ONLY EIGHT (8) parcels in the entire City even qualify for this increased height.  Eight.  Get it?  NOT 146' buildings all over the City.

But it's so convenient to just leave out those explanatory details, isn't it?  So much more compelling to raise the specter of 12-story buildings all over the beach.  So much more scary.  So much more fun to gin up an "us versus them" frenzy or darkly allude to unspecified dirty deeds.

Most people I know are pretty fed up with this.  We are pretty fed up with pointless litigation.  We are fed up with threats of even more pointless litigation.  We are fed up with cuts in City services because of the cost of this litigation.  We are fed with being held hostage.  When is the City going to demand a fees award from these guys and put a stop to it?

Pat Anderson

TRADITIONAL HOTEL DISTRICT MORATORIUM (05/04/10)

The law of unintended consequences appears to have struck again. A few years ago, the concept of a “Traditional Hotel District” (THD) was proposed for Pass-a-Grille to promote and preserve the Mom & Pop lodging facilities that had populated the district for years. After much back and forth debate by the City Commission over which overlay might apply to what streets, what allowable heights and densities might apply, and whether or not grandfathering rights would accrue, the definition of the THD was passed. The action passed by a vote of 3-2 with (then) Mayor Ward Friszolowski and District 3 Commissioner Ed Ruttencutter in dissent. City Attorney Tim Driscoll had advised against passage as he foresaw legal battles over what he termed “spot zoning,” i.e., if one property was allowed to redevelop under this category, what would prevent an adjacent property owner from turning his present residential property into a transient facility.

Fast forward to 2007, a definitive boundary for the THD was proposed by (then) District 4 Commissioner Harry Metz. He wanted the permitted area to include only properties fronting Gulf Way south of 15th Avenue that were then currently licensed as tourist lodging facilities. His motion was amended to include the south side of 1st Avenue. Metz specifically spoke against any other properties being included. The initiative passed unanimously.

In October 2008, the Commission unexpectedly expanded the permitted area to include all properties in Pass-a-Grille south of 15th Avenue, thereby ignoring the basic boundaries agreed upon a year earlier. Since that time, at least one application has been submitted by a property owner to obtain THD status for his property, an existing hotel. However, associated with that request, plans have been revealed to redevelop that existing hotel and expand its intensity and size to an adjacent vacant plot. According to District 4 Commissioner Beverly Garnett and some 30 adjacent resident property owners, this was not what was envisioned by the original legislation. They contend that while the existing hotel has been there for about 80 years, demolishing that building and expanding the entire complex to encompass two plots with a larger modern structure is not in keeping with the historic residential character of the neighborhood, nor can it be construed as promoting and preserving existing Mom & Pop facilities.

This issue has been characterized as affecting the entire City. Pass-a-Grille is as vital to the City’s persona as the wide sandy beach from the County parking lot to Upham, the charm of the Don Cesar, the historical Corey Avenue shopping district, and the fine resorts that attract tourists. Commissioner Garnett wants to assure the character of the PAG National Historic District will be maintained. She has proposed a moratorium on any THD site plan submissions until City staff the Commission, and the Historic Board can determine what might be changed or modified to help preserve the ambience of the residential neighborhood.

CRA UPDATE  (04/24/10)

The long journey to establish a Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) is finally about to end. On March 9, the voters of St. Pete Beach overwhelmingly approved a referendum by a 66% to 33% margin to establish a redevelopment zone that includes the central Corey business district, part of Blind Pass Road, and the west side of Gulf Boulevard south to the county parking lot.
In the future, any property improvement or development that takes place in the designated area will typically result in increased property taxes on those properties. The CRA plan will allow the city to recoup from Pinellas County 75% of the total differential increase in all ad valorem taxes collected. These funds may be used by the City for street upgrades, parking facilities, beautification, utility undergrounding, and other infrastructure projects within the designated areas. Under no circumstances can these funds can be applied to the improved properties themselves as that would be illegal; i.e., using public funds for private purposes. There were persistent suggestions by some citizens opposed to this measure suggesting that these funds were taxes on the residents and that they would be used to improve commercial properties. One notable canard floated for almost two years by a District 3 resident was that SPB CRA funds could be used to construct hotel lobbies and ancillary structures. Despite facts to the contrary, this notion was picked up by others and has persisted for almost two months after the election. Whether this has resulted from a misunderstanding or deliberate deception, it needs to come to an end. The City needs to move forward.
The strong support expressed for this measure, pending County approval, has brought to fruition an advantage to St Pete Beach to be derived from the new Comprehensive Plan that was approved by the voters in June 2008. Leading up to this recent election, supporters of the ballot provision, as well as City officials, had expressed the opinion that there was no apparent downside in voting to approve the CRA Plan. The voters agreed by a wide margin.

OUR MISSION
The name of our parent organization is St. Pete Beach Citizens for Good Government.  We are a non-profit corporation that performs an educational function for the benefit of the citizens of our City.  To be true to our purpose, by means of The INSIDER, we strive to inform our readership about the goings on in our City government and their effect on our homeowners, businesses, and residents.  We will point out the good things, as well as, the bad and will advocate certain matters of public policy where we feel it is to the benefit of the City for us to do so.  We will not advocate a vote for against any candidate for public office nor for or against any referendum question.  We will provide facts and critical insight on issues to enlighten our readership on items not generally available to the public at large through traditional news media.  We will only publish material that is believed to be accurate and will never knowingly provide anything that cannot be verified.  If errors have occurred, corrections will be gladly published.