Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
The county staff encourages St. Petersburg to pursue a "more definitive area'' of Lealman.blurb
By ANNE LINDBERG, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times, published January 16, 2002
LEALMAN -- Rather than seeking permission to annex just one piece of property, the city of St. Petersburg needs to think bigger, county staff members say, and devise a plan that would allow a much larger annexation in Lealman.
St. Petersburg has asked that the county expand its planning area so the city could annex unincorporated land on the north side of 40th Avenue, about 145 feet west of 32nd Way N.
Until St. Petersburg revises its request, according to the staff report, the city should be turned down.
The Pinellas Planning Council is expected to make its recommendation to the County Commission at 9 a.m. today in the assembly room on the fifth floor of the Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court St., Clearwater. The meeting is open to the public.
The question of where cities are allowed to annex apparently had been settled in 2000 when county voters established so-called planning areas.
Each city received an area of the county within which it could annex without competition from other cities. The referendum also set aside county areas that would be "annexation-free," where property owners would be part of the county forever.
Parts of Lealman ended up in different planning areas, while the rest of Lealman was supposed to be immune to incorporation.
As Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg and Kenneth City annexed mostly revenue-rich commercial properties within their planning areas, the Lealman taxpayers left behind bore a larger tax burden.
Some activist neighbors then moved to create a city of Lealman as a way to stabilize the tax base and prevent further annexations. They have asked the county to adjust boundaries so all of Lealman would be in a protected area.
Cities, which predominate the county planning council, have objected to that request.
About the same time, St. Petersburg expressed interest in annexing the entire Joe's Creek Industrial Park area. To do it, the voter-approved annexation boundary lines would have to be altered, reducing the protected area of Lealman.
Before St. Petersburg made that request, a single Lealman property owner in that general area asked to be annexed. So, St. Petersburg has asked the county to change the map so it can annex this one property.
The Planners Advisory Committee, a group of planners from cities that advise the planning council, says the request should be granted. County staff members disagree.
"The approval of this planning area boundary change would set a precedent for additional incremental annexations, ignoring the reasons and need for creation of the planning areas," the staff report reads.
Approval also would create an irregular boundary for St. Petersburg and such boundaries should be avoided, the report said, because they confuse citizens and service providers, such as police and fire personnel.
The report concludes that St. Petersburg should come up with a "more logical and definitive area" to annex and include an analysis of the impact on the area that would remain in the unincorporated area.
The prospect of encouraging St. Petersburg to consider a bigger bite of Lealman irks at least one activist.
"We don't really think that any annexation approvals into the Lealman area should be made, at least until we resolve the issues in the Lealman area," said Ray Neri, president of the Lealman Community Association.
It does not speak well of the cities, Neri said, that they will not heed the concerns of residents in the Lealman area who want to be left alone and to determine their own future.
That's the reason the boundaries were set, he said, and those standards need to be maintained.
"If it isn't a legal standard, it certainly is a moral standard," Neri said.