Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Man, oh man. St. Petersburg, perhaps jealous of California, has decided to hold a wacky little election all its own. The campaign between now and Election Day on Nov. 4 threatens to get, please forgive the expression, confuseder and confuseder.
Even a citizen who wants to do his or her civic duty and is trying to figure out the ballot might have a hard time.
So here is the absolute core thing to know:
Charter Amendment 1 would guarantee that Albert Whitted Airport stays as an airport "forever."
Charter Amendment 3 would require the city to convert at least half of the 110-acre airport site to a waterfront park (which means closing the airport).
That's the main choice. Vote yes for 1 if you want to lock in the airport, and yes for 3 if you want the park.
Now, right off the bat, you will notice these dueling options are numbered 1 and 3. So it's not a neat, either-or decision. It's not even a matter of two items right next to each other.
In fact, there are six charter amendments and a referendum question on the ballot. The first four amendments are related in some way to this airport-versus-park choice.
The airport folks also support Amendment 2, which frees up the city to accept long-term grants for airport improvement.
And what about Amendment 4? Well, that's sort of a tie-breaker. If the voters approved both the airport and the park at the same time, then the amendment that got the most "yes" votes overall would be the winner.
In recent days, I've heard a few frustrated voters ask:
What happens if I vote "no" on everything?
That wouldn't be the end of the world.
If everything were defeated, then the airport would stay as it is now, under the total control of the City Council. The council could keep the airport, fix it up, or shut it down.
The airport folks wouldn't get the ironclad protection in the City Charter that they'd like.
Neither would the park folks get their park automatically.
As a practical matter, the current City Council leans toward the airport anyway. The council already is on record as wanting to keep Albert Whitted open.
If it weren't for the City Council, only the park idea would be on the ballot, thanks to a citizen petition. But then the council obliged the airport backers, and put Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 on the ballot, too.
So if everything were defeated, we'd be back to square one, with an airport-leaning council.
The other day, Jack Tunstill, the leader of the airport campaign, said that defeating Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 would cause the airport to "atrophy."
Not necessarily. The City Council would be perfectly free to put new improvements into the site. (Conversely, passing Amendment 1, by itself, would not require the council to improve the airport at all. It would, though, be a strong signal of public support that might guide the council's policy.)
The bottom line of an across-the-board "no" vote would be that the City Council would continue to make its decisions about city resources just as it does now.
The council would answer to the voters. And the voters' hands would not be tied by bedrock provisions in the City Charter either requiring an airport "forever," or specifying the location of city parks.
Please, in no way am I recommending a vote one way or the other. If you like the airport and believe it is a worthwhile part of the city that should be protected in the charter, vote yes on the first two amendments and be sure to vote no on the third. If you want to close the airport and add another park to St. Petersburg's public waterfront, vote no on the first two and yes on the third.
But if you're a little fed up with the whole shebang, and frustrated over the claims of backers on each side that only their idea will block the dreaded onslaught of "condos ... "
If you are convinced by each side's argument that the other side's plan is a bad idea ...
Then vote "no" on everything, throw the whole thing back square into the lap of the City Council, and make those folks squirm. Heck, that's why we have a City Council.