Clearwater city officials might decide this week to hire a survey firm to poll residents to find out why they voted against certain referendum questions on the March 9 ballot. Officials are particularly eager to learn why almost 53 percent of the voters opposed an item that would have allowed the city to expand Coachman Park on the downtown waterfront.
It is no surprise that officials still are scratching their heads in puzzlement almost two weeks after the referendum. A referendum provides an answer to a ballot question, but the answer provides no insight into what motivated the voter. Officials trying to gain a sense of direction from a referendum often are stymied because they don't know what the result really means - which is one of the reasons why government by referendum wouldn't work.
Take ballot Question 2, for example.
The citizen Charter Review Committee that recommended this question to Clearwater voters knew that if it was approved, the city would gain the authority to implement its well-publicized Coachman Park improvement plan. The city would tear up the ugly asphalt parking lot west of the Harborview Center and plant grass there, move the parking into a parking garage tucked under the new bridge, add docks so people could visit the park by boat, add landscaping and a waterside promenade, and move and improve the amphitheater stage.
The goal: to make the park greener and a place that more people could use and enjoy. But the city charter says that any construction on the publicly owned land on the downtown waterfront has to be approved by voters. A "yes" vote on Question 2 would have loosened the charter enough to allow the park improvements and parking garage.
But the voters said no. Why?
Could it be because a majority wanted to keep the parking lots and not have more green space in the park? That doesn't seem likely.
Maybe they voted no because they are fiercely protective of their referendum right. But if retaining the right to a referendum was what motivated them, why did 59 percent decide on Question 6 to give up their right to vote on dredgings of Stevenson Creek? And why did they turn down Question 4, which offered more opportunities to vote on leases?
Perhaps they voted against the Coachman Park question because four days before the referendum, a group called Save the Bayfront sent out a flier that scared them with exaggerated, erroneous drawings that showed the downtown waterfront covered with buildings, fences, a boat ramp, boat-trailer parking, a fuel depot and other items not a part of the park plan. The impact of the flier can't be determined, but it is interesting that a majority of residents who voted early or by absentee ballot approved Question 2.
Although the St. Petersburg Times recommended that voters approve Question 2 in order to beautify the waterfront, I have no quarrel with those who voted against the question because they want to retain the charter-given right to vote on all improvements to public waterfront land or because they didn't like the park plan.
But I have been frustrated by some of the letters and phone calls I've received from people who voted against Question 2 because of misinformation or erroneous conclusions.
For instance, I talked to people who somehow overlooked that the city planned to build a parking garage just below City Hall to replace the Harborview Center surface parking. They thought they would have to fight for street parking to go to Harborview or Coachman Park events.
I talked to people who thought a private developer was proposing the park plan and was going to take over the public waterfront. Nope. This was a public park improvement plan created by public officials for the enjoyment of the public.
Some people saw "amphitheater" and thought all the grass in Coachman Park was going to be ripped out and permanent seats installed, like in a movie theater. No, people would sit on the grass, just like now.
Some thought the ballot questions were vague and should have provided lots more detail. They didn't know that state law limits the number of words allowed in ballot questions. Others didn't like that some ballot items contained multiple questions. The city perhaps should have considered Commissioner Bill Jonson's suggestion last year to make each component of the park plan a separate question.
Some of the people I talked with or whose letters I read in the past 10 days voted no on Question 2 as a form of personal protest against (1) Scientology, or (2) a city government they regard as inept and wasteful.
Those who voted no because of Scientology thought the Coachman Park improvements would benefit only Scientologists, who make up a significant portion of the people in downtown Clearwater on any given day. They seemed unaware, or perhaps just unconvinced, that the City Commission has been working hard for several years on ways to draw non-Scientologists downtown to visit and live. The commissioners think that unless they can create a major attractor - such as a beautiful park with boat slips and concerts and outdoor festivals - then people will have no reason to go downtown, private developers will be reluctant to build retail and condo projects there, downtown will decline, and Scientology will continue its dominating presence.
But the most common motivation behind the decision of voters I spoke with to vote "no" was a general distrust and anger toward Clearwater city government - sentiments that I argue sometimes are based on dated or inaccurate information.
These voters said they voted no on the park and even on some other questions because the city "built that bridge that's falling down," "put the roundabout on the beach," "built the police station too small," "wasted our money on the Harborview Center" and "spent $30-million on a ballpark for the Phillies."
Just for the record: The new Memorial Causeway Bridge, while inside the city limits, is a state Department of Transportation project being built by a private state contractor, not the city; all the city commissioners and the city manager who "built the roundabout" are gone, replaced by officials who have tried to fix the roundabout's problems and have succeeded to some degree; all of the officials who approved the unattractive and undersized police station and Municipal Services Building are gone; ditto for those who chose to turn a ratty department store into the problematic Harborview Center; the ballpark is actually a community stadium that will be used for other events in addition to baseball, and although the city owns it, Clearwater contributed only a little more than $6-million to the total cost, and the county, state and Phillies made up the rest.
Come on, people, how about a little more faith in today's Clearwater leaders, who have built two libraries, rec centers, fire stations, a water plant, acted when previous commissions wouldn't to design long-term solutions to severe flooding problems, created redevelopment plans for Clearwater Beach and downtown, reclaimed the Long Center, completed streetscaping projects in North Greenwood and the beach, built ball fields for kids and kept professional baseball in town. Are they perfect? No. Are they progressive and hardworking? Yes.
They are wondering whether they should ask voters one more time for permission to work on Coachman Park. Absolutely they should, and they shouldn't wait too long to do it, because on March 9, almost 48 percent of voters wanted the park project built now.
But this time, the city must prepare better for the skeptical or misinformed voter by seeking only permission to build individual components of the park plan, and each component should have a price tag, a funding source and a timeline. Every voter should have access to an artist's rendering of the new park and the parking garage.
And every city resident should have the opportunity to meet in Coachman Park for a walking tour guided by city officials who point out what would change.
