Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Tarpon officials respond to critics of Wal-Mart vote

Jan. 18, the Tarpon Springs City Commission had one of the longest meetings, I believe, in the history of our city. Most who were in attendance were not residents of our city. The subject that evening, for the most part, was the proposed Wal-Mart on U.S. 19 in Tarpon Springs.

This issue was to be heard in a quasi-judicial proceeding and, for this reason, the commission had to remain silent until the case was heard in the public forum. In this type of proceeding, the commission can only make a decision based on relevant, legal facts presented to it. Commissions cannot consider whether we like or dislike Wal-Mart or its work ethic, only whether the proposed project complies with our zoning and land use regulations.

This type of decision is not always a popular one. According to our city attorney, city staff and the Planning and Zoning Board, Wal-Mart met all of the city's regulations and requirements and should be allowed to build at this location.

Many questions were raised regarding traffic. The applicant submitted a traffic study, which I was not satisfied with, so the city contracted for a peer review of the traffic study. The peer review did show some questionable areas. Even if the traffic study showed that the rating for the road went as low as an F, all that would be required of Wal-Mart would be that it reduce the size of their project or provide for mitigation. The public bus transfer station included in the project qualifies as the necessary mitigating factor.

As to any environmental questions and any impact on the Anclote River, the applicant met all the requirements of the city. However, Wal-Mart will still have to be permitted through many regulatory agencies that protect our environment. If Wal-Mart does not meet these agencies' requirements, the project will not be able to proceed.

On a personal note, I did not want to see this type of development on the Anclote River and I have always felt that there was a better use for this pristine property. The zoning for that site is commercial and has been since at least 1981. The property has been undeveloped for many years with the general business zoning. The original zoning was highway business and this was changed to general business when the ABR proposal came to the city. Both zonings permit retail establishments. No developer has ever come forward with any plan other than commercial development for this site.

The property belongs to Ceridian, which has a right to develop its land as long as the development meets the zoning and land use regulations in force for the property. Property owners are entitled to a fair use of their land and would understandably launch a massive lawsuit against the city if they were not able to develop their property within the bounds of the law. The city cannot go back and change the zoning and land use after the fact because it might not like the developer or would rather see a different use for the land at this point in time.

For myself and my fellow commissioners, this was a very difficult decision and all the facts were weighed carefully by all of us. Our job as stewards of our community is to protect our city from any costly lawsuit that could ultimately impact every resident financially, and in the final outcome the Wal-Mart would be built on the site. We all received mail telling us to have courage, take on Wal-Mart, and tell them to "find another site" and not to fear a lawsuit. The votes that were cast were not given out of intimidation of a lawsuit but out of knowing whether we had strong enough evidence to say no. After almost 13 hours of deliberation, I and two other commissioners did not find enough evidence to say no.

This is a property rights issue. In a property rights lawsuit, the city is not covered by sovereign immunity. The amount of money it would be sued for could be in the millions. The question to ask is, "At what cost do you say no?" I did not have enough evidence to vote no and win in court. If I thought we had a chance of winning a lawsuit, I would have considered a different vote. As your mayor, I must consider not only the outspoken in the community but all of the 24,000 residents who would be impacted by a massive lawsuit.

I would also like to thank all the city employees who were directly and indirectly involved in this issue. Be assured, none of us took our duties or our vote lightly.

* * *

For months my colleagues and I on the Tarpon Springs City Commission, along with staff, have repeatedly been vilified in newspapers as a result of the debate about the location of a Wal-Mart store in Tarpon Springs. Until now, we have been unable to respond since the public hearing that provoked the comments was to be a quasi-judicial process.

But now we can talk. And the first thing I want people to know, especially the residents of Tarpons Springs, is that the city commissioners are not callous, insensitive people who have no concern for the city. We are all long-term residents who call Tarpon our home because we love this place. I am a lifetime resident, living here for more than 50 years, and I deeply resent any statements about lack of commitment to this city.

The decision made Jan. 19 was a very difficult one that required some serious soul searching. I have always believed people need to voice their opinions and I have listened to a great many over these past weeks. It is not easy to sit for hours listening to people, some of whom I have known for years, argue passionately about an issue. It also is not easy to sit and listen to individuals question your integrity and fortitude. Some of the people who spoke threatened reprisal if the commission did not do what they wanted.

During the process leading to the vote, people would inform me that I should support them and do what was right. For some of them, what was right meant voting against the project. For others, doing what was right meant voting for the project. I promised them all that I would research and analyze the available data, listen to all of the testimonies, then do what I felt was in the best interest of the people of Tarpon Springs.

The issue did not revolve around whether I believed Wal-Mart to be an evil empire or whether I thought the company would be an asset to our community. It ultimately was a matter of whether they met the standards of the city of Tarpon. When property is zoned a certain way, the owner has permitted rights or property rights to use the property in specified ways. Everyone is entitled to these permitted rights, even Wal-Mart.

I think everyone needs to know that our Planning and Zoning Board, acting in an advisory capacity, recommended that we approve the project. Its members believed after reviewing all of the evidence, including that presented by individuals who spoke to the commission, that Wal-Mart met the city's standards. The professionals of the city of Tarpon, including our planning and zoning director, reviewed the proposal in relationship to our city's standards and they recommended approval. Our attorney advised us that it was his belief that Wal-Mart met all applicable standards of the city. He also advised us that he could see no legal basis for denying the application.

After listening to all of the testimony and advice, I had to make a decision. Voting against the proposal would have been the easiest path for me to take. One of the speakers alluded to the fact that a vote against Wal-Mart would make us hometown heroes. Other speakers suggested there would be retributions against commissioners who supported the project.

Since I am the only commissioner running for re-election, I might have gained votes by denying the project. But for me, the matter was settled when one speaker quoted the oath of office that we took: "I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Florida, and the charter and laws of the city of Tarpon Springs; that I am duly qualified to hold the office of commissioner and that I will faithfully perform the duties of that office on which I am now about to enter. So help me God."

It was my opinion, based on all of the available information, that we had no grounds for denying the application. I could not, in good conscience, vote to deny a project while knowing that my decision would burden Tarpon Springs residents with unnecessary legal fees. It was not a matter of being afraid that Wal-Mart and ABR (the landowner) would sue the city. It was the knowledge that they would sue us and use our staff to be their star witnesses. I ask you, considering this information, what is the likelihood of the city winning? The only winners would be the lawyers.

Sometimes in life, the right choice is not necessarily the popular one.

[Last modified January 31, 2005, 00:38:15]