Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

St. Pete Beach condemns something, all right

Fliers sent by development opponents do what they intended: Get people's attention. But as one city leader says, "This has crossed the line of decency."

By PAUL SWIDER
Published June 22, 2005

ST. PETE BEACH - In the midst of an increasingly combative civic dispute in St. Pete Beach, residents Friday received a notice that said: "If you do not want to sell your home to developers, the city will force you to sell under eminent domain."

Not surprisingly, City Hall switchboards lit up with calls from residents, some of whom thought the notice came from the city instead of the development opponents who sent the flier.

"Was their plan to scare people?" Commissioner Deborah Nicklaus asked. "It worked. Unfortunately they sent out half-truths. Maybe this is a sign of desperation."

Citizens for Responsible Growth, a political action committee opposed to a redevelopment plan the city is creating, sent the fliers to warn residents that a community redevelopment area the commissioners want to create will allow the city to condemn properties and take them for economic development.

Group members said the "strongly worded" flier was intended to get people's attention, which it apparently did, judging by dozens of phone calls the city has fielded since Friday. City officials sent a letter of their own to clarify the issues.

"This is a gratuitous attempt to instill fear," St. Pete Beach planning director Karl Holley said. The suggestion that the city plans to take people's homes is "clearly not true."

A community redevelopment area, or CRA, is part of a passel of plans the city is developing after a three-year visioning process, through which residents expressed a desire to encourage tourism and retain the city's character. Opponents to those plans have balked at the idea of tall beach hotels and increased density, which they fear will overload the infrastructure.

The city is asking Pinellas County to designate a CRA in the older, northern part of the city near downtown and along Gulf Boulevard and other major roads. These areas would be deemed "blighted" and in need of reinvestment. As these areas are improved, the city would keep increases in property taxes, which it would reinvest in those areas.

The CRA would also, according to state law, add economic development to the city's list of reasons to condemn property through eminent domain.

Holley said the city could do so under the nuisance abatement clauses of eminent domain, but that the city has no plan to use what he describes as an arduous and expensive process to acquire property. When a city condemns property, Holley said, it must pay fair market value and usually offers above that to avoid litigation that can cost more than a generous first offer. Others in city government emphasize that the property tax collections are the driving force for the CRA, not eminent domain.

"We're doing this for the tax increment financing," Commissioner Ed Ruttencutter said. Ruttencutter also pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling any day now on eminent domain condemnations for economic development and may rule them unconstitutional, so that would be a bad tool for the city to bank on. The flier, he said, is "sensationalism. I wish they hadn't done it. It hurts their credibility and muddies the whole process."

The development opponents have gotten the reaction they wanted, they said, feeling pushed after the city moved to legally challenge a referendum they are seeking on the development plans. They've also sent a letter to their supporters urging them to come to the June 28 City Commission meeting, when, the letter says, the commissioners will vote on the development plans.

In fact, the commission will vote on a document describing the need for the CRA, amendments to the city's comprehensive plan, and on the legal challenge, but the full development plans have not even been completed and so are months from a vote. The opponents' letter also makes an appeal for donations to support the group's legal challenge.

"We just want people to find out what's going to happen," said Terry Gannon, the chairman of Citizens for Responsible Growth. "Maybe we pushed a little harder than we should have. Hopefully we haven't done anything to hurt anybody's feelings."

Commissioners say fear is worse than hurt feelings.

"I think this has crossed the line of decency," Commissioner Nancy Markoe said. "There are elderly people out there. How could they use such a scare tactic to threaten people's homes in the name of the city?"

Markoe and Nicklaus said it is ironic that opponents chose the CRA to rebel against because it is being created to fund infrastructure improvements those opponents say will be necessary.

Nicklaus, who owns the Sirata Beach Resort, which is included in the proposed CRA, said she is "thrilled to be called part of the blighted area" because it means the city would improve roads, sidewalks, landscaping and other amenities with the recovered property taxes.

Markoe said residents who signed petitions asking for a referendum on development are now regretting having done so. Those residents say the opponents group misrepresented the issues to get signatures, she said. Nicklaus said such actions erode trust in the community and can create enemies for life, as she said has happened in Treasure Island, which went through similar turmoil two years ago.

"That appears to be the road we are traveling down," she said. "People need to remember that this is a small community. Everybody's credibility is on the line."

[Last modified June 22, 2005, 01:08:17]