Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Group says St. Pete Beach can't block ballot questions

A political group says the city's challenge to its proposed referendum questions is just an attempt at intimidation.

By PAUL SWIDER
Published September 18, 2005

ST. PETE BEACH - In its response to the city's legal challenge of proposed referendum questions concerning redevelopment, a group has asked the court to throw the case out because, it says, the city is merely trying to stifle its detractors.

"The Complaint is a frivolous, bad faith attempt by the City to deplete Defendants' financial resources and require it to defend this meritless action and to deter it and other groups opposed to the Plaintiff's policies from exercising their constitutional right of free speech," reads a filing by the Citizens for Responsible Growth, a political committee that is seeking to thwart the city's plans to allow tall hotels and mixed-use development to encourage tourism.

The CRG is seeking a referendum on the city's redevelopment efforts, but the city has said those referendum questions are unconstitutional and has asked a court to allow the city to leave the questions off the March election ballot.

The city's original filing with the court last month said the questions would usurp the city's authority, violate state law and subject the city to delays and penalties in enacting development rules.

The referendum questions ask for residents to vote to require:

1. voter approval of any increase in allowable height of any structure;

2. a unanimous City Commission vote to adopt the comprehensive plan or

amendments affecting five or fewer parcels;

3. voter approval of comprehensive land use plans or amendments; and

4. voter approval of any community redevelopment plan.

The city has said the questions are vague, ambiguous and misleading, as well as unconstitutional, but the CRG's response did not address those complaints. Instead, CRG attorney Ken Weiss, with assistance from attorney R. Michael Larrinaga, argued that the city doesn't even have standing to sue and that filing suit against CRG amounts to a SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, which violates the First Amendment and state law.

"They didn't have to sue us," Weiss said. He said the city cannot simply ask the court for advice, but that if it wanted to, it would have to find another way than suing the CRG.

"For this Court to hold that Plaintiff has the right to sue a political action committee for raising disputes with it over its policies is to allow any government agency the unprecedented power to intimidate and harass anyone with the temerity to stand up and complain about the government's actions by dragging them into court," Weiss' filing reads.

City attorney Tim Driscoll said he doesn't see any legal merit in the CRG's filing and thinks the court will dispose of the motion.

"They continue to advance the proposition that the city is trying to keep citizens from having a voice, and that's not true," Driscoll said. "The city is just trying to make sure any referendum questions are legal and valid. It's that simple."

The CRG's filing requests that the court dismiss the suit, find it had no legal merit to begin with, and award legal fees and actual damages to the CRG.

"This is the perfect storm," Weiss said, "because the city did everything wrong."

[Last modified September 18, 2005, 02:15:36]