Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

St. Pete Beach will challenge new petitions

Opposition to the city's development framework threatens to scuttle plans for a resort where the old Travelodge now stands.

By PAUL SWIDER
Published November 13, 2005

ST. PETE BEACH - Litigation is the main course for the city as commissioners discovered Tuesday they may have no choice but to get involved in more court action related to their attempts to redevelop the city.

The city is in a corner after Citizens for Responsible Growth filed its latest petitions. When the petitions were submitted at the end of October, the action forced the city to either repeal its amended comprehensive development plan or hold a referendum in 90 days. Meanwhile the Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections has told the city it cannot conduct an election before the regularly scheduled vote in March and would ask a court to stop an election if the city forced the issue. If the city refuses to hold an election, CRG could sue for disobeying the city charter, though its attorney has not said whether it will.

"We're kind of between a rock and a hard place," said Commissioner Deborah Martohue. "Anyway you cut it, it seems like we're in a lawsuit."

The commissioners elected to challenge the new petitions in court while also reaching out to CRG to perhaps withdraw them or accept a delayed vote.

"This is just another example of the commission's blatant violation of the most fundamental democratic right guaranteed in our free society, the citizens' right to vote," said CRG attorney Ken Weiss. "Their failure to submit the ordinances to a vote as required by the city charter is an act which is a clear violation of law and is grounds for recall under Florida law, which permits recall for malfeasance."

CRG has said before that because the new petitions rely on the city charter, they are beyond the kind of constitutional challenge the city has made of four earlier petitions. But City Attorney Tim Driscoll said because the new petitions also deal with state law on land development decisions, they still might be unconstitutional because they could force the city to act against state mandates.

"They present similar issues," Driscoll said of the new petitions. "This is more of a direct opposition to a legislative scheme."

Driscoll recommended commissioners play it safe and add the new challenge to the ongoing lawsuit against CRG's earlier petitions, which would force citywide votes on the comp plan, building heights and other redevelopment issues.

"It's important that we get this before a court," he said.

The existing litigation also provided some fireworks for the board, particularly when members discussed the $47,000 cost so far from outside counsel.

"It looks like we don't have any control over who is accessing co-counsel," said Commissioner Ed Ruttencutter, noting $300-per-hour telephone calls between attorney Tom Pelham and other commissioners and even developers. "Is there any way to restrict that access?"

Driscoll recommended against interfering with the way Pelham conducts the case. He said outside conversations could bring information to bear that would help the case. Other commissioners said the city's legal expense is more the product of CRG.

"Fifty percent of those bills are due to the fact that the people opposing us are not substantially addressing the complaint," Martohue said. She said CRG has filed procedural motions about secondary issues rather than focus on the legal questions of the case. "All this other procedural nonsense is not getting us anywhere."

Weiss said he has done nothing to delay the case and blames Pelham for preventing swift resolution.

When the commissioners broached the subject of negotiating with CRG to withdraw the latest petitions to unbind the city, not all the commissioners were as eager for such a conversation.

"This (redevelopment plan) was all from a grass roots effort," said Commissioner Nancy Markoe. "For four years we've been negotiating with the public to create a comp plan. (CRG) never came to workshops and negotiated."

Squeezing the city further, the developer who plans to build a massive resort complex where the Travelodge now stands told the commissioners costs are mounting while he waits for their action. Randy Moore, of Crossgate Partners, said he could wait another 60 days, after which he would begin plans to fill the property with condominiums.

"We want to build a first-class resort with a major brand like a Westin or Four Seasons," Moore said. "But it's very important that we move forward as soon as possible."

[Last modified November 13, 2005, 03:00:43]