Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Eyes wide open in St. Pete Beach redevelopment war

Citizens for Responsible Growth keeps an eye on St. Pete Beach leaders for any violations of the Sunshine Law.

By PAUL SWIDER
Published November 27, 2005

ST. PETE BEACH - Secrecy and sunshine are becoming watch words in the ongoing dispute over redevelopment.

At Tuesday's commission meeting, Commissioner Ed Ruttencutter was puzzled after being advised not to read a document that was written by another commissioner.

The letter, from Commissioner Deborah Martohue, outlines "inaccurate or misleading information circulated to the community by (Citizens for Responsible Growth) or its representatives."

City Attorney Tim Driscoll explained that any document from an elected official might be construed as secret communication, or a violation of the Sunshine Law, if given to or read by another official on the same board. He said even campaign literature - pertinent because Martohue announced she would run for re-election in March - could be seen as a Sunshine violation if it lays out a commissioner's positions outside a regularly scheduled public meeting.

"The city usually loses in cases like these," Driscoll warned. To be safe, such documents should be revealed at a meeting, he said. So Martohue discussed her report so Ruttencutter could have access without fear of breaking the law.

The report is a response to Citizens for Responsible Growth's advertisements and fliers distributed over the past several months. Martohue and others said the group has spread misinformation and fear about the city's plans to promote tourism and mixed-use development, leading to expensive lawsuits instead of a civil process. Martohue critiqued a series of CRG documents and listed what she said were inaccuracies or exaggerations about the city's redevelopment plans.

CRG has offered no response to Martohue's report, but is also interested in the Sunshine Law. Its attorney, Ken Weiss, has been poring over bills from the city's outside counsel, Tom Pelham, to find out what the city is getting for the roughly $62,000 it has spent so far to challenge CRG referenda on redevelopment.

Weiss said he found reference to a conference call that included Martohue. He said the call may have violated the law if other commissioners were involved. Martohue said she does not recall who else was on that call.

Weiss is itching to get the latest bill from Pelham so he can learn more about the city's process of fighting the referenda. Driscoll is reviewing the October bill and may have to redact certain portions to avoid revealing legal strategy, officials say. The Sunshine Law allows a city to keep ongoing litigation and negotiations secret but forces it to reveal the details after the issues are resolved.

"I guarantee that, eventually, the judge in this case will see every detail of the billing," Weiss said. "And if I am correct, the judge will have before him the decision of whether to impose sanctions for misleading the court."

CRG members are also suspicious because other bills show Pelham had conversations with Robert Lincoln, an attorney for the new owner of the Travelodge on Gulf Boulevard. Lincoln filed a suit Monday against the city and CRG over the latter's latest referenda, claiming that CRG's desired citywide vote on the comprehensive plan is unconstitutional. Weiss has suggested that Lincoln's suit is a way for the city to have another party oppose CRG. The city says it is common for opposing attorneys to talk. Lincoln said he has been in touch with Pelham because he was considering joining the city's lawsuit against CRG.

Martohue's report said that CRG continues to talk about 20-story condos, even though the commission never considered condos that tall and has voted to limit hotels to 15 stories at most. She also pointed to CRG's use of the word "slum," which the city had not used in describing areas that need revitalization. She said slum has a statutory definition that doesn't apply to the city's plans. She also points to CRG statements that the city would take people's homes through eminent domain, even though commissioners have pledged not to do so.

[Last modified November 27, 2005, 01:18:21]