Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Supporters of Publix say candidates harass them

By SHEILA MULLANE ESTRADA
Published March 8, 2006

INDIAN ROCKS BEACH - The city may have a surplus of candidates running for mayor and three commission seats, but what is really drawing the heat is a referendum asking voters to approve the construction of a Publix grocery store on Gulf Boulevard.

In recent weeks, political signs urging voters to approve the project have been defaced or stolen.

Supporters of the referendum said they were being harassed by some political candidates while trying to talk to voters.

"It is a spirited election, but it is getting ridiculous," said Bill Chamberlain, director of AG Armstrong Site Acquisitions, the project developer. "We are doing everything we can to get the facts out."

The ballot question asks voters whether they "approve the rezoning of the city block between Gulf Boulevard, First Street, 25th Avenue and 26th Avenue to a planned unit development and granting variances and other approvals necessary to construct a multiuse, three-story building consisting of no more than a street-level grocery of 30,065 square feet with 29 ground-level parking spaces and loading zone, second-level parking for 119 vehicles, and 24 condominium units on the third level."

Since that ballot language was submitted to the supervisor of elections, the developers have pledged to build a slightly smaller project that would include only 12 condominiums and a 28,878-square-foot Publix.

"We believe the reduced-size project and our current site plan is consistent with the city's and the county's future land-use plans and development desires and that it would require few, if any variances to successfully complete," said Allen Goins, AG Armstrong's president.

City officials argued, however, that the referendum legally would allow the developers to build the larger project - one that they said far exceeds present code requirements and violates the commission's charter power to regulate development in the city.

The city has been divided over the Publix project for months.

When AG Armstrong first proposed the project, a resident filed a lawsuit arguing that it violated city zoning and development codes.

Because of the lawsuit, the city virtually halted negotiations to develop a proposal that would qualify as a planned development.

The developer then organized a political action group of local residents to gather enough voter signatures to force the project onto Tuesday's ballot.

When that effort was successful, the city filed its own lawsuit to either take the referendum off the ballot or, failing that, bar the start of construction. To date, there has been no ruling on that lawsuit.

The issue came to a head last week when residents supporting the project complained that they were being harassed by the city, which named them in its lawsuit.

What truly upset the residents was not that they were named defendants in the city's lawsuit but that the city sought to be reimbursed for legal fees.

"It's a personal vendetta," said resident Helen Ludlow, who was one of several residents personally named by the city attorney in the city's lawsuit.

Ludlow argued that she belonged to "a perfectly legal" political action group that successfully put the Publix issue on Tuesday's ballot.

"I really resent city dollars being used to sue me," she said.

Resident Ralph Frizzle warned of a "petition backlash" with residents unwilling to sign legal petitions because of the "risk of being sued individually."

"I am appalled we are suing citizens," resident Phil Roebel said.

Some commissioners were apparently surprised by that move as well.

"We weren't told about this," Mayor Bill Ockunzzi said.

Assistant City Attorney Jenay Iurato explained several times why the city named the residents as defendants.

"The law allows us to do this," she said, adding that the residents were named because they were listed as members of the political action group that filed the referendum petition.

When the developer's representatives complained that its supporters were being harassed and that proreferendum signs were being defaced and stolen, the commission directed City Manager Al Grieshaber to write a letter to the Sheriff's Office informing it of the problem.

Barring action by the court, voters will finally weigh in on the Publix dispute next week. What they say will largely determine whether the Publix project will continue to be a political issue for the town.

[Last modified March 8, 2006, 01:42:19]