Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Future of ballot items for November unclear

St. Pete Beach leaders agree to schedule six referendum questions, but they still need to deal with the elections chief.

By SHEILA MULLANE ESTRADA
Published August 27, 2006

City commissioners yielded Friday to the will of the people - and a stern court ruling - by agreeing to schedule a series of November ballot questions that, if approved by voters, will significantly change how development decisions are made.

The move comes after a long battle between the City Commission and a citizens group over how the city should grow that led to a referendum on land use rules. Particularly at issue were proposals to allow larger hotels to promote tourism and mixed developments.

Despite the city's decision Friday, the referendum questions might not make the Nov. 7 ballot.

Earlier last week, Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Deborah Clark extended the city's filing deadline to Friday. But on Friday morning, she e-mailed an agreement to the city requiring a $100,000 bond and written guarantees that the city would drop any efforts to appeal, make any future legal challenges to the citizen petitions or "create any other disputes regarding the validity of the ballots."

The city would lose the $100,000 if it "does anything to compromise or breach this agreement," Clark said.

St. Pete Beach City Attorney Timothy Driscoll called Clark's demand for the agreement "a very unusual act" and strongly advised the commission against signing the agreement.

"This is a wholly inappropriate use of taxpayers' money," he said.

Instead, City Manager Mike Bonfield sent the city's version of the agreement to Clark, saying the city would hold her office "harmless" if any of the referendum questions are later removed from the ballot. The city also would pay Clark for any election expenses incurred in such an event.

There was no resolution to the issue as of close of business Friday. A Clark representative said her office will further extend the ballot deadline "into next week" but remains unwilling to put the questions on the ballot unless the city can "assure" her that the referendum election will go forward.

Commissioners had agreed earlier Friday to put six referendum questions before voters Nov. 7. The questions, resulting from successful citizen petitions, seek to repeal two ordinances, one creating the city's comprehensive plan and the other establishing a special planned development zoning district. Four questions call for charter amendments requiring voter approval of any changes to the city's comprehensive land use plan or community redevelopment plan, or any increases in building heights, as well as requiring a unanimous commission vote for land use changes affecting smaller properties.

There also is a lingering question about whether some of the referendum questions, if approved by voters, will be binding on the city or be treated as a "straw poll" gauging voter opinion.

Attorneys for the city had asked the 2nd District Court of Appeal to either rehear the case or clarify its Aug. 18 ruling, which declared that citizens "are entitled to express their views on how their City Commission should handle land use problems" and ordered four disputed referendum questions to be placed on the ballot. As of Friday, the court had yet to indicate whether it would alter or clarify its ruling.

During a meeting Tuesday, Driscoll recommended that the commission put the referendum questions on the ballot and forego any appeal to the Supreme Court.

The controversy and subsequent legal battles that so far have cost the city about $211,000 began last year when Citizens for Responsible Growth, a group that opposes the city's redevelopment plans, circulated referendum petitions to restrict the commission's power over the type of redevelopment that would be allowed in the city.

The group was and is particularly concerned about new rules that would allow taller buildings and more intense development on the beach and in other areas of the city.

When the petitions were originally submitted, the city challenged them in court. A Circuit Court ruling in December struck down three petitions. That ruling was the one reversed by the appeals court.

During a lengthy discussion Tuesday over how to respond to the appeals court ruling, the commission agreed that the best choice was to let voters decide.

Residents in the audience applauded the move, while at the same time continued complaining about the city's long legal fight against them.

When several residents rebuked the commission for causing the legal battle by ignoring citizen concerns about redevelopment, Commissioner Deborah Nicklaus reacted sharply.

"It is absolutely not true we did not listen to residents," she said, pointing to many changes that the commission made to the comprehensive plan in response to citizen concerns.

"The right to vote is a cherished American value," said one resident, while another said it was "hurtful" and "offensive" that the city had sued its own residents to stop the referendum movement.

"This is an opportunity for St. Pete Beach to come together finally, to mend fences," resident Linda Chaney said.

[Last modified August 26, 2006, 20:58:56]