Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Give okay to charter issues

By A TIMES EDITORIAL
Published February 24, 2007

St. Petersburg voters will have six city charter amendments to decide on the March 13 ballot, in addition to the important countywide matter of extending the Penny for Pinellas. Five of the city issues (questions 2 through 6) can be described as little more than cleanup of current charter language and intent. The more substantive issue (referendum question 1) is vital to the future of the city's landmark hotel, the Renaissance Vinoy Resort.

Question 1: In a 1984 land swap, the hotel deeded waterfront property that is now part of Vinoy Park to the city. In return, the city leased the hotel a strip of land behind the hotel building, restricting its use to recreation. Currently, there are 12 private tennis courts on it, two atop a parking garage, used by guests and members of the hotel's fitness center.

To keep up with the competition, the Vinoy would like to add a spa and upgraded health club in a new facility that would be built in the footprint of the existing parking garage. Voters are being asked to lift the use restriction on the land so the project could go forward, although the spa plan or any other hotel-related project would still have to gain approval through the city's permitting process.

The Vinoy was a key spark to downtown St. Petersburg's economic comeback, and it remains an irreplaceable asset. An attractive spa would improve the resort's appearance and strengthen its ability to succeed in the increasingly competitive tourism industry. The Times recommends a YES vote on referendum 1.

The remaining questions would not change the charter, only make it conform to current law or practice. Question 2 grants more time for ballots cast in city elections to be certified by the canvassing board. Question 3 allows future charter amendments involving election law as required by state or federal mandate to be passed by ordinance rather than referendum, streamlining the process. Question 4 changes the date the council chair and vice chair assume their duties to coincide with established meeting dates. Question 5 clears up an unintended discrepancy involving appointments to council vacancies that arose when the city moved its elections from April to November. Question 6 corrects several typographical errors and outdated language in the charter. The Times recommends a YES vote on all of the questions.

[Last modified February 23, 2007, 22:37:40]