Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Politics

Bill's purpose remains unclear

By MIKE DONILA
Published April 18, 2007

Clearwater is asking the Florida Legislature to give private owners new access to submerged lands along the Memorial Causeway.

Or is it?

That's the mystery behind House Bill 1585 that's on the agenda this morning in the Florida House Government Efficiency & Accountability Council.

The legislation is seeking - maybe - to eliminate parts of an 82-year-old law dubbed the "Reverter Clause." The 1925 state law grants the city the authority to allow construction on the submerged lands along portions of the Memorial Causeway, as long as it's used for public purpose. If not, the underwater land reverts to state control.

But exactly how HB 1585 would change that relationship, why it's been proposed and its eventual impact is ambiguous, even to city leaders who asked local state lawmakers to seek the change in Tallahassee.

Mayor Frank Hibbard said he "is still not completely clear on it." City Manager Bill Horne said he isn't sure, either. And the city attorney working on the bill concedes that "it's complicated. "

The bill's sponsor, State Rep. Ed Hooper, offers a whole new explanation: He says it's somehow tied into the recently approved boat slip project along the downtown waterfront. That, city officials say, is not true.

There appears to be some ambivalence too among the Pinellas County legislative delegation, which voted 8-4 to pursue the new law. But according to the city clerk they're now united behind the bill - whatever it does.

And then there's Anne Garris, a longtime resident and activist who often butts heads with city leaders, who says she's wary of the proposal because it hasn't received much public scrutiny. The legislation was discussed for less than three minutes by council members during a December meeting.

"The bottom line is when it comes to the city obeying its own rules, well, I don't trust them," said Garris, spokeswoman for Save the Bayfront. "And I'm horrified at the thought of what could happen along the causeway. The reason they want to do this is so they can develop."

Is that true?

Well, Hooper says the city can't develop homes or restaurants along the causeway, but "it's to be used for boat slips."

"We need boat slips," he told a St. Petersburg Times reporter. "We need boat slips. Even around the marine science center there's opportunity for new or to renovate boat slips."

So does that mean we'll see boat slips up and down the causeway?

No, the mayor says, because the reverter clause actually doesn't include all the property along the causeway. And besides, he says, under the city charter the public would have to approve any new use for city-controlled bayfront property.

So why do we need this bill?

Well, says Rep. Jim Frishe, R-St. Petersburg, it will grandfather in anything that may have violated the 1925 reverter clause in the past, such as some private docks in the Island Estates area. The area didn't exist in 1925.

And further, says assistant city attorney Laura Lipowski, it will provide property rights to any other Island Estates residents because it will give them the chance to build more private docks.

But is that really true if the city has to hold a referendum on any development on bayfront land? The city will eventually deal with that, Lipowski says.

Local prominent land-use attorney Ed Armstrong also has weighed in, and he believes it's a fairly innocuous bill.

But is it? Some clarity may come today in the legislative council hearing. If approved the bill would be ready for the House floor, where it will fight to get heard before the Legislature adjourns May 4, particularly because its companion Senate Bill 2942 has yet to be scheduled for a single committee meeting.

And perhaps as early as today an analysis by House staff may be available, a report by which lawmakers, and sometimes the public, usually figure out what a bill really does.

Times staff writer Alex Leary contributed to this story.

[Last modified April 17, 2007, 22:12:07]