Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Plan to protect Pinellas land too weak, opponents say

By WILL VAN SANT
Published June 2, 2007

A landmark plan to protect Pinellas County's public lands or just a paper tiger?

That debate surrounds a proposed ordinance County Commissioner Susan Latvala's has sought for two years that would require voter approval before the county sold or transferred park or environmental lands.

"I think it's important that we get this done, " Latvala said in a recent interview. "This is land that our citizens own."

But Latvala's plan comes at a time when environmentalists' suspicions are heightened by the county's recent interest in putting a water blending plant and ballfields at Brooker Creek Preserve.

Detractors call Latvala's plan weasel legislation designed to win political points. Given the exceptions in Latvala's ordinance, they point out, it's unlikely it would bar the kinds of development the county has considered at Brooker Creek.

"It's a piece of c---, " said Barbara Hoffman, a member of the county's Environmental Science Forum, a commission advisory group. "It allows for just about anything to happen."

Latvala defends her motives.

"I wasn't trying to pacify people, " she said. "I want them assured that the land won't be sold off, leased, built upon. That's our intention."

The ordinance would declare almost all the county's park and about half its environmental lands, a total of nearly 14, 000 acres, "properties of critical concern, " and bar their sale or transfer without the majority approval of Pinellas voters.

The ordinance wouldn't apply to lands managed by the county but owned by other entities, including the state, Progress Energy and the Southwest Florida Water Management District.

The exemptions blasted by critics are:

- Voter approval would not be needed when lands were appropriated for transportation or utility projects and related infrastructure.

- Lands could be given to another government for a "public purpose" without voter approval if that purpose was consistent with the county's overall development goals.

- If the County Commission said it was in the "public interest, " parcels could be swapped for "reasonably equivalent parks or environmental lands, " without voter approval.

That's too many loopholes, according to members of the Environmental Science Forum, which includes environmental scientists and those involved in advocacy groups such as the Audubon Society.

Among other things, the group thinks language allowing for related structures to transportation or utilities infrastructure on county lands is too broad and won't stop undesirable development.

They also want any repeal or change to Latvala's ordinance, if adopted, to be subject to voter approval.

As Latvala's plan is now written, any change to the ordinance would require only a supermajority vote of the County Commission.

"I think it would be a really strong piece of policy" if the science forum's amendments are made, Hoffman said. "It gives the power back to the people."

Latvala said she's open to compromise, but it's critical to ensure the county maintains flexibility.

"Maybe, some time in the future, as Florida gets more and more congested, there may be a form of transportation that we cannot even fathom today that may have to go across the corner of some property we own, " she said.

The commission is slated to discuss the proposal at a workshop June 21. A vote has not been set.

Will Van Sant can be reached at vansant@sptimes.com or 727 445-4166.

[Last modified June 2, 2007, 01:41:27]