Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Petitions left off ballot as officials seek answers

The City Commission asks its attorney for an opinion on the validity of the comprehensive plan. A state opinion also will be sought.

By NICK JOHNSON, Times Staff Writer
Published November 25, 2007

ST. PETE BEACH - A special City Commission meeting was held Tuesday to determine the fate of political group Save Our Little Village's six pro-development petition items.

The end result was more unanswered questions.

The meeting was called by Mayor Ward Friszolowski in an attempt to meet the Nov. 21 deadline for ballot language to have the items added to the Jan. 29 election.

Instead, commissioners asked that Timothy Driscoll, the city attorney, submit a legal opinion on the validity of the comprehensive plan for the next city meeting.

They also requested that City Manager Mike Bonfield send a copy to the state Department of Community Affairs, which reviews proposed comprehensive plans, requesting that it do the same before any decisions are made.

The Save Our Little Village proposals include a comprehensive plan amendment that could potentially boost development in the city by allowing higher densities and taller buildings.

Organizers and supporters say the petition items are the only way to bring about change in a city devoid of any development potential and in need of an economic boost.

But none of the commissioners seemed happy with the process.

"I admire the effort and I understand the frustration, but I think it's the wrong way to go about change," Commissioner Mike Finnerty said.

St. Pete Beach residents have to vote on comprehensive plan amendments, a provision that was passed after two of the current commissioners petitioned the city while they were associated with an anti-development political group.

Commissioners Linda Chaney and Harry Metz, as members of the Citizens for Responsible Growth, successfully repealed a comprehensive plan that would have also increased allowable height and density.

Chaney and Metz, along with Commissioner Ed Ruttencutter, previously dismissed the petitions against the will of the mayor and city attorney. They did so on the basis that signatures had been collected by residents other than the five certified as the petitioner's committee.

"I have my own principles, and if I think something is right, that's what I do," Metz said defending his stance on the petitions.

Save Our Little Village responded through a letter from the Thomas & LoCicero law firm to the mayor and commissioners dated Nov. 16, stating that a refusal to put the items before voters could result in a personal liability.

"We did the petition consistent with the city charter, we got the required number of citizens to sign them and the commission should put them on the January 29th ballot and let the citizens decide," Gregg Thomas of Thomas and LoCicero said.

Chaney saw the letter as evidence of an impending showdown.

The meeting ended with some grumbling, as Save Our Little Village supporters learned that March 11 is likely the earliest that the items could make it to the ballot.

The city charter provides a deadline for putting petition items before voters that would fall between the planned January and March elections, but Driscoll advised commissioners that they would not have to hold a special election.

"It's a stall tactic," said Lorraine Huhn, Save Our Little Village chairwoman. "It pretty much discounted having a special election, so we'll see what happens."

Nick Johnson can be reached at nickjohnson@sptimes.com or 893-8361.

Fast Facts:

Save Our Little Village petitions

1. Countywide Land Use Map Amendment:Amends the countywide future land use map to establish a Special Area Community Redevelopment District.

2. Citywide Comp plan:Calls for tax-increment based redevelopment funds to be returned to the community to pay for infrastructure. It also encourages development of hotels and commercial land uses in a 248.25-acre special district and discourages new residential condominiums.

3. Large resort district regulations:Prohibits the construction of residential condominiums higher that 50 feet, provides for public beach access and prohibits variances.

4. Redevelopment standards: Provides standards for height limits, site design standards, provides for green redevelopment, requires community involvement, and prohibits variances

5. Town Center Land Development regulations:Encourages a mix of neighborhood commercial uses, downtown residential use and limited temporary lodging

6. Community redevelopment area plan: Establishes a 30-year redevelopment trust fund, provides for infrastructure assessments, and recommends improvements, services and programs

[Last modified November 24, 2007, 20:14:25]