Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Column

We need a do-over because of City Hall

By HOWARD TROXLER
Published December 16, 2007

The city of St. Petersburg was operated by a fraudulent government for most of 2007.

Strong words, but justified.

I don't just mean keeping the proposed baseball stadium secret since March, though that was bad enough.

The city went a lot further than that.

The city then led its residents through important decisions about the future of St. Petersburg, while keeping them in the dark.

Two of these decisions stand out in particular.

In August, the City Council approved a new set of land use rules for the entire city, after years of work and months of public discussion.

During public hearings and public comment, residents thought that they were playing a role in our democracy.

But it was a fake. No matter how strongly the residents of St. Petersburg said they wanted the waterfront protected as a park and green space, the city refused to do it.

"We think it's important to maintain a little flexibility," Rick Mussett, a senior City Hall official, explained just before the final vote, presumably with a straight face.

That "flexibility," of course, meant keeping rules that allowed a 34,000-seat major-league baseball stadium.

But why trouble the riff-raff with that kind of knowledge? It was, after all, only the entire future land use plan of the city that was being decided.

The second major decision made during this period of secrecy was the election of a new City Council in November. The voters chose to keep two members, Jamie Bennett and Herb Polson, and elected newcomers to two vacancies.

It so happens that the two newcomers were not the ones preferred by the city's mayor, Rick Baker. So everything was fine with that election, right?

No. The voters were still kept in the dark as they were choosing the men and women who will decide whether to build the stadium.

The biggest decision that this city will face in 30 years, if not a lifetime, was too important to make known in a mere City Council election.

Who else might have run? How would the campaigns have addressed it? Would the pitiful voter turnout have been different? Why weren't we entitled to know until just a few days after the election?

* * *

Maybe the baseball stadium is a good idea.

Hey, I'm a fan. I hope the city can make a good deal that will protect the public, and that most of us can support.

This is not about that.

This is about whether public process and government in the sunshine in St. Petersburg mean anything.

This is about whether we can trust any statement that comes out of any city official's mouth in a public process.

Or should every statement carry a big furry asterisk that means, "Unless we have signed a secret deal to the contrary"?

If I could wave a magic wand, I would have a new election. Let the voters choose a City Council with all of the facts in front of them.

As for the land use rules passed in August - they are morally invalid.

Reopen the books. Conduct the process anew. Armed with all the facts, the public and the City Council can decide how to designate the downtown site.

With that wound cleaned and healing, then we can go about deciding whether this stadium is a good idea.

Otherwise, how can the people trust anything that this city says?

[Last modified December 15, 2007, 23:37:55]