Referendum fuels passion, donations

Residents are taking sides on the downtown redevelopment plan, and the effort to win over voters has led to some pricey politicking.

By CHRISTINA HEADRICK

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 25, 2000

CLEARWATER -- The envelope itself is enough to grab your attention: It warns of the "biggest land giveaway" in Clearwater history and beckons you to read the "complete unvarnished truth" inside.

The package -- which the Save the Bayfront political committee sent to thousands of households throughout the city last week -- plays on a sense of mistrust in city government, discomfort with City Manager Mike Roberto's big-spending style, and suspicion of the Church of Scientology. Save the Bayfront wants to give people some reasons to vote against the city's referendum on downtown redevelopment July 11.

City officials and others familiar with the redevelopment proposal are calling the mailing a pack of lies, the worst kind of negative campaigning. For example, in no way would the referendum allow Roberto to sell any land to the Church of Scientology, as the mailing states, says City Attorney Pam Akin.

"It's such an offensive ad," Akin said. "To be just flat out false and misleading, there's just no excuse for that."

The flap is just one sign that the campaign over the upcoming vote on a proposed downtown revival plan will be remembered as one of the most nasty, polarizing and expensive referendum elections in the city, with nearly $300,000 raised for campaigning to date.

"I am really disappointed with the emotionalism that is going along with this," says Bill Jonson, a retired engineer and citizen activist, who is a watcher of city politics. "It really should boil down to what we want our downtown to look like and if we can trust this group of developers to do what they want to do."

Instead the downtown debate is veering toward more charged, less complicated messages: If you think a bigger Coachman Park is good, vote yes. If you don't want your property taxes to go up, vote yes. If you think Roberto and the city can't be trusted, or the Church of Scientology is bad, vote no. The downtown proposal is more complicated than that.

The gist of the downtown plan is that city officials will ask voters' permission on July 11 to lease seven specific parcels of city land downtown to the developers for $1 a year for up to 99 years, in an effort to spark redevelopment. The developers would use the land to build a movie theater, 1,200 housing units, more shops and restaurants. They would also pay to maintain an enlarged waterfront park. City Hall, Harborview Center and existing city parking lots would be demolished to make it happen.

The issue is drumming up a newsworthy amount of campaign contributions, local political observers say. The most recent financial reports, filed Friday, indicate that a total of $277,477 has been raised to influence voters. About $200,000 has been spent by three political action committees and the city.

In addition to that, developers George de Guardiola and David Frisbie are financing telephone polls and a public relations consultant, Mike Mann of North Carolina-based Southern Strategies, to help the groups fighting for their cause. De Guardiola declines to describe their expenses.

"To my knowledge, it's unprecedented," says local attorney Ed Armstrong, president of the Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce and a behind-the-scenes veteran of local campaigns. "I've never seen this much money on both sides of an issue in the city."

The city stands to be the biggest spender of all, having budgeted $120,000 to run television spots, mail voters information and take out newspaper ads, all educating the public about redevelopment plan. Roberto says the city will not cross the line and advocate for people to vote yes in July. The city has another $80,000 in the bank for additional possible expenses related to the election.

Some people object to the unprecedented city election funding -- especially taxpayers who disagree with the redevelopment proposal.

"I do not appreciate them spending my tax money to push a referendum that I believe is not suitable for my city," says Anne Garris.

But the push is for money to keep being spent. Frisbie visited the Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce last week to urge it to keep up the fundraising for media buys. But Armstrong, a redevelopment supporter, said that the chamber might be nearing the end of its feasible investment -- as much as $75,000 in the vote-yes campaign.

Waging the battle for undecided voters

Two weeks before the election, the all-out fight is for undecided voters.

A recent poll, conducted for de Guardiola, showed that about 40 percent of potential voters on July 11 are against leasing some of the city's downtown properties as an incentive to spark the sweeping redevelopment plan. About 40 percent of potential voters support the proposed redevelopment. That leaves a critical 20 percent on the fence, de Guardiola said.

The good news, in the developer's opinion, was that the downtown plan had gained supporters from a survey a month ago, which showed about two-thirds of voters against it.

But the poll also showed that approval of city officials like Roberto, who must finish drafting an official development deal after the referendum, is "nonchalant." De Guardiola declined to release the report that produced the figures.

"The major hangup that people have is that they feel they don't have enough information to make their decision with," de Guardiola said last week. "I think it's still a toss up right now," he said, of the upcoming election.

With some voters confused how to cast their ballots, both political camps have been busier in the past few weeks than the cast of Survivor.

The pro-redevelopment groups are coordinating their efforts closely behind the scenes, with occasional meetings at an office in the Pat Lokey Building, at the corner of Cleveland Street and Osceola Avenue, which the developers are renting.

Examples of coordination: The city is paying de Guardiola's consultant, Mann, to produce a television commercial where the Rev. Bill Anderson, the head pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, urges people to vote on the redevelopment plan.

Both the chamber and the city are using the same Coral Gables-based advertising firm, Adkins & Associates, to design mailings.

Citizens for a Better Clearwater is using phone poll results, which were paid for by the chamber of commerce, to determine which voters need to be visited this weekend in precinct walks. During the walks, Citizens for a Better Clearwater volunteers try to persuade undecided people to support the redevelopment plan.

Meanwhile, Save the Bayfront, the group against the downtown plan, has put together the one mailing that played off distrust in local government and the reluctance of the city's core group of retired voters to lease downtown public land for 99 years to developers.

Save the Bayfront is planning some more "surprises," spokeswoman Garris says.

The mailing, which has generated accusations of negative campaigning, scare tactics and even religious bigotry, is not the only controversial move.

It followed another personally written letter to an unknown number of voters from Save the Bayfront member and former Mayor Gabe Cazares. He alleged in his letter that the downtown redevelopment plan was part of a secret effort to turn downtown over to the control of Scientologists, who have their spiritual headquarters here.

Garris, Cazares and Scientology officials could not be reached or they declined to comment on the disputed mailings Friday.

But Armstrong, the chamber president and local attorney for the Church of Scientology, said this: "There is plenty of room for honest debate of a significant public policy decision over downtown, but the discussion ought to be focused around the facts and issues. The sad thing is this clouds what would otherwise be a very legitimate discussion of the pros and cons of the project."

Still, there's plenty of criticism to go around. One message of the pro-redevelopment folks is that this referendum is downtown's last chance.

In a recent letter, Mayor Brian Aungst warned that "inner city decay" could "spread like blight" through downtown. Compare that with what the city said when it sought a developer to suggest projects for downtown last fall. The city reported then that it was "actively involved in economic development" and touted the new headquarters of IMRglobal Corp. as proof.

People have contacted the Times to complain about being telephoned in chamber-sponsored calls. They were told that their property taxes could go up because of downtown's deterioration, if they didn't vote for the downtown plan.

Neither Jim Appelt, the co-chairman of Citizens for a Better Clearwater, nor Armstrong, the head of the chamber of commerce, can define the specific data to prove that assertion. They concede it is their educated opinion. They disagree that it is a scare tactic.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.