Here is the real scoop on St. Petersburg and how it does not relate to Amendment 4 in the slightest degree. This is reprinted to educate the public about the lies from the opponents of Amendment 4 (a recent video posted on another blog) and to set the facts straight from those who derive their income from development and have a distorted view of the truth.
What really happened in St. Pete Beach
by Harry Metz
Former St. Pete Beach City Commissioner
hmetz@tampabay.rr.com
The developer and developer-allied opponents of Amendment 4 (Florida Hometown Democracy) have been misrepresenting what actually happened in St. Pete Beach. claims incorrectly link Amendment 4 on the November 2010 ballot with the turmoil in my city over the past three years. I offer this factual report so that any future reference to St. Pete Beach will be accurate.
Their primary misrepresentation is that the litigation in St. Pete Beach has something to do with Florida Hometown Democracy’s Amendment 4. Actually, if we had had Amendment 4 in place, none of the conflict would have taken place.
The St. Pete Beach litigation is all about developers who wanted to build 15-story hotels on our waterfront and triple the population density of our small island community. Many residents strongly oppose this. The litigation that resulted dealt with the developers attempt to submit their own comprehensive land-use plan to the voters without complying with the Florida Growth Management Act. It had nothing to do with Hometown Democracy.
The developer-controlled St. Pete Beach city commission mis-used the City’s ordinance-initiative process to submit changes to our city’s land-use plan in a public referendum without going through the Growth Management requirements. The developer-controlled city commission ignored state law.
Entire areas of St. Pete Beach were rezoned by these developer initiatives. The individuals whose property was rezoned had no public notice, nor were they able to voice any objection at public hearings prior to the vote, as required by the Growth Management Act. Had the Hometown Democracy amendment been in place, this could not have happened.
The citizens naturally sued.
In the first lawsuit, the court ruled that Florida’s Growth Management Act procedures must be followed, and that the commission could not use the ordinance-initiative provision to change the land-use plan. But the city and the developers ignored the court’s order. A motion for contempt was filed as a result. None of this had anything to do with Amendment 4.
The second lawsuit against the city asserted that the ballot language for these ordinances misrepresented them, with the intention of deceiving the voters. For example, in one ballot summary, there was a statement that the ordinance would implement “green initiatives,” when in fact there was not one word about green initiatives in the body of the ordinance. Another proposed ordinance increased allowable building height from 50 to 164 feet, which was not even mentioned in the ballot summary, nor was there any mention of the tripling of density that the initiatives would achieve. Much of the legal expense incurred by the city relates to the ballot language case. Again, nothing to do with Amendment 4.
Until now, almost all that has been written in an attempt to tie litigation in St. Pete Beach to Florida Hometown Democracy has been ginned up by developers who, as we well know, will use any artifice to attain their goals.
Much of the misleading information was supported by Ward Friszolowski, a former St. Pete Beach mayor. Currently executive VP of an architectural and planning firm, he has a vested interest in defeating Amendment 4, which gives a community’s voters veto power over inappropriate development.
Harry Metz
Former St. Pete Beach City Commissioner
St. Pete Beach
No comments:
Post a Comment