Fernadina Beach Newsleader

VIEWPOINT - St. Pete Beach is no example

11-09-2009

By Peter Johnson/Amelia Island

Opponents of the Hometown Democracy Amendment (Amendment 4) to the state's constitution repeatedly point to the experience of the city of St. Pete Beach as proof that it will not work for Florida. This newspaper printed this point of view on Oct. 14. It's worth taking a hard look at St. Pete Beach to understand the irrelevancy of the comparison.

It turns out that this beachfront city of 10,000 in Pinellas County mirrors, in many ways, the deep divide in Florida between developers and residents on growth management. The argument in St. Pete Beach began years ago — well before Floridians began petitioning for Amendment 4 because their elected officials saw the world too frequently through the eyes of the development community. When Amendment 4 came along a few years ago, the St. Pete Beach community was already split between the developers and the residents. The developers and hotel interests wanted to increase the height limits for beachfront hotels and raise certain population densities. On the other side were the city's residents, who preferred their quaint beachside community as it was. The city commission approved the changes requested by the developers.

In 2006, because the city charter allows that "citizens can call for a vote on any adopted ordinance," a citizens' group collected petition signatures to reverse the city commission's approvals. Pro-development forces then formed a counter group and the scene was set for conflict between the two sides with no process in place to resolve the differences.

The hotel-backed candidates won the commission election in March 2008. The new commission adopted a set of referendum items for the June 2008 ballot that were obviously favorable to the development interests. The development interests narrowly won the election approving the hotel-backed referenda.

A former city commissioner, Harry Metz, reportedly said after the election that "business interests spent $342,000 and lied to the voters in pushing the (new) growth plan." "This is not about the democratic process, but whoever has the most money to get it done" Metz is quoted as saying.

The ex- mayor of St Pete Beach, an architect who works for developers, wrote a letter to the Treasure Coast News in June, 2008 - an opinion piece republished in the News-Leader on Oct. 14 - recounting the differences, the legal actions and the lessons for the state from his experience as mayor. He concludes that this will be the whole state's experience if Amendment 4 is passed. The ex-mayor neglects to mention that litigation ensued precisely because St. Pete Beach did not have the advantage of a defined growth management process such as Amendment 4 does. The ex-mayor's letter has recently been repeated in several newspapers across the state where municipalities are considering resolutions against Hometown Democracy.

What really happened in this small community clearly had nothing to do with Florida Hometown Democracy. From the beginning the beachfront hotel property owners greedily overreached to provoke a strong citizen reaction, a reaction that continues to this day in the form of lawsuits back and forth. The citizens took it upon themselves to challenge the hotel owners' influence over the city commission and the citizens won in court. The process was messy because there was no carefully thought out growth management process to guide them as required by the 1985 Growth Management Act, steps that Amendment 4 also requires.

Had the Hometown Democracy (Amendment 4) process been followed to deal with the changes sought by the hotel interests, the proposals would have been heard in public, reviewed and investigated by the town's professional staff, reviewed by the state's Department of Community Affairs and voted upon by the city commission. If the commissioners approved the developers' density and height increases, then, according to Amendment 4, the approved changes would be briefly and clearly described as a ballot item in the next general election and the voters would decide the issue up or down.

The St. Pete Beach experience was, thus, fundamentally different from the process called for in Amendment 4. There are important lessons here for all of us. When interests collide in a democratic system, there must be a clear and accepted process for resolution. St. Pete Beach did not have one. Amendment 4 critics continue to claim that with FHD approval by Floridians, the state will become another St. Pete Beach. Nothing could be further from the truth. St. Pete Beach represents today's conflict between citizens and developers that exists because of unrestrained development. Hometown Democracy allows the citizens to intervene responsibly in the process. And express the public interest.