Express your concerns! Write the Mayor and City Council of St. Pete Beach, the State Department of Community Affairs.

These letters are the opinion of the writer, Citizens For Responsible Growth is not responsible for their content..

And remember to send copies to www.CitizensForResponsibleGrowth.org for publication on our web site.

Read below for letters from St. Pete Beach residents in support of our efforts to provide for a vote of the citizens on the Community Redevelopment Plan:

July 20, 2007: "The fact is, those lawsuits are at an end and the citizens of the City of St. Pete Beach have a unique opportunity to vote on the redevelopment of their city"

June 20, 2007: "Our voices are far less influential than their money. So what can we average citizens do to stop our communities from being dragged headlong into a morass of asphalt and concrete canyons?"

March 7, 2007: "For almost 2 years, I have supported CRG in its fight against not only (3) big money groups but also against our city and it's so called representative government"

January 7, 2007: "Many of us in St Pete Beach agree with your editorial on the inevitable problems of "traffic congestion and resource depletion.  "

December 27, 2006: "Many of us in St Pete Beach agree with your editorial on the inevitable problems of "traffic congestion and resource depletion.  "

December 20, 2006: "We can't thank you enough for your time and efforts. We can only imagine what you are up against. "

December 20, 2006: "The public was deceived by RMC, we were told that Publix will close if you did not vote no. Mr. Preston of Publix categorically denied that statement and asked RMC to stop spreading that falsehood "

December 15, 2006: "This plan calls for 15 stories high buildings and more than double its density to 20,000 people for this small island. "

December 14, 2006: "You people need to do the right thing, and notify the REGISTERED VOTERS who live in this city to get the word out "

December 14, 2006: "Now it is your responsibility to listen to what the citizens have told you and act responsibly to what they have told you. "

December 14, 2006: "Maybe you were out of town and didn't hear the good news but the Citizens of St. Pete Beach voted No in this past November's election! "

December 13, 2006: "Can we TRUST a plan that has not been clearly presented to the voters? "

December 11, 2006: "Many of the residents questioned the need to rush to get an amended Comprehensive Plan on the March 2007 ballot. "

Oct 2006: "ABC can't (or doesn't want to) get their facts right...The "current comp plan in effect" is 1998 not 1987 as their ad states"

Sept 27, 2006: "ABC can't (or doesn't want to) get their facts right...The "current comp plan in effect" is 1998 not 1987 as their ad states"

09-29-06: "Recently a group calling themselves the Alliance for a Balance Community (ABC) published information that is appallingly incorrect "

10-01-06: "Below is a response from a resident to the announcement of the new ABC PAC Their motto is Preserve our City. "

May 3, 2005: "St Pete Beach, Pass a Grille, and Vina Del Mar are probably one of the nicest areas left in the State of Florida that haven’t been over developed. Lets keep it that way for the citizens now and for future generations."

May 10, 2005: "I have just been informed about your plans of permitting building height up to 20 stories and was extremely disappointed and sad about this issue."

May 13, 2005 : "I am against this Plan as it is written. Certainly, there are many good points in it. I am not supporting this plan because it opens the floodgates for MASSIVE and RAPID redevelopment and extreme and drastic change to this community as a whole if implemented."

May 12, 2005: " I believe the majority of residents of St. Pete Beach are in agreement with the County and the City of St. Pete Beach that tourism is important to our economy. We support the concept of protecting tourism. But, we also want to protect our community from being over-developed to secure that goal."

June 23, 2005: " We are a supporters of the petition and its objectives and wished to cite a specific example of the impact that 10-20 story hotels or condos will have on the city's support infrastructure which has been, to this point ignored by the Commission."

June 30, 2005: "The city of St. Pete Beach is entering into a contract with a law firm to determine if language in a citizen’s referendum is legal. While I understand the city’s concern, it is inconceivable to use taxpayer dollars to institute a lawsuit against the citizens, especially when the city attorney refuses to disclose his legal opinion or justification for filing suit."

May 31, 2005: "Our position is to let the people of Saint Pete Beach, make their own decisions. Let the voters decide what kind of city they want to live in. The city refuses to grant us that right."

May 23, 2005: "It will be in the interest of all of the residents of St. Pete Beach to have a vote in the redevelopment plan of our community."

July 27, 2006

Lawsuits are settled for many reasons. My clients believe that the dismissal of the city's lawsuit should be viewed as an attempt by the new city commission to mend the rift that was created within the city and to begin the creation of a new vision for the city. Whether decisions by former city commissioners to sue the city's citizens (and voters) was correct or not, is really no longer at issue. The fact is, those lawsuits are at an end and the citizens of the City of St. Pete Beach have a unique opportunity to vote on the redevelopment of their city. I am sure the new commission is listening.

Regards,
Ken

back to top

June 20 , 2007

ALERT !

State House Bill 7203 designed to eliminate

Florida’s growth management legislation in Pinellas County “recognizes that some areas of the state should be exempt from unnecessary state oversight. Unnecessary for whom, the developers?

We all know from experience that it is a futile effort for voters to write legislators who are influenced by high priced lobbyists.

Our voices are far less influential than their money. So what can we average citizens do to stop our communities from being dragged headlong into a morass of asphalt and concrete canyons? First, we can work at the local level. The citizens of St. Pete Beach have approved a charter amendment that requires voter approval of any comprehensive plan amendment. It was not easy. The St. Pete Beach city commission sued to prevent the amendment from getting on the ballot. After spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on high priced Tallahassee lawyers, the city lost the case.

Then, after the court ordered the amendment to be put on the ballot, developers spent over $300,000 in this small beach community to try to stop voter approval.

 They lost this battle, too. Now, the residents of St. Pete Beach have the right to approve any comprehensive plan amendment.

Find out more about House Bill 7203…

The residents have spoken Responsible growth supporters Linda Chaney and Harry Metz elected as commissioners in St Pete Beach.

Linda Chaney and Harry Metz helped create the CRG and have actively supported development that does not overwhelm residents.
Both Chaney and Metz have studied the development issues in St Pete Beach, their extensive knowledge, understanding of the issues and citizen support bring an expertise to our city commission that will build consensus for a comprehensive plan fair to all residents, businesses, and the tourist industry.
A plan voters will be proud to approve. Citizens For Responsible Growth (CRG) has led the effort to make our city the first in Florida to allow a vote on comprehensive plans. Ms. Chaney and Mr. Metz have continued to be staunch champions for the right to vote in St Pete Beach.
Congratulations to new Commissioner of district 2 Linda Chaney and new Commissioner of district 4 Harry Metz

On Tuesday January 16, 2007 at St Pete Beach city hall, a special commission meeting was held to put three items on the upcoming March Ballot, one of those items was a slightly "revised" comprehensive plan to replace the ones voters rejected.

Developers and Hoteliers of the ABC pac- the ones who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars telling citizens to vote "no" to approve the comprehensive plan in November, citing dire consequences to St. Pete Beach if we failed to do as they say

Expressed the exact opposite viewpoint.

In a statement before the commission Mr. Bogott President of the ABC pac said suing citizens was more important than getting a comprehensive plan for St. Pete Beach! They don't care about our beach community, its' residents, businesses or redevelopment

Read More...

March 7 , 2007

Constitution.

For almost 2 years, I have supported CRG in its fight against not only (3) big money groups but also against our city and it’s so called representative government. Somewhere between my Mayor challenging my 1st amendment right to petition my government, citizens being sued for the same with their own money, Commissioners voting on issues that they have interest in, public funds being used to tell me how to vote, being told that I’m not smart enough to vote on such specific issues, being called a terrorist for exercising my Constitutional Rights and the City’s refusal to enforce election ordinances, I lost faith in my government.

I fully expected the ABC pro-development PAC to fight dirty, but I never expected my city to do the same. The $230,000 spent by ABC to confuse the vote combined with the city’s defiance to ever once explain that their new plan was specifically designed to lift virtually all zoning controls and therefore would enable an “all at once” build out to the maximum density, worked - no one really understood the whole density issue of St. Pete Beach, otherwise it would’ve been 70-30 in a Yes favor. Contrary to what Al Halpern implies, I fully understand the issues and that’s why I voted Yes. Our City has been giving away the farm and the citizens are ultimately the ones that are going to pay.

Lisa Robinson

Congratulations on running a great campaign!!!

I have one question. The St. Pete Times said that "development will be allowed in Dolphin Village." Which amendment was that?

Jerry

Well said, my dear!
I was shocked at the lack of press coverage of the really important fact that this vote will change the face of Florida for a lot of little towns that are struggling the same demon carpetbaggers. I was expecting the Mayor to send phone messages to all of us to let us know that everything will be all right in spite of the resounding Yes votes, but that didn't happen. I am sure today was not a pleasant one for him and his band of Merry Commissioners. The people have spoken and he sure didn't like what they said. I'll tell you I am so glad you called me and lit a fire under my husband Wayne and myself. It really woke us up to the fact that there is a price for living in paradise and I am not talking about high taxes. We have to maintain vigilance against those that would destroy our way of life in pursuit of the all mighty dollar. I agree with you the fight isn't over, it is just beginning. Wayne and I will be forever grateful to you and the rest of CRG for the tremendous service you have done for St. Pete Beach.

All I have to say is you are amazing and a tremendous asset to our community....the reaming fight is going get ugly I am sure. It is all about money and when the stakes are this high people throw out any so called Integrity they thought they had in the first place. God Bless you and see you soon.

Bobby Grace
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.

I hope this is cause to celebrate for the private citizens of SPB, but yes on all 6 would have been wonderful. Bottom line is a BIG thank you to you & all the people who worked tirelessly w/the CRG, you've made the future look brighter!

Sincerely,

Mary Ellen Keller

...and it really was a victory--thanks for your efforts. Now for the Commission seats
(Is this election in March 07?).

norm

This Yes vote means our city is safe from greed.
We will have to watch the Mayor and friends to be sure they follow through.
Great Job !

Thank you,
J.M.

From: Martha Collins
Congratulations, you all have set a precedent for the rest of the state to follow. I am so proud to see people in this area stand up for what they believe in and win!

Mike Bonfield; City Manager

CC All Commissioners and Mayor

Mike

Once again, from your quote in Sunday’s St Pete Times you make legislative and legal comments, without purview over such matters, regarding the affect of the ballot items being approved by the residents of St Pete Beach. Your anti petition and “no vote” support was evident in your actions and comments during the petitioning and voting campaign process.

It is my understanding from our Charter, shown below, that we elect officials who are our legislative body and they hire you to administer our city management, in accordance with our City Charter.

The voters of St Pete Beach approved the 4 ballot items on Nov. 7th, 2006. This vote. which was a rejection of items previously approved by our commission, as stated in the Charter, the voters can now vote on the issues. The voters now have control over comp plans, and amendments to comp plans, height of buildings and major zoning. Not just as advisors as you were quoted, in the Times today. The word Advise has absolutely no bearing.

Your obligation to our city is to carry out the both the spirit and the letter of the law of our right to vote. It is not complicated nor is it something to gripe about. It does not require PR spin, it is, what it is, clear as the peoples’ yes vote on Tuesday.

Our elected commission should address legislative issues and respond to media inquiries with the yes vote in mind. Heedful of their obligation by law to implement the results of our vote.

Furthermore I disagree ethically and find it outside the power of our elected officials and city employees to publicly promote a “For or Against” stand on any issue regardless of my personal views. Public officials are not to tell people how to vote. The city statement and purpose on ethics, see below, supports this statement. The state also supports this statement see 104.31 below

Being impartial is part of our city code of ethics.

From Our City Charter

Sec. 3.01. City commission; powers, composition.

There shall be a city commission with all legislative powers of the city vested therein, except as prescribed elsewhere in this charter, consisting of four (4) commissioners and a mayor-commissioner.

Sec. 4.01. City manager.

There shall be a city manager who shall be the chief administrative officer of the city. He shall be responsible to the commission for the administration of all city affairs placed in his charge by or under this charter.

Sec. 7.03. Referendum.

The qualified voters of the city shall have power to require reconsideration by the commission of any adopted ordinance and, if the commission fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject it at a city election.

ON ETHICS

Sec. 2-57. Statement of purpose and policy.

(a) The purpose of this division is to promote the welfare of the citizens of the city through the adoption of a code of ethics to govern all city officers and city employees, employed on either a part-time or full-time basis by the city. Within this framework, the general objectives of this division are to:

(1) Facilitate the proper operation of municipal government by providing officers and employees who are independent, impartial and responsible to the people and able to make governmental decisions and formulate policy within the established channels of governmental structure.

(2) Ensure that public office or public employment not be used for unwarranted personal gain.

(3) Ensure that the financial interests of employees and public officeholders present neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust.

(4) Foster continued recognition of the concept that public employees and public officeholders are agents of the public and hold office or employment for the benefit of the public.

(5) Enhance public confidence in the integrity of its municipal government.

(6) Promote a recommitment to the concept that public employees and public officeholders are required to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of the state and the city Charter and are required to impartially carry out and enforce the laws of the nation, the state and the city.

(7) Continue high moral standards in government.

(8) Reaffirm the policy of the city to adhere not only to the "letter" but to the "intent" of F.S. chs. 119 and 286.

(b) To this end, there is established a code of ethics for the city.

This is a section of state statute that further supports the views in my letter.

Looking forward to your complete facilitation of the peoples vote.

Deborah Schechner

back to top

December 27, 2006

From: chaigley@aol.com [mailto:chaigley@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:06 PM

Subject: My response to the articles in today's paper

Subject: Sprawl Editorial and St Pete Beach Article It is interesting that your editorial on SPRAWL is in the same day's paper as the story on St Pete Beach's redevelopment plan. Many of us in St Pete Beach agree with your editorial on the inevitable problems of "traffic congestion and resource depletion." And yet, in St Pete Beach there have been no serious studies done on these issues not to mention other infrastructure concerns such as sewer, water, and impact fees to developers to pay their fair share of these development issues when doubling the population is contemplated. And we agree with the Times that "the standard justification for unrestrained growth - that it pays for itself through increased tax revenues - is easily refuted." Read Eban Fodor's book, Bigger Not Better, and you will get a somber analysis of the true cost to the taxpayers for growth and sprawl. The changes that St Pete Beach's management offers are little more than a summary of what the condo/hoteliers want. Tim Bogott, CEO of the Trade Winds, offered a compromise of 12-story condo/hotels. Are condo/hotel CEO's the ones running St Pete Beach? We residents do not think so. And the residents fully understand that a 12-story condo/hotel with 80 units per acre can be increased by the Board of Adjustments to, what, 15-stories or more? All we need to do is look at the exceptions to the 5-story building height and know that exceptions are the rule for the developers. Commissioner Ruttencutter is correct. It is a matter of TRUST. The folks in St Pete Beach will be asked in March to trust their Mayor and Commissioners that the plan they offer will be a benefit to all in St Pete Beach. Their plan will be rejected because the citizens simply no longer trust their City government to do the right thing. They will remember the Mayor holding a political sign telling citizens how to vote; they will remember the Mayor spending money to authorize signs on police and fire department vehicles telling people how to vote; and they will remember the nearly $300,000 the City spent to sue its citizens to keep them from voting. We thank the unanimous decision of the 2nd District Court of Appeal for ensuring our constitutional right to vote on growth management issues in our City. St Pete Beach needs serious infrastructure studies on the impact of development within our City. And this should be mandatory before any plan is placed on the ballot for voting. The citizens have been asking for such studies for several years because they know the problems we currently have, and understand the financial consequences of added population. Any plan that goes to a vote without such studies will be rejected, and rightly so. The condo/hotel developers continually forget that St Pete Beach is a quaint and unique community with many, many residents who will share the City but not give it away to developers who will take the money and run.

C. H. St Pete Beach, FL 33706

back to top

December 20, 2006

Dear CRG:

We can't thank you enough for your time and efforts. We can only imagine what you are up against. The City Council and Major never cease to amaze us in this small seaside town. Greed truly transcends.... We hope that this will help your cause. Two full-time residents of St. Pete Beach,

Sincerely,

E. F. and M. H. St. Pete Beach, FL 33706

back to top

December 20, 2006

Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 5:38 AM
To: t.mcmaster@stpetebeach.org
Cc: Edward Ruttencutter; Mike Finnerty
Subject: please forward to planning board members

Dear members of the planning board,

Regarding Dolphin Village.

The public was deceived by RMC, we were told that Publix will close if you did not vote no. Mr. Preston of Publix categorically denied that statement and asked RMC to stop spreading that falsehood. Rezoning from strictly commercial to mixed use is not the right fit for this area, traffic is already jammed. Imaging a possibility of 200 or more extra cars in an already congested area.

What about our sewer system? Each condo will have at least two toilets and possibly three, the stress on our already inadequate system is unacceptable. (see sewer report)

• 1)     Shop owners were originally told they would be moved to the south end, where the fountains are.  In a recent tenant meeting, they were told by RMC that the entire plaza would be leveled. Do you care about the small business owners? They were obviously lied to as were the voters of SPB. Shop owners say they have just been put out of business after being promised they would be taken care of, which is what RMC told voters during the Nov. election. Residents were harassed prior to the elections by RMC staff for holding vote yes signs on public sidewalks. Their (RMC) actions represent inferior corporate neighbors, not conducive to our residents’ interests in St. Pete Beach,

• 2)     Publix most likely will be pushed up to the 2nd story to make room for the condos.  There will be 2 hospital-sized elevators to pack into with our grocery carts, baby strollers, wheelchairs, and walkers.  Also, we will have to stand in line waiting for an elevator.

• 3)     Publix and Dollar Tree managers told many of us that Publix has the lease on the Dollar Tree space. Dollar Tree is leaving in April. Publix can expand into that space; they do not have to be on the 2nd floor for us to have a larger, newer Publix. Mr. Preston of Publix has stated whether or not redevelopment occurs at Dolphin Village they are here for a very long term and have very agreeable lease extensions for decades.

• 4)    It is not certain how many stories or feet they are proposing for the 175 condos – 7 stories, 85 feet?  10 stories, 120 feet? Please, every single time you state a building in stories - state the height in feet.

• 5)     Infrastructure studies still have not been done, and impact fees have not been increased to pay for the additional burden to our congested roads, leaky sewers, low water pressure, and police and fire/rescue services the additional people in these condos will require.  Our impact fees are totally inadequate to meet the needs of developing Dolphin Village as mixed use. 

• 6)     Approving the plan for Dolphin Village would equal poor planning for St Pete Beach. Approving the plan for Dolphin Village rewards misleading the public. Approving the plan for Dolphin Village destroys small businesses and livelihoods for  families                          

             Thank you,

             D. Schechner

back to top

December 15, 2006

From: Maria Urban

To: tmcmaster@stpetebeach.org

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 12:51 PM

Subject: Open letter to the Mayor of SPB 12-11-06

Open letter to the Mayor of St. Pete Beach, City Manager and  Commissioners.

I am writing this letter with frustration and disappointment.   I have addressed you on several occasions about your behavior and attitude toward the residents of this community who do not agree with your Redevelopment Plan.  This   plan calls for 15 stories high buildings and more than double its density to 20,000 people for this small island. You have sued (with taxpayer money), the people that collected over 3,000 signed petitions, requesting that you put the Redevelopment Plan for a referendum.  Furthermore, our own city lawyer, filed appeals to invalidate our petitions, which again, cost the taxpayers over $3000.00.   Finally, by order of the Circuit Court of Appeals, the Redevelopment plan was placed for a referendum on Nov 7th 2,006, which was defeated by the majority of the voters.

Unfortunally, your attitude has not change.

  5.  Furthermore, you want this new Redevelopment plan completed by January 19th      2007    in order for the referendum to be place for the March Ballot.  The majority of the participants of these meetings have asked you to postpone the referendum for the March Ballot.  We want to have more time to understand this tremendous change in our community.   People do not want 10- 15 stories high buildings.  They do not want all the condominiums proposed in the plan.

 We need to understand the revisions for new Redevelopment plan completely. We need a plan that majority of the voters will approve. What benefits, if any, will the ordinary property owner get out of this plan.  Many people who voted for the 6 amendment did not realize that the redevelopment of Dolphin Village included 175 condominiums.

It  appears  that you have been going trough  the motions of having people express their views and desires, but that you knew all along that you were going ahead with your Re development Plan , with or without  the people approval. 

 It is very frustrating to see what is happening in our beautiful beach community, not only because it will change for ever our way of life, but because it seems that representative government no longer represent the will of the people.

back to top

December 14, 2006

To: t.mcmaster@stpetebeach.org

Cc: HMETZ@tampabay.rr.com

Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:52 PM

Subject: Redevelopment Plan

You people need to do the right thing, and notify the REGISTERED VOTERS who live in this city to "get the word out”. Not the HALF-A** way that was used. I've been here since 1969,This county and beach is already OVER-CROWDED.

What is the RUSH about anyway?

People are tired of (supposedly) OUR elected officials trying to RAM down our throats, totally UNPROVEN and FUTURE-PLANS OF OUR BEACH.

I attended last nights meeting 12-13-06 The TOTAL DISRESPECT, that Ward (THE MAYOR) demonstrated was UNACCEPTABLE toward the people that tried to speak.

At the beginning of the meeting we said the pledge of allegiance to OUR flag, that guarantees our RITE TO SPEAK. Ward you need to learn to respect people if you claim to be from Missouri I can SHOW YOU.

                                                                            Jerry Turner

back to top

December 14, 2006

Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 8:36 AM
To: w.fiszolowski@stpetebeach.org
Cc: spbcd3@yahoo.com; tmcmaster@stpetebeach.org
Subject: Comp Plan

Mayor,

Many, many residents have expressed to you that placing the Comp Plan on the March ballot is unacceptable.  Consider their opinions that there is no need to rush the Plan to vote.  Rather, the citizens want a Comp Plan that is not a rush job, and which will most likely be voted down if it is rushed onto the March ballot.  It is no longer a matter of 24 votes.

Why not take some time, do the Comp Plan that the citizens will embrace, give the citizens the infrastructure studies that they have requested prior to any Comp Plan vote?

Apparently so many people at the first workshop expressed their concerns over rushing the plan onto the ballot as well as the lack of infrastructure studies, that for the second workshop you didn't even want to hear it anymore.  That is a strong message and one that you have obviously heard.  Now it is your responsibility to listen to what the citizens have told you and act responsibly to what they have told you.  Have a wonderful holiday season, and let's hope for a peaceful City in 2007.  Cherie Haigley

back to top

December 14, 2006

From: passagrille1
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:45 AM
To: w.fiszolowski@stpetebeach.org
Cc: lchaney1@tampabay.rr.com
Subject: Vote No Won!

Maybe you were out of town and didn't hear the good news but the Citizens of St. Pete Beach voted No in this past November's election! We, the Citizens of St. Pete Beach do not want High Rises and Carpet Baggers over developing our fair town! Re-voting on the same issue is not optional.  We do not live in a dictatorship as far as I know and what the people have voted on should stand.

The tribe has spoken, either get with the program or step down and let someone who understands how democracy works do the job. I am beginning to think some on the Commission have vested interests in the

 " Shove it down the throat of citizens of SPB High Rise Debacle......

Vicki Dewey

St. Pete Beach

back to top

December 13, 2006

From: SH
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: revisions to comp plan 12-11-06.doc

The only beneficiaries of the plan that the commission is rushing to put on the March ballot are the investors and developers. We as individuals who wish to have responsible growth and stop this plan need to be sure that we don't get bogged down in relatively small details when it comes to the March push.

They would love to banter back and forth about the issues Mr. Urban has identified and then cut one or two from the permitted principal use categories while the rest goes unchallenged. This is known in politics as sending us off on "rabbit trails" and diverting us from the main issue. They are experts at this and we must recognize this tactic. It is a shell game that they play with great skill.

Mr. Urban has clearly shown several of the inconsistencies, lack of communication and in particular the misrepresentations or omissions that the "plan" embodies. Therefore, rather than focus on these misreps although totally demonstrative of their tactics, lets focus on the issue of TRUST. How can we trust a plan that we are told will do one thing and upon reading it carefully find otherwise. This is misrepresentation. If we simply get into arguments about wording they can simply say "oh that is a wording error" and change a word or two. The point is they have attempted to mislead the citizens and voters of SPB once again. That violates the premise of TRUST.

Can we TRUST a plan that has not been clearly presented to the voters?  Whether we can trust those who are pushing this plan is another matter that must be dealt with in the next election.

Please let us not be snookered by these very clever interests who have an enormous financial stake in getting this plan approved.

back to top

December 11, 2006

From: Robert C Urban

To: Dist 1 ; Dist 2 ; Dist 3 ; Dist 4 ; Mayor ; Michael Bonfield ; city clerk

Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:19 PM

Subject: revisions to comp plan 12-11-06.doc

TO:  St Pete Beach City Commission and City Manager

FM:  Robert Urban,  SPB

DT:  11 December 2006

I viewed the meetings on Dec. 6th. and 7th re: the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan as a race by the City to place this as a referendum item on the March 2007 ballot. Nothing more.

 It is evident that the City is more concerned with getting this item on the ballot rather than addressing the concerns of voters, many of whom were not notified of these meetings because the City used property records instead of voter’s registration records for the mailing (another example of poor planning).

Many of the residents questioned the need to rush to get an amended Comprehensive Plan on the March 2007 ballot.  They suggested instead “a go slow policy of doing it right” addressing the concerns of residents as part of the plan and of the infrastructure requirements that will be needed to support the plan.

The City has done little to convey to the residents how this Comprehensive Plan and its dependent Land Development Code reflects a clear picture of its future vision of the city.  For example, we have been told that Div 14 Resort Facilities Medium District is to be our tourist hotel district, yet permitted principle uses and structures are:

(a) clinics,
(b) clubs, community service,
(c) private clubs,
(d) eating and drinking establishments – bar or sit-down restaurant,
(e) financial institutions without drive- through service,
(f) kennels without outdoor  runs ,
(g) self-service laundries,
(h) offices,
(i) printing & copying services,
(j) multifamily residential dwellings,
(k) retail sales,
(l) personal/business services,
(m) social service agencies,
(n) transient accommodations – bed & breakfast inn, hotel or motel, or resort condominium,
(o) veterinaries…yet most of these permitted uses have little to do with providing tourist services. 

I, for one, would like to see all hotels limited to single entity ownership, either private or corporate.  A recent timeshare on SPB failed due to tax default leaving investors holding an empty bag.  A number of investment condo-rentals on Madeira Beach have gone under because of rapidly rising taxes, insurance, association fees and mortgage costs that have resulted in negative cash flows. Condo hotels are also prone to these problems. Only deep pocketed ownership has the means to weather the downturns in the economy till better times arrive.

The Comprehensive Plan says we are a ‘built out community’, with only 13 acres of undeveloped land.  Therefore, most future redevelopment will most likely will require higher buildings and/or higher unit/acre density to justify future investment.  Furthermore, Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in the State, and SPB the most densely populated city in Pinellas County.  How much further can SPB be developed without diminishing our quality of life by turning our beach community into an urbanized community which residents do not want?

The City has never provided a list of benefits that the ordinary resident home/condo owner would likely receive stemming from all this planned development.  From the ordinary resident’s point of view he is more likely to believe this redevelopment will result in higher taxes and insurance costs due to the City’s inability to put together a complete , accurate plan  including infrastructure studies,  studies that show what number of tourist accommodations will be needed year by year, what price categories most of our current tourists fall into, and whether  new development be able to provide these price categories or will many of these repeat business categories be lost in the future???

As I see it, the City is a long way from being able to present a complete and understandable plan to the voting residents that addresses their concerns and which they would be comfortable supporting.

back to top

Oct 2006

Oct ’06

What I should have added to my statement when you were leaving my home today, was that while I believe in and support a "representative government," it's a matter of whom you trust in government. When one person can polarize an entire community, it's time to act. And that's exactly what CRG is doing. I fully support CRG and am most grateful for the opportunity to be a part of OUR decision on how OUR Community will develop. Like Dale Hughes, I may not vote the same way others will, but that's the beauty of at least having the PRIVILEGE to make my "statement" and maybe dip my finger into the purple ink. Maybe that's what we need to do for the people who already have voted absentee or have voted early--PURPLE INK. That way, we can show our fellow citizens how we feel about this privilege. After all, WE are the citizens of this town. And to paraphrase Abe Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, "....government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people....." and that's a bit different from "....government....BY the commission....." GO CRG!!!!

back to top

Sept 27, 2006

All.....ABC can't (or doesn't want to) get their facts right...The "current comp plan in effect" is 1998 not 1987 as their ad states....also ...there are at least 11 potential sites for Large Hotels available...not 8 as stated!....(actually more than 11 if they combine additional smaller parcels) The "CURRENT" height limit is only 5 STORIES for condos and hotels .....The "New Plan" proposes 15 STORIES with "unlimited power" to the commission appointed BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT to grant variances for up to 30 stories or more !!! The City claims that these heights can only be achieved with "conditional use approval" .....not much comfort to know...considering that the same mayor and commission who created the new plan are the same characters who get to vote on the conditional use !!! Additional omissions of fact .....The "New Plan" proposes up to 90 units per acre density for hotels with 850 square feet "average" unit size, and 20 units per acre density for condominium residences....The "CURRENT" density limits are 30 units per acre density for hotels with 650 square feet "maximum" unit size, and 15 units per acre density for condominium residences.......Well at least the part about people being "scared" is correct!..... We should be Scared of a Developer Driven Government!......Scared of increased Traffic!,... ...Scared of congested evacuation routes!,......Scared of long back-ups at the bridges!,.......Scared of congestion,... noise,... pollution... and ware and tear to the roadways..... with untold years of Heavy Construction Projects, .....Scared of increased Holiday Traffic!,....Scared of increased impact on our obsolete Infrastructure-Water, Sewers!,.... Scared of Increased Costs of municipal services-Police and Fire!,....Scared of Continued Increases of Property Taxes,........Remember.... a few honest members of the City Staff have revealed ....that the "potential increase" of new and larger units could be close to 5000 or more ( this equates to at 2.5 people a unit to 12,500 or more people) while our elected officials claimed the new plan "is just a density swap with no increases in units or required levels of services necessary"... Also... City Staff revealed that no Infrastructures Studies were conducted nor were they required because the proposed plan "is just a density swap" ...Remember, the Mayor and Commissioners repeatedly stated.... in Public Meetings, to the Press, to The County , The State and other regulatory agencies that... "EXTENSIVE STUDIES WERE DONE" !!! Also please remember that the other PACs are extensively supported by The Large Hotels ( Tradewinds, Sirata, Alden, etc.) who have already built more units then the existing comp plan ever allowed and of course with the City's Blessings.....When the State and County brought this HUGE PROBLEM to the City and Hotels attention....The "Quick Fix" was to amend the Comp Plan to "Legitimize" the ILLEGAL DENSITY.....The process started in earnest with the attempts in 2002 with the proposed "Master Plan" and in June 2003 with the passage of the Revised Land Development Ordinances which effectively (and more than likely illegally) Down-zoned and removed property rights from large portions of the community ... to create a surplus density...that simply got "swapped" to the west side of Gulf Blvd....There was nothing in the proposal that indicated how and when the now over dense and "non-conforming" areas (due to the rezoning - small duplex, multi-family, small tourist lodging are now zoned single family or duplex) were going to go away.....The proposed plan will now continue to take away take density from the Upham Beach area and make existing Tourist Lodging Nonconforming!!!!......The results are now becoming obvious.....The Commission appointed Board of adjustment has already violated their authority under the Comp Plan by granting variances exceeding the 50 foot height limits and Density maximums with the Sirata Beach Resort and Condominiums on the east side of Gulf Blvd,...Also it appears that the Tradewinds may have violated Local Zoning requirements and the Comp Plan by selling condominium residences without Deed restrictions and Condominium Documents that limit the time usage by the purchasers and requiring the units to be rented as hotel rooms ...... Under the new Div.43 the Commission has attempted to vacate right-of-ways leading to the water without PUBLIC REFERENDUM as required in the City Charter....Also allowing "required on- site parking for private development to use the public right-of-ways, approved zoning changes for a project that doesn't meet acreage, usage, and COMP PLAN REQUIREMENTS........ Many more examples out there and most are a matter of public record! Remember... past and current elected officials with proven conflicts of interests who voted to enrich themselves and or family interests....... Voting to spend $300,000.00 of the taxpayers money to sue the citizens that collected the signatures for petitions to allow the citizens The Right to Vote to determine

THE FUTUTE OF THIS CITY!!!! (A RIGHT UNDER THE CITY CHARTER AND THE CONSTITUTION!).....We Should Be Scared.......VOTE YES..........
.Ralph

back to top

09-29-06

09-29-06

Recently a group calling themselves the Alliance for a Balance Community (ABC) published information that is appallingly incorrect. They should be held accountable to getting their facts straight, but I'm not surprised because this is a group of out-of-towners and not St Pete Beach residents. For example, the current comprehensive plan is in effect since 1998 and not 1987 as stated by ABC. And, there are at least 11 potential sites for LARGE HOTELS available, not 8 as stated by ABC. Actually it might be more than 11 if smaller parcels of land are combined. Right now the City is proposing 15 STORIES (and how high is that?) with "unlimited power" to the Commission-appointed "BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT" to grant variances for up to 30 stories or more! The City claims that these heights can only be achieved with "conditional use approval," which is not much comfort to know considering that the same Mayor and Commission who created the new comp plan are the same characters who get to vote on the conditional use! Let's get the facts straight:

Current Plan
Proposed Plan

5 Stories for condos and hotels 15 to 30 stories condo/hotels 30 units per acre for hotels 90 units per acre for hotels with 650 sq ft maximum unit size with 850 average sq ft size 15 units per acre for condos 20 units per acre for condos.

Under the proposed plan there is a potential for nearly 5,000 or more units. Do the math! If you consider approximately 2.5 people to a unit, that an additional 12, 500 people to our community. Consider the 3 new condo buildings across from the Sirata. Nearly 100 condos were built on the Ruins of El Dorado miniature golf course and adjacent parcel. I doubt if those properties had nearly 200 bathrooms! And folks, let's not forget that all of this is being done without benefit of any infrastructure studies to our traffic, safety, evacuation, sewer, water, etc., systems. The Mayor and Commissioners repeatedly stated in public meetings, to the press, to the County, the State and other regulatory agencies that "EXTENSIVE STUDIES WERE DONE!" NOT SO! Several times I requested copies of such studies and was told to put my request in writing by the Mayor inferring that I would receive the studies. There aren't any! My fellow citizens, I am concerned about what the Mayor and Commissioners are doing to our beautiful City. I do not want tall buildings. The density and height limits we now have are sufficient. It is not my fault that some out-of-towners paid too much for their property and now want to develop it to the hilt at my expense to cover their poor business decisions. No wonder they have formed the Alliance for a Balanced Community - they are desperate to get what they want, make their money, and leave the rest of us with their mess FOREVERMORE. For those of us who have been in SPB awhile, know the City has been pushing for taller buildings and more development for some time - and every time the residents say "no!" In a November 14th, 2001 St. Pete Times article these issues were being discussed: "Working on its development rules, city officials consider allowing taller buildings. Taller buildings can sprout on Corey Avenue and along the city's "Hotel Row", according to land development plans in the works at City Hall." "City Commissioners (and Mayor Ward Friszolowski) hope their work on land development regulations, which determine how properties can be used in various neighborhoods throughout St. Pete Beach, will promote development ." "The plan outlines how the city should react to a widened Blind Pass Road and increases the allowable building heights along Corey Avenue." ".preliminary ideas include allowing hotels to build as high as 200 feet and residential condominiums to build as high as 120 to 150 feet. Current regulations allow 50-foot buildings" Consider who will pay for our infrastructure if we have all this growth? Do some research and you will find that the bigger the community the bigger the tax burden to its citizens*. Government will want more and more and more. It is time to say NO MORE! Say it to the out-of-towners who don't care about you, to the hoteliers who want their property values to soar, and to the Mayor and Commissioners who sue your fellow neighbors and don't listen to you. On November 7 VOTE YES to all 6 referendum items.

Sincerely,
Cherie Haigley St Pete Beach, FL

back to top

10-01-06

10-01-06

Below is a response from a resident to the announcement of the new ABC PAC Their motto is Preserve our City. This PAC was started by two Hoteliers, Tom Boggot of the Tradewinds Resort hotel, and Gary Renfrow of the Alden Hotel.
They have pledged to spend $250,000 to "educate" residents on the dangers of voting on the city's development plans.
They have been circulating half truths and mis-leading information to the public, in hopes of confusing us into voting their way.
They had their "kick off" dinner to introduce themselves and their plan to SPB on the 5th anniversary of 9-11. Shame on them.

Hi ,
         Thanks for the info about Boggot and his ilk. It's really disgusting that they would spend all that money to try and buy the votes of SPB residents. Why don't they donate that kind of money to a more worthy cause? How about to the rec center? Or Katrina victims? Or anywhere but spending it to try and con and bully the residents, and trying to take away their right to vote.
What do you think about getting as many people as possible to bombard the Tradewinds and Alden with calls and emails telling them exactly how we feel about their dirty tactics and their total disrespect of the residents and their rights? I am so fed up with their greed. Have you heard from any of the other residents about this? Who should we email at Tradewinds? I hope all is well with you. I'm planning to go to comm. meeting on Wed.

Take Care,
Julie

back to top

May 3, 2005   

May 3, 2005

Open Letter to Mayor, and City Commissioners of St Pete Beach.

I have lived here on the beach since late 1976. First at Envoy Point for three years then moving to my present home on Vina Del Mar in Pass a Grille where I now reside and hopefully will till my demise. I will further add I was born in Miami and lived there and Ft Lauderdale while growing up. I add this to point out that Ft Lauderdale and Miami in the 40’s was a city with lots of charm and atmosphere especially Ft Lauderdale. As a kid in Ft Lauderdale we swam out to a pine Island and camped out for the weekend. That Pine Island is now Pier 66 Marina.

When I returned to Florida in 1976 neither of these two cities were considered as a place to return to as they had been ruined by over development, poor city planners and far to many people for a given area. I drive over now and can’t wait to get out of there. Traffic is terrible and you can’t see the beach for the high rise buildings. Your stress level goes up a 100% just driving around trying to get somewhere.

Now you the city government of this beautiful city are about to try and turn this into another Miami and that my good friend benefits only a very small minority. It certainly will not increase the quality of life for the residents of this fair city. We already have traffic congestion on Gulf Blvd with the present restrictions and you want to increase the building height restriction to 20 stories and along with that increase the density . Who are you trying to kid. You can explain it any way you want but the bottom line is the only people who benefit from this will be the people who presently own the properties and the Developers who end up doing the building.

Have any of you driven Gulf Blvd lately. Its a traffic nightmare and its the dead season following Easter. Now you want to increase the height restriction of buildings and along with that increase the Density. I can’t believe you can keep a straight face and look the citizens in the eye and say that this is a good thing for St Pete Beach. Being bigger is not necessarily better and in this case it definitely is not. I have discussed this with several friends and so far I can’t find one soul that agrees with your position. St Pete Beach, Pass a Grille, and Vina Del Mar are probably one of the nicest areas left in the State of Florida that haven’t been over developed. Lets keep it that way for the citizens now and for future generations.

If you are so sure this is a good thing for the majority of the citizens of St Pete Beach then put it up for a vote and if you can find 51% of the citizens in favor then you will never hear from me again for at that point we deserve what we get.

Respectfully submitted,

W.E. Horne
Captain, Northwest Airlines
Retired

back to top

May 10, 2005    back to top

May 10, 2005

To Mayor and City Commissioners of St Pete Beach

I have just been informed about your plans of permitting building height up to 20 stories and was extremely disappointed and sad about this issue.

The following comments reflects my opinion as well of many Canadians who choose years ago to establish their vacation home in St Pete Beach’s area instead of the Ft. Lauderdale-Miami’s area.

I have been coming down here since 1976, and this area is for me a little peaceful, safe and outstanding paradise that was forgotten by poor city planning and over development. I often come down here by myself, and, as a single woman, I’m never afraid of going out by myself in this area because of the safe environment and quality of life. On the opposite, just going to Clearwater stresses and scares me out: for me, it’s a little Miami with no charm left.

So, consequently, please don’t destroy one of the last area left in Florida with it’s native soul, charm and typical native atmosphere.  

Sincerely,

May 13, 2005    back to top

May 13, 2005

St. Pete Beach Mayor and City Commissioners
155 Corey Avenue
St. Pete Beach, Florida 33706
RE: City of St. Pete Beach Resort/Commercial redevelopment Plan 2005

Dear Mayor and City Commissioners,

I do think our community needs a Mater Plan for Redevelopment to address the imminent growth that is taking place in St. Pete Beach. I will first tell you my position and why. Secondly, discuss my experience at the open house held at city hall on Saturday, May 7, 2005. Third, give my response and lastly propose my vision for St. Pete Beach.

I am against this Plan as it is written. Certainly, there are many good points in it. I am not supporting this plan because it opens the floodgates for MASSIVE and RAPID redevelopment and extreme and drastic change to this community as a whole if implemented.

Saturday, May 7, 2005 I attended the open house at city hall.

1. This plan is all about money – Investors and property owners making money. I was told The Hotel district is to become “an economic engine” for St. Pete Beach and that “land value increases with the number of rooms that can be built on the land”. More stories, more rooms, more money at closing. This makes “cash cows” for the property owners.

2. Environmental, education, police, library, and infrastructure issues had the least amount of legitimate studies, analysis and information.

3. You have threatened the citizens with higher taxes, loss of Publix, tourism, shops and restaurants if we do not adopt “The Plan”.

4. I was told, “St. Pete Beach NEEDS this plan in order to survive”.

5. There already is a plan for the redevelopment site of the existing Travel Lodge. What other deals and plans do the Mayor and Commission know about? What if any gains (monetary, political, social, etc.) for yourselves, immediate or extended families, and friends have you or will you gain from these plans? Please give a direct response in writing to this question. I would like it on the record individually.

The following is my reply to the items above observations.

1. I am not interested in increasing the value of the “hotel area” property at the expense of this community.

2. Infrastructure issues need to be addressed first. One case in point is our waste water system: it is old, leaks and is in need of repair. This can easily become an EPA issue. Dealing with infrastructure, as you suggest, “case by case” is irresponsible at best. This procedure also puts the power of development back into the city “fathers” not the residents. The city planner said to me “if you don’t want more traffic, you won’t like this plan”. He is right: I do not want more traffic and I do not want the plan. We only have ONE main street through this small barrier island.

3. Your threats are unfounded:

a. I have confirmed with Publix that they are “here for the long haul”.
b. Restaurants and shops can “come and go” as a regular business cycle. The existing hotels are not leaving or closing if your plan is not passed.
c. This is a tourist/residential community. Some shops market tourist primarily, some residents. With or without this plan our residential and tourist base is increasing.

4. Looking, acting and being congested as Naples, FL is not survival…it is the kiss of death for this community. We need to look at communities like Carmel, Ca or Sanibel, FL or Pass A Grille, FL for example, where lack of development increased the property value, therefore taxes.

5. Just because you SAY that the plan is for the residents does not make it so. Where are the studies? Analysis? Prove to me that it benefits the residents. Saying restaurant and shops will be lost without the plan is ludicrous. Your conjecture is not enough. Who benefits the most from this plan; not the residents?

My vision of St. Pete Beach has a moratorium on building height.

(Stays as it in the current plan restrictions). Gulf properties will sell and be developed in a more mindful and elegant manner, since the number of rooms will be restricted, to demand higher hotel rates. We all know a low supply creates a higher demand, in any market. I would like to see building and remodeling in the residential areas encouraged. This would increase our tax base.

Any condominiums developed on the gulf would pay higher taxes, since as you tell us, they would not be residents here. Therefore cannot homestead their properties. Condominium development is inevitable under any plan. I believe that limited residency here would be a better choice than 20 story resort style hotels and all the infrastructure and traffic problems that go along with that development.

I would like to see an upgrade to the existing parks and library. The city could start a beatification project along Gulf Blvd.

In closing, I will say that I do not need to explain or defend my position. I am not “selling” anything. I am a voting resident of St. Pete Beach, Florida.

Sincerely,

Marian Krauthamer

back to top

May 12, 2005

Commissioner Karen Williams Seel
Pinellas County Commission

Dear Commissioner Seel:

Commissioner Seel it is critically important to preserve the livability of St. Pete Beach.

I believe the majority of residents of St. Pete Beach are in agreement with the County and the City of St. Pete Beach that tourism is important to our economy. We support the concept of protecting tourism. But, we also want to protect our community from being over-developed to secure that goal.

The Community Redevelopment Plan of St. Pete Beach does not give the residents security that our lifestyle and way of life will not be drastically changed - forever.

Ralph Lickton suggested I attach these letters for your information they are from Karl E. Holley, Director of Planning & Zoning, St. Pete Beach, in which he states basically, that there have been no infrastructure studies, yet St. Pete Beach plans to go forward with the Redevelopment Plan without knowing what effect all this new construction will have on our life style or even our basic needs of sewer and water. At the Pinellas County Commission meeting, if my memory is correct, St. Pete Beach City officials said that they have done infrastructure studies, contradicting the information in the attached letters. Also, it is my understanding that in their 2001 report, the City's consultant, Camp Dresser & McKee, stated that our sewer collection system was at or over capacity. Like all beach communities, our current population varies with 9,600 permanent residents and 20,000 seasonal . I feel it is very critical for us to have comprehensive infrastructure studies to ensure that this plan does not over-develop the City and that we continue to have adequate sewer, water, traffic control and emergency evacuation. The basic requirements a City needs for us, the residents. Right now we are flying blind without studies of our infrastructure.

At the St. Pete Beach Commission meeting of May 10, 2005 during the Question and Answer session, it was quite a surprise to find that the tourist hotels, meant to save our beach's tourism, could actually be condo/hotels or even timeshares. Based on how the existing 6 condo/hotels already in our City, this concept would not give us the tourist potential we are looking for. Experience has proven with these 6 developments that these are more condos than hotels. They even have kitchens and washers & dryers. To allow the density in the Large Resort District to go from 30 units per acre to 80 to 90 units per acre (and up to 20 stories) for condo/hotels or timeshares does not really seem to be in the best interest of our community. By allowing density increases, we should be able to have hotels, real hotels, based on the increase of density without any compensation by the developer.

At a recent City sponsored workshop, a potential developer for the Travelodge, Gulf Blvd, stated that all the proposed units would be sold as condo/hotel...all 500 units would be sold as condos.

Already in the past 18 months, approximately 1500 new condo units have been issued development orders and building permits and many are under construction and apparently the City has allowed them to go forward without concurrency management and monitoring system as required by State Statutes.

Attached are copies of the 4 petitions we are circulating to request a referendum to amend the City Charter and Governor Bush's comments on growth management.

Thank you for your continuing interest in St. Pete Beach's future.

Sincerely,

Terry Gannon
402 Hermosita Drive
St. Pete Beach, FL 33706
727 367 2542
Chairman, P.A.C. Citizens for Responsible Growth
Former Mayor, St. Pete Beach 90-92

back to top

June 30, 2005

Dear Governor Bush,

The citizens of St. Pete Beach need you; any citizen not agreeing with the redevelopment plan is treated as a “pest” at city workshops. The city Mayor and Commissioners refuse to undertake studies regarding water, infrastructure, sewer, traffic etc. while doubling the size of some tourist accommodations. Many facts presented in the master plan have been refuted and proven to be incorrect, yet the city forges ahead, feigning ignorance. Now the lawsuit instituted by the city to intimidate citizens who signed petitions for a referendum on the redevelopment plan. A lawsuit we pay for with our hard earned dollars as taxpayers. We need a voice to speak for the residents on the state level. The city even refuses to say why the language of the referendums require the expenditure of going to court.

The city of St. Pete Beach is entering into a contract with a law firm to determine if language in a citizen’s referendum is legal. While I understand the city’s concern, it is inconceivable to use taxpayer dollars to institute a lawsuit against the citizens, especially when the city attorney refuses to disclose his legal opinion or justification for filing suit.

How can fiscal responsibility be accounted for when citizen’s pleas for information are ignored and refused?

Can a government body unilaterally spend taxpayer dollars, denying citizens the right to information?

The sum may be very considerable, yet the Mayor and four out of five commissioners voted to allow this mockery of public trust.

Deborah Schechner

back to top

May 31, 2005   

May 31, 2005

Miike McDaniel
Administrator of State Planning
State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Community Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee , Florida 32399-2100

Dear Mr. McDaniel:

We need your help. The majority of voters of Saint Pete Beach are opposed to the Master Redevelopment Plan that the City is planning to implement and going forward with.

According to their the plan, it calls for a great density increase, where in it would have buildings of up to 20 stories high, well above the 5 stories that is currently allowed. In addition, the city has already granted developers permits to build condominiums buildings of 8 stories high, well above what is currently allowed.

As residents of St. Pete Beach, we understand the need for improvement not only to beautify our city but also to attract tourism; but we are against many of the componentes of this plan.

Furthermore, the infrastructure of the city has not been addressed in this Redevelopment Plan. Our water and sewer systems are not equipped to support additional usage. Presently, they are operating at their maximum. The director of Zoning Mr. Karl E. Holly has stated that there has NOT been any infrastructure studies done to support The Redevelopment Plan as it is written.

The Redevelopment Master Plan also includes the rezoning of some areas, from single family homes to commercial/condominiums.

Saint Pete Beach has a population of 9,600 permanent residents and approximately doubles during the tourist season. It has only one major road that crosses it, north to south with 2 drawbridges that connects to Saint Petersburg. When these bridges are in the up position, the traffic backs up for about a mile long in both directions. In the past, our police dept. has ordered that we evacuate when a hurricane is heading our way. During these periods, traffic becomes highly congested. It takes hours for some people to evacuate. With the higher density envisioned by the New Master Plan, this will acerbate the problem, it may put many people's lives at risk.

In spite of these and other sound reasons, the commissioners, the mayor, the city manager and developers still want to go ahead with their flawed Plan.

Our position is to let the people of Saint Pete Beach, make their own decisions. Let the voters decide what kind of city they want to live in. The city refuses to grant us that right. (Commissioner Deborah Matohue told me personally that the City does not want to put this issue for a referendum because the plan is too complex for the residents to understand). I believe, it is our right to vote on issues that are going to change our way of life forever.

Please help us with this matter. Do not allow the City of Saint Pete Beach to go ahead with their flawed plan, withought letting its residents to vote and decide if they want The Redevelopment Plan or not.

Respectfully submitted,

Maria Luz Urban

back to top

May 23, 2005  

May 23, 2005

Dear Sirs:

It will be in the interest of all of the residents of St. Pete Beach to have a vote in the redevelopment plan of our community.  This is something that affects each and every resident.  This is not the kind of decision that should be made by the commissioners alone. The vote of all the residents should be heard and counted in this decision.  We all live in this community and should participate in the decisionmaking.

Audrey Kopelman

back to top