Make us your home page

Today’s top headlines delivered to you daily.

(View our Privacy Policy)

St. Pete Beach wins partial victory in court battle over development rules

ST. PETE BEACH — The city won a partial victory in court last week in its nearly decade-long battle over development regulations, but the validity of its comprehensive plan is still in question.

Circuit Judge David Demers declared the City Commission did not break the state's open-meeting law last year in a series of closed-door meetings with their attorneys.

"There was no Sunshine Law violation," he said in a letter to the attorneys in the case.

He said that after reviewing multiple meeting transcripts, he found "all conversations" were permitted under the state's Sunshine Law, adding that "any claimed violations" were subsequently "cured" by commission actions.

Demers also ruled that last year's voter referendum was properly held and that the resulting repeals of development-related charter provisions are "all valid."

The judge stopped short, however, of deciding the key issue — whether the city's comprehensive plan, approved by voters in 2008 and backed last year by the Legislature, is valid.

The case was filed by resident Jim Anderson, who wants the court to reject the city's plan.

His attorney, Ken Weiss, argues the Legislature passed an unconstitutional special law to put the plan back into place after Demers, in another case, rejected the original referendum ballot language creating the plan.

"There should be no doubt," Demers said last week, that the Legislature "adopted (the law) to enable St. Pete Beach to pass the comprehensive plan that was the subject of the ordinance invalidated by this court."

What will be at issue is whether the legislation benefits only St. Pete Beach.

The state Constitution requires that public notice be given for any special law before it is passed by the Legislature.

"It was not given in this case," Demers noted. He concluded that the city "may have a hard time'' showing the law is a general, rather than a special, law.

That will now have to be fought out in court, but City Attorney Mike Davis said the first hearings may not occur until summer.

"This is the last case," Davis said Tuesday. "Hopefully, the city can finally get some certainty."

He said he is "confident" the city will prevail. "We are very pleased by the judge's ruling," he said.

The city's political wars over development regulations began a decade ago and became a legal battle when a 2006 voter referendum changed the city's charter to require voter approval of building height changes. That charter change was repealed last year by voters.

Last November, the commission settled three of four outstanding lawsuits, but one month later rejected Anderson's offer to settle his case.

"The city had multiple opportunities to resolve by compromising on the plan but has refused to do so," Weiss said. "Now it appears it is possible the city's plan will be invalidated again. The commission only has themselves to blame for this situation."

Anderson wanted the plan to more clearly guarantee beach access, put in place greater setbacks, restrict height or density more and require that developers pay infrastructure costs — changes the commission was unwilling to make.

In recent years, the city has spent more than a million dollars in legal fees defending multiple lawsuits over just those issues.

St. Pete Beach wins partial victory in court battle over development rules 04/24/12 [Last modified: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 5:20pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

© 2017 Tampa Bay Times


Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

  1. Record $417 million awarded in lawsuit linking baby powder to cancer


    LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles jury on Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a record $417 million to a hospitalized woman who claimed in a lawsuit that the talc in the company's iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.

    A bottle of Johnson's baby powder is displayed. On Monday, Aug. 21, 2017, a Los Angeles County Superior Court spokeswoman confirmed that a jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million in a case to a woman who claimed in a lawsuit that the talc in the company's iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene. [Associated Press]
  2. Search under way for missing sailors; Navy chief orders inquiry


    SINGAPORE — The U.S. Navy ordered a broad investigation Monday into the performance and readiness of the Pacific-based 7th Fleet after the USS John S. McCain collided with an oil tanker in Southeast Asian waters, leaving 10 U.S. sailors missing and others injured.

    Damage is visible as the USS John S. McCain steers toward Singapore’s naval base on Monday.
  3. Told not to look, Donald Trump looks at the solar eclipse


    Of course he looked.

    Monday's solar eclipse — life-giving, eye-threatening, ostensibly apolitical — summoned the nation's First Viewer to the Truman Balcony of the White House around 2:38 p.m. Eastern time.

    The executive metaphor came quickly.

    President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump view the solar eclipse from the Truman balcony of the White House, in Washington, Aug. 21, 2017. [Al Drago | New York Times]
  4. Secret Service says it will run out of money to protect Trump and his family Sept. 30


    WASHINGTON — The Secret Service said Monday that it has enough money to cover the cost of protecting President Donald Trump and his family through the end of September, but after that the agency will hit a federally mandated cap on salaries and overtime unless Congress intervenes.

    Secret service agents walk with President Donald Trump after a ceremony to welcome the 2016 NCAA Football National Champions the Clemson Tigers on the South Lawn of the White House on June 12, 2017. [Olivier Douliery | Sipa USA via TNS]
  5. After fraught debate, Trump to disclose new Afghanistan plan


    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will unveil his updated Afghanistan policy Monday night in a rare, prime-time address to a nation that broadly shares his pessimism about American involvement in the 16-year conflict. Although he may send a few thousand more troops, there are no signs of a major shift in …

    U.S. soldiers patrol the perimeter of a weapons cache near the U.S. military base in Bagram, Afghanistan in 2003. Sixteen years of U.S. warfare in Afghanistan have left the insurgents as strong as ever and the nation's future precarious. Facing a quagmire, President Donald Trump on Monday will outline his strategy for a country that has historically snared great powers and defied easy solutions.  [Associated Press (2003)]