A step worth taking to save BayWalk

The St. Petersburg City Council faces a difficult vote Thursday on a key part of Mayor Rick Baker's plan to help save BayWalk, the downtown entertainment complex struggling to survive.

Spending roughly $700,000 for better lighting in the city-owned parking garage and other improvements was the easy part. The tougher issue is vacating the public sidewalk in front of BayWalk on Second Avenue N so its new owner can control what goes on there. This narrowly drawn proposal is more about redevelopment and protecting a substantial public investment than about constitutional rights, and the council should approve it.

The council already has approved a comprehensive plan that features enhanced security and well-marked pedestrian connections between BayWalk, Beach Drive and other downtown areas. Police officers are patrolling on horseback, and the city will offer free parking in the garage on nights and weekends for six months starting in January. The changes will benefit the entire area as well as BayWalk, and the cost is reasonable.

The more difficult question is whether to vacate the sidewalk in front of BayWalk, which was a popular spot for protesters when the complex drew crowds on the weekends and its storefronts were full. The area became congested, and there were concerns about security and the ability of customers to enter the complex. This plan is not as objectionable as other proposals this editorial page has criticized, such as closing Second Avenue N entirely or creating "no-protest zones" on the public sidewalk. There also is precedent for vacating parts of streets and sidewalks for other developments, and protesters still would have access to BayWalk patrons from the public sidewalks on the south side of Second Avenue N. The refined proposal makes clear that BayWalk would gain no new development rights, and the public and private portions of the space would be clearly marked.

Some council members worry that vacating the sidewalk for BayWalk will lead to a rash of similar demands from other downtown business owners. But the council has the authority to decide under what narrow circumstances to grant such requests. BayWalk is a particularly unusual case.

First, the public has a substantial investment in the complex. St. Petersburg taxpayers have spent at least $20 million over the years to build and support BayWalk, and that investment is at risk now. Second, BayWalk triggered a downtown renaissance when it opened in 2000, and it would be foolish to let it become a blight in the midst of a recession. Third, the complex includes the only movie theaters in the city. How can St. Petersburg claim it can support Major League Baseball but not a single movie theater?

BayWalk's new owners have pledged in writing to spend more than $6 million to renovate the complex. Muvico, which operates the separately controlled theaters, also has stepped up and pledged to spend about $750,000 to update its complex in return for an additional break on parking. But BayWalk's owners and Muvico have made it clear that all of that investment will disappear unless the council approves the vacation of the sidewalk.

Groups that have previously protested in front of BayWalk are objecting — although the crowds they sought to reach with their message will not return unless the complex is revived. The sidewalk vacation has broad support from the business community and from the Downtown Residents Civic Association. BayWalk is at a turning point, and the City Council can head it in the right direction by voting to vacate the sidewalk.