WASTING MONEY IS NO OBJECT, WHEN POLITICIANS ARE INVOLVED. THIS PROJECT WILL BE JUST AS DISMAL, AS THE OLD PIER IS NOW 3 YEARS AFTER COMPLETION.

St. Petersburg has a large elderly population and many elderly tourists, as well as families with small children, This is a long walking pier any many of them may not be able to walk such a long distance.
The current pier offers parking and also a trolley for those who visit the pier.

Looking forward to the new changes of the lens and a new St Pete Pier....progress, think forward...

And the costs go higher and higher and Foster's Folly's cost overruns are blamed on public input. Building anything along Spa beach that is not free and that consists of retail requires a vote of the citizens, not the city council. The administration continues to manipulate the process. Docking for boats is in the inside of this loop and no motorized sailboats will be able to get into the inside of the loop! St. Petersburg is considered the sailing capitol of Florida and one of the premier spots in the US. You select a design by some famous yo yo because Aunt Grace will be impressed instead of from among our very talented Florida Architects and this is what you get from the Foolish Fool of Folly Foster.

The easiest solution to this has been in the hands of city council and they dropped the ball by disregarding the successful petition drive. What is there to fear about a vote on the most important public space in St Pete and possibly the region? My gosh, we voted on the airport a few years ago because it's on the waterfront and a vote is required by city charter, to agree with sparky. How can the people on city council with the exception of Wengay Newton and Karl Nurse, justify an avoidance of a substantial groundswell of opposition. What do they fear regarding a vote? Really, who do they think they are to make a decision for us? They work for us, not vice versa. I think that the group that has formed to reinstate a petition will be very successful. These guys don't mess around. Stay tuned, St Pete! Democracy is on it's way!

If Ford had any case that legally there has to be a referendum then why did she help write the original petition language for a referendum that didn't hold water. She wasted a lot of peoples time.

Its suppose to evolve and people against this should give constructive input that helps it evolve. There are so many false comments like that it wont be accessible or that there aren't trams that its clear many haven't given this a real look or a fair shake.

Sparky....the city just put a mooring field throughout the Vinoy basin for sailboats. The current pier has no protected slips so 25 in the lens is a net positive. They discussed the potential for larger vessels on the exterior side of the lens as well.

Why is it acceptable for a technicality result in the dismissal of a petition? They all know that the 23,000 plus people who signed it were simply asking for a vote on the matter. It is so very sophmoric and ridiculous to dismiss this effort due to a legal technicality. The sentiment and wishes behind it are what matters. Shame on council for disregarding the will of the people...and, JW, why is the pier less important in terms of a referendum than the airport?...and don't dismiss Ms Ford, the recent lawsuit is not involving loopholes with a referendum, it involves straightforward city charter parameters. Why are you so afraid of a vote?

Was the vote on the airport an ordinance?

and, by the by, the petition by the vote on the pier group was not about appropriating money, it was about whether a building should be saved or not. Where is the question about appropriating money?
and, Mr Streeter, you apparently support the lens and are totally closed to the results of the polls and the huge groundswell of opposition.....aw, let em eat cake and only give them a choice of one design style.....heck with the citizens, they don't know anything, do we? We were not listened to at the meetings all along the process. There was not a consensus, ever, that contemporary designs are the only options. I was a participant, now when was this lack of design style options discussed?....that's right.....never. There was a variety of desires presented by the participants. Give me a break.

A portion of the airport was going to go to private developers which should go to referendum. The pier referendum did not address a ordinance and it would appropriate funds which isn't allowed. It would set precedence that any city project including fire stations etc could potentially be up to referendum. That is a precedence you can't allow. No referendum happened to renovate the mahathey and it had a similar budget. If we allow referendums that appropriate funds you could also vote that the city build new buildings. Maybe a developer backs a referendum that asks the city to build a 100 mil convention center. Sell it well enough and tax payers would be on the hook.

Vote on the pier advertises even on their front homepage that the wanted the people to have an opportunity to look at all options but that's not true. If the referendum passed you would have to stay with the current building.
I spoke with the petition people at Mazzaros and they told me that the whole pier including the pier was just fine and that the city was lieing about the piles condition. They said it just needed some sprucing up that would be much less than 50 mil. Anyone would sign based on those lies. After I did some research that experience made me sick and entirely against the petition. You shouldn't say whatever it takes to get a signature.

Jeannie-Dont put words in my mouth. I never said I support the Lens. I support the process. Until I was educated on city ordinances, and the process that got us here, I was in favor of keeping the Pier.

The airport was put to referendum because of the waterfront master plan which states we the citizens will vote on any sale, lease, or transfer to private party of waterfront property. Again, there are laws to be followed. You should read them, and most of your questions will be answered.

As for saving the pier not costing money, well, that is silly. Technically, I suppose we could have voted to save the pier, and just let it sit out there and rot, closed, with no funding. Silliness.

What else is silly is that "saving" it would require a tear down and reassembly. So there is no "save." Furthermore, Vote on the Pier has pictures of a new, chromed out design similar to the current pier, with more bling. Is that "saving" the current pier, or is that a new design?

Why didnt they enter the design competition, and participate in the process like everyone else if there was so much support?

well, we'll never see eye-to-eye because I feel that the process was deplete of representation of the broad range of desires in the community......there was always an expression of the need for many styles to be considered and what did we get?...3 of the same genre......that is not reflective of what I observed at the meetings and public hearings and believe that, had the choices been more reflective of the feedback during the process, the whole thing would have turned out differently. To me, the reason that there is such an outcry is that the process did not result objectively. I will simply agree to disagree with you, JS. We will never have the same impression of the process and there is nothing you can tell me that would persuade me that a variety of styles should have been presented. Contemporary design is just one choice and we had no other option. Not right. Good luck! May the best approach win!......and regarding the city charter, just because it isn't mandated to allow for petitions for public property doesn't mean it's just. It just means that there is an awful amount of control in this old skool city. It's actually disturbing at times. Take care. JC

We will never see eye to eye so long as you remain ignorant of the rule of law and the facts. The fact is that over 100 designs were submitted and after MANY people who are educated on the matter reviewed them, they narrowed it down to 3 for public vote. And they werent even required to have citizen input!

You don't have to get ugly Mr Streeter and the fact that they weren't required to have citizen input is exactly what I mean about this old skool city. Please be well and try to be nice.

I made sure I didnt call you ignorant. You ignore the laws that govern this city.

You ignore the will of the people, Mr Streeter. Now be well and may the just resolution occur. You wrote that I am ignorant of the laws that govern this city. That is being labeled ignorant. Whatever. Please try to be nice.

You ignore the will of the 100's of people who worked on the Pier task force from 2005-2012. Once again, I stated you're ignorant of the law. If you choose to label yourself as ignorant, that's your choice.

You're ignoring the fact that Tom Lambdon had his opportunity once to put a roller coaster on the pier. He had another opportunity to submit his proposal for the bling'd out inverted pyramid and a roller coaster. Did he?

You don't just ignore a process and then yell "foul" when it doesn't go your way.

BTW, Ms. Cline, I've been banned from posting on VoteOnThePier.com on 3 occasions, and reinstated every time, because I did nothing that was ban-worthy. I've asked them to post any sort of insult, name calling, or incendiary posts.

If they're all about the will of 23,000 people, why must they silence one voice?

Taxation without representation, it appears what we have here is a failure to communicate!