Mediation Ordered for Pier Lawsuit
Attorney Kathleen Ford, representing 15,000 petitioners, and the city of St. Petersburg are ordered to sit down with a mediator and work toward drafting a referendum.
Photos
The St. Petersburg Pier's future may be decided by voters.
Circuit Court Judge Amy Williams ruled Thursday that the city of St. Petersburg and attorney Kathleen Ford, representing the VoteOnThePier petitioners, have to meet with a mediator within 60 days to come up with ballot language for a vote on the future of the St. Petersburg Pier.
"Why don’t we just do it? Let’s get together and let's do it," Williams said. "It just seems like we can all agree here." She ordered the two sides to meet soon, so that a citywide vote may happen as early as the March election.
Williams also ruled that Ford had to re-file the suit by Dec. 12, naming all the people who signed the petition. She said she could not dismiss the case on the grounds that the petitions did not have cause, which the city had argued.
"I can’t determine at this point in time if something is true or not true," Williams said.
At issue is whether voters should decide whether the 1970s-era pier should be demolished and replaced with an updated structure. The City Council is moving forward with a handpicked design dubbed "The Lens." The existing pier is slated to close in 2013.
Ford said after Wednesday's hearing that she is hopeful the mediation will lead to a public vote on the future of the St. Petersburg Pier.
"We look forward to working with the city attorneys on (a) proposal for ballot language that we can all agree on rather than going forward with (litigation)," Ford said. "I think the court was certainly directing the parties to come up with ballot language. That’s how in interpreted that order. That is what the mediation would be about."
Attorney Joe Patner, representing the city of St. Pete, argued that the case should be dismissed. He said that the city has the right to rebuild the pier, because nothing in the charter prohibits it.
Having the pier located within the community redevelopment area and TIF district allows the city to bond out the money for the pier without holding a public vote.
"If we get into this governance by referendum, it creates paralysis," Patner said. While his motion for dismissal was denied he argued that nothing in the charter allows for a public vote on a capital project within the CRA/TIF district.
Patner also argued that the petitioners did not form a legal group, entity or corporation. Therefore, he said Ford lacked the standing to sue on behalf of them.
The most disagreement Wednesday centered on the city' position that the city is "ready, willing and able" to hold a vote on the pier.
"I did not get that perception that the city was ready, willing, and able (to put in on the ballot), because if they were ready, willing, and able, there would have been a ballot," Ford said.
Patner said the city was willing, but that the petitioners are unclear about what they want.
Williams disagreed with that assessment. "That’s really what this petition wants," she said.
The city and Ford will have 60 days to meet with a mediator on the issue. Ford will have to re-file the case listing the names of the petitioners. Also, the words "city council" and "CRA" were removed from the suit.
Ford originally filed suit on Aug. 22, on behalf of the 15,652 people who signed petitions to force a vote on the pier, after council voted against a pier referendum.
Thursday, the city council will be voting on the "basis of design" report of the "Lens." That action would allocate $5.4 million for Michael Maltzan Architecture and Skanska USA Builders to continue the pre-construction process. The updated "Lens" design was presented to the council on Tuesday.
"It doesn’t sound prudent to me to go forward with the Lens design," Ford told reporters after Wednesday’s hearing. "This council has wasted money in the past. I’m hopeful they would take a pause on how we should best spend citizens money."
Johann
1:35 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
WOOHOO!!!! Kathleen Ford you ROCK!! LET US VOTE!!!!
nic weathersbee
1:45 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Thank you Kathleen Ford! Let's hope the city can work with her to finally have a vote on this very important issue. Amazing that it takes a judge to get them to do the right thing!
Joshua Streeter
2:46 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Holy crap. "The law" is a fascinating study to me. We're in a grey area now; grey like charcoal.
Nic-Congrats on another win. I think if this wasn't so politically charged, an appeal court would easily overturn this ruling. That lawsuit was riddled with holes-so much so that the judge has coached the plaintiff into resubmitting it properly. I wish a judge would coach me like that when I bring pro se cases before the court!
But, hey, at the end of the day, a win is a win. Again, congrats. --it just got interesting.
sparky
6:00 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
No, the judge didnot coach. The filing was correct in my opinion as a non lawyer. Petitioners once they sign and they are certified by the registrar enter the public realm as the body public and have no need to reregister as a group when a suit against the government they elected. The judge was wise not to totally throw this out. Mediation means she thinks each petitioner has a right to due process. The city attorney was sophomoric in demeanor and presentation. If that is the best the city can hire we are really in trouble. I thought Wolf was and is a joke, but that guy whinned and failed to sty on point. He used a throw crap at the wall and see what sticks. No organization in his presentation except the shuffle behind the podium.
sparky
2:49 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
This is a win for every citizen in the city and it puts council members and the mayor on notice that they are there to serve the people's will. It is clear that the judge at this point believes the city shorted this petition drive.
Rider
3:00 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE......just like the referendums for the Coliseum, the airport, and Sunken Gardens. Why is this such a difficult thing for Council (except for Newton and Nurse) to understand? We live in a representative democracy.....can't wait for the next city elections for council and mayor! How dare they put us through all of this?
Amos Miers
3:03 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Why is it so difficult and such a fight to participate in democracy? Kudos to all the people who refused to be silenced!
Joshua Streeter
3:39 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The language really is difficult, because this isn't a simple issue. What language would you like to see on the ballot?
S. Ripley
3:59 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
A mediation order and instructions is pretty telling. I suggest they get a lawyer to look at this thing before thing before re-filing it. Good thing for the plantiffs that judges are not above the influence of politics and public appearance.
I just hope a resolution comes quickly, I’m no fan of The Lens, but those the damn Stop the Lens yards signs are making my neighborhood look as ugly as The Lens itself.
Johann
4:01 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Simple Joshua:
"A $50 million dollar TIF fund ordinance was approved in 2005 by the Baker Administration & Council to replace the St. Peterburg Municipal Pier approach and "pier head", as well as to update the inverted pyramid to current code. The $50 million dollar figure was arrived at after detailed engineering studies on costs to complete the aforementioned work. The ordinance was ammended with a resolution by the Foster Administration to instead demolish the existing pier in its entirety and replace it with a new structure".
Based on the monies that remain, (roughly $49 million) do you wish to:
A) Restore the existing Pier as per the original ordinance.
B) Demolish the entire Pier and incorporate its replacement process in to the Downtown Waterfront Master Plan.
C) Demolish the entire Pier and continue with the "Lens" project.
Rider
4:10 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
What is so complicated about asking the citizens of St Pete, the owners of the Pier, to repair or replace?
Adam Kolojay
4:43 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Fosters Folly! The current pier is so beautiful it should be repaired. The city mentions having to subsidize it to about $ 1.4 mil a year. So what! I wonder how much the city has spent on the Chillully or other private non city owned projects. Also the city probably subsidizes them through either tax breaks or other measures of relief. I am not against this because it makes our city the great city it is! Our inverted pryimad is known worldwide and everyone is aghast at the thought of it being torn down. Imagine the Lens in the summer time. All that concrete painted white will be so hot no one will go near it. 110 degrees at least. Only 4 drinking fountains for $ 50 mil. The main thing the people have is the power to vote the mayor and city council members out on the next election. Bill Foster you are toast!
Edith
5:26 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Just because many of us do not want the Lens does not make that the right decision. Nor does proceeding with the Lens mean that that is the right decision simply because the City Council members feel it is. What IS fair is putting the issue to a vote. That is what the people of St. Petersburg wanted all along. FINALLY we are going to find out what all of our citizens prefer. HOORAY!
sparky
6:07 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
It's not $50 million. The first phase is $50million with future phases vague. As soon as this project touches green space designated as park to install anything that is leased out to vendors, we need a vote.
SandyFishGirl
9:01 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
Thank you, Kathleen Ford! I hope the mayor's and the council's actions are not forgotten at election time. Are they so control/power hungry they don't care what their constiuents think? As much as the current pyramid pier is treasured by many - and enjoyed a 'run' almost as long as its predecessor - I don't think it "fits" our city. The ORIGINAL Million Dollar Pier is the best design, it compliments our city & our history.
Dan Therrien
5:06 am on Friday, December 7, 2012
At least now there's valet parking if you want to get close to the pier. The new design has nothing, you walk quite a distance. This proposal will essentially be spending tons of tax payer money to keep people away. It is not senior friendly and aren't seniors a huge part of who lives here. The pier should have a parking deck and be turned into a theme park otherwise it's just a fancy looking boat dock which won't draw any more people than it does now.