My question is this; Why does the city not listen to the citizenry about this project? There are enough protests to be the cause for a referendum on the ballot about this issue! Why is this being foisted off upon us without any regard for our wishes & desires?

What spending we were told the money was just sitting there and was allocated for something for our city. Since it isnt just sitting, have we not be told enough lies and isnt this simply just not ok due to that alone. Add to that the citizens of this community do not want it. How hard can it be to understand the simplicity of all of this.. Surely those who have been chosen to give our community what is needed according the community needs are not listening..

The city council, mayor, and administration does not understand that they Represent the public and public good. None of the elected officials in this matter except Newton should ever be elected again.

The City Council is just like my dear wife....they listen to what you have to say...or at least are courteous enough to pretend to listen...then...they do what they want...lol.

We can all see where this is going...''The Len's'' is ''going'' to be built. The Pier ''is'' going to be gone. You don't have to live here a long time to see this. Several Pier tenants have already moved or have announced plans to do so. The legal repercussions the city would be faced with are too much for them to turn back now...or at least that seems to be the way it is going down. We are downtown and/or on The Bay 2-3 days a week...sometimes daily...and everytime I see or go on The Pier (often)...it is hard to believe it will soon be gone. What a shame.

I used to think this was simply a local battle about keeping the beloved iconic inverted pyramid, but now that we are used to enjoying downtown and the many venues there....I now see how important it is they are and remain successful. I now think it is unspoken, but think the city sees The Pier as competition for the downtown merchants, and simply wants something like ''The Lens'' to go along with it's shoreline trail aspect of parks, walking, bicycling, etc. Even though The Pier did not really have all that much drawing money from downtown merchants...the merchants down there need every bit of business they can get. There's already lot's of turnover in downtown venues. Most people just go to The Pier to walk on it anyway.

15,652 signatures on a petition, out of a city with a Population of 244,769. By my math that's 6.4% of the population who objects. Your never going to get a community to totally support 100% of anything. To me this seems normal, its just the small percentage is more vocal than normal. This is Democracy people, sorry the majority rules, all you old people who don't like change are going to have to accept it!

PS: Antonio, 15k was all the signatures required to meet the referendum. At last count, 70% of residents are opposed to the LENS/EYE. If it were a DEMOCRACY as you have stated, well then, we would be full revolt by now! But we are Americans, we will follow the procedure and in the end...we will stop the LENS>

Antonio, if you feel that the 6.4% required from St Pete citizens for a petition is not adequate, you should start a petition drive to change it........

I've stopped worrying about this whole mess since the judge refused to dismiss the case in its entirety. That tells me this WILL be going up for referendum. We all know how that will turn out, with the Len$ contract being cancelled. Instead of worrying, I'm headed down to the Stopthelens.com campaign office next week to offer my services delivering yard signs & witnessing petitions. I'd like to see the entire city covered in red yard signs, since nothing else seems to get through to 6 of 8 members of City Council. I do hope the newly elected council next year will fire most of the administration who are the true masterminds of all this nonsense. Conners, Ellston, Ballestra, Quintana, Wolfe, et al need to go. If you want REAL change in this town, get rid of them.

So Antonio can't comment without having his citizenship questioned.....pretty sad....not to say just plain nasty......I agree with him as many do....build the Lens......

Brian, you're right...that was a faux pas......yet, come on......your support of the Lens is honored.....now, let's honor the rights of the citizens to decide the fate of THEIR public park.........let the best approach win......see ya at the voting booth! Viva democracy!!!

Socialism is an economic system.....voting is the democratic system and a judge has mandated arbitration between the city and the vote on the pier group.....viva democracy......

Rider..not true... A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good). Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.