This is for all the people wringing their hands over the vote not counting on March 12, 2013

You know, this is not the first time that petitions requiring a referendum to overturn an ordinance, duly submitted to the city by the petitioners with ample numbers to put the item on the ballot, were denied the opportunity to vote. One could say that those who voted in the most recent referendum this past March are in the same boat since that election has been nullified by state legislation.

Going back to 2007, the We Love Lake Worth (WLLW) PAC formed, led by then-citizen and future Commissioner Christopher McVoy.  The petition language went something like this:

"The City is required to reconsider adopted Ordinance 2007-10, a large scale comprehensive plan change amendment changing the future land use map designation of 10 South Ocean Boulevard from Public Recreation and Open Space to Beach and Casino. If the Commission fails to repeal such ordinance so reconsidered, the voters shall approve or reject that ordinance at a city election."

There were two other ordinances which dealt with the Beach and Casino zoning designation and the re-zoning of the property that were also part of the petitions - our 19 acre public beach where the new casino building sits today. The petitioners filed the petitions with the ample number of signatures, but the city never reconsidered these ordinances, did not place the item on the ballot and then sued the citizens that were part of the PAC, including future Commissioner McVoy, for a determination on whether it had merit or whether it applied to 5 or fewer parcels. If it fit the five or less parcel definition, then according to state law, there couldn't be a referendum on the matter. That was a whole kettle of fish that we didn't get into and it was also applied to the Sunset property issue.

So, guess what was in the stack of documents from the Greater Bay set of formerly sealed court documents - which really was part of a strategic document dump on the part of the city in a way to make searching for a needle in a bigger haystack more difficult (and that strategy led to increased attorney fees too)?

This letter is dated January 29, 2009. Just as a frame of reference, this is about two months after the City Commission decided to exit the agreement with Greater Bay. The City Commission then consisted of Mayor Jeff Clemens and Commissioners Golden, Jennings, Mulvehill and Lowe. It is written by the WLLW PAC and signed by then-citizen Christopher McVoy. It is responding to an offer by the city - evidence of which I am still looking for - to drop its lawsuit against the PAC and its members individually.

Far from going away complacently and contritely, the PAC in this letter outlines conditions upon which it would like the city to conduct itself in the future.  Here is the first page of the letter:

Click image to read

Clearly, the group is not at all happy about being sued. We are reminded that the "will of the people" was discovered at "more than 90% of the doors knocked" and the public disapproved of the beach land use and zoning change ordinances. They thought that the city should have thanked the volunteers of WLLW for the "information gathered" - or is the term more appropriately "information scattered?" And somewhere along the line the city must have offered to remove the responsibility of the "City's legal costs" was "attractive to us as individuals." Now the second page of the letter:

Click on image to read

Here we are reminded that the petition signature gathering volunteers were but "messengers" of the citizens who clearly said "The Beach is important to us; we do not approve of changing our Public Beach zoning from "Public Recreation and Open Space" to "Beach and Casino" and we want to be directly involved in major choices relating to the beach.

I think it is important to see what "Public Recreation and Open Space" - apparently the citizen's overwhelming choice for zoning and the beach allows - or more importantly, what it does not allow.

PROS is what the beach zoning was before it was rezoned to the current Beach and Casino land use and zoning designation.

The reason for the zoning change was that the PROS district didn't allow anything other than "Parks and other outdoor open space areas intended for passive use." It did not allow for any retail use at the beach and it also didn't allow retail uses at any other city park that has the zoning designation PROS. That it didn't allow retail uses - which had been there for years as a non-conforming use - was a problem if the city was going to change the building, spending money on it or tearing it down (which it eventually did). All of these occurred over anything like threshold for "grandfathering" of uses, had one existed in the first place.

This letter says that the city's offer was unacceptable as they still had "ongoing concerns" and rather snottily state: "From our vantage point it sounds like, "Dear Members of the WLLW PAC, if you will be so kind as to agree not to ask that the will of the people be heard on this matter, we will not burden you with the costs of having sued you for ascertaining the will of the people."

Well! 

This group, really made up of much of the same group that we heard from en masse at last Tuesday's City Commission, then asked for the following for "resolving this issue amicably."

1. That the City drop all charges against WLLW and against the charged individuals (I'm not sure, but this makes it sounds like there were criminal offenses here, but there weren't)2. That the City pay all WLLW legal fees and all other associated expenses (I don't think this ever actually happened, but that is what Commissioner Jennings meant when she talked about compensating "citizen watchdogs")3. That the City issue a public apology to WLLW and all the charged individuals (I don't think this ever happened either, but how about a public apology from Commissioner McVoy to the citizens for leaving the existing zoning as Beach and Casino? Wait, getting ahead of myself.)4. That the City agree to return the Beach zoning to PROS (Doing so wouldn't have allowed what was built there recently, to great fanfare I may add, and would have only allowed it to be used as a park. Which, as it turned out, might have been the end goal of those in this group to begin with.)5. That the City agree to jointly identify a process for incorporating public input in future beach planning (I don't know if this ever happened - other than bringing in the Michael Singer group. I know it didn't happen as it related to the disappearance of the historic casino building by its demolition and the construction of a new building in its place. But, hey, their "peeps" were the ones in charge on the dais then so why worry?)

The conclusion of this group was the demand to "substantially modify" the definition of the BAC zoning. Well, guess what kids, that never happened. I know it because this is the language of the BAC zoning district as it was ultimately approved (re-approved) last Tuesday night - without anyone bringing it up other than me. This item was passed unchanged, against the "will of the people" and against their desire for a referendum.

Here is the third page and final page of the January 29, 2009 letter from WLLW PAC, signed by Christopher McVoy:

According to the demands in this letter, the revised BAC zoning district was to be looked at by a legal expert in protection of public property and coastal protection and that the expect be approved by the PAC. Another demand was that the process address issues related to the Coastal Construction Line. As has been pointed out and documented on this blog - up the wazoo, multiple times - rebuilding the new building in the same place required that it meet the standards for construction (Florida Building Code) seaward of the Coastal Construction Line. This was the subject of the Inspector General complaint that I filed and they found the city to have miscalculated the formula for what amounted to "substantial improvement" of a building according to the FBC by including the value of the pool and pool building, that were not part of the project. Thus the building had to meet the requirement of a fortified foundation, which it doesn't have. And, as has been pointed out many times here in this blog, the seawall, therefore, has to meet the standards of the FBC that is qualifies as an "armoring device." The city has not proven that is the case and we may still have to substantially upgrade the seawall. In subsequent City Commission meetings, Commissioner McVoy has referred to this upgrading of the seawall as a "red herring." Strange comment coming from someone so concerned about coastal protection and speaking for the "will of the people."

Items 4 and 5 on the third page, above, would seem to preclude any "for profit" institutions there and it sounds like those 3,000 people who signed that petition didn't want any commercialization of the beach. Remember, Commissioner Jennings referred to the Beach and Casino zoning district as "spot zoning" and something that was needed for Greater Bay and that it would result in "over-commercialization" of the beach. Well, that's the law now and no one seemed to care four years later.

And, I think it is interesting to read how WLLW was in favor of the following "greening of both building and landscape" and somehow this was lost as a priority while Commissioner McVoy was and is on the dais. Plucked from the budget - remember the much talked about $6 million guaranteed fixed price contract - were the following: cisterns, passive cooling and/or heating, use of wind, tidal or solar power generation, dune restoration (?) and minimization of impervious surfaces. I don't know about you, but there is a lot of asphalt out there which seems to maximize impervious services for the benefit of the automobile. Exactly how green is this project now? How can "the people" sleep at night knowing their wishes were not carried out by their "messengers?"

And, of course, let's not forget #6 on the list which says that the BAC district cannot be further altered without a public referendum. And, at the end, the WLLW people seem to think that the City Charter specifies that any zoning changes relating to public lands must be put to a vote. Can someone show me where that is?

Fast forward to a closed door City Commission meeting that happened on June 22, 2009. Decision was made to drop the city's lawsuit without prejudice - quietly and not at a public meeting - that would preserve the city's right to sue again if the WLLW PAC wanted to pursue a referendum again.

I bring this up now because many of the same sanctimonious people who stood in front of the City Commission to complain about how the Commission failed the "will of the people" sounds so familiar to what we heard in the not-too-distant history from the same mouths. How are we, "the people" to know when someone knocking on our door looking for a signature is just crying wolf? Or is that what it has always been about - picking a topic du jour, getting people riled up about it and then getting them out to vote, usually for spurious candidates - eventually.

Can we dial back the hysteria at least a couple notches, please? It really is unbecoming to a municipality.