Ruling Does Not Clear Way for Development

Posted by:

Headline Belies the Truth

Don’t be fooled. Sheila Estrada’s headline, Ruling clears way for redevelopment vote in Madeira Beach, belies the truth.

Madeira Beach - A Cash Cow?

Madeira Beach – A Cash Cow?

Tom Trask’s ‘ruling’ is a legal opinion.  Tom is a hired gun, not a court…  His written opinion is colored by who he perceives is paying his bill.

So the points Mr. Trask makes in his ‘ruling’, in favor of his employers as you would guess, will not stand up… He has said:

1) only the “petition committee” can circulate petitions.  Courts have ruled otherwise in the past.

2) that we mis-represented, which is bogus… Everyone knew what they were signing.

3) the petition is somehow insufficient.  Insufficiency can be addressed.  And, even if it is insufficient, the charter still states that the Ordinance is suspended. And, we can make ‘fix’ an insufficiency – should it exist – and then have the referendum.  But, the fact is, the Ordinance is suspended.

The Ordinance Is Suspended.  Any Commission Vote Is Invalid

And, just to be clear, our attorneys have explained that according to the City Charter, the ordinance is suspended from taking effect, upon the filing of the petitions. The Charter does not say that it is suspended if the City Attorney approves.

We cannot stop the city from acting — but since the ordinance is not in effect, any vote is invalid.

We are confident that the ordinance will be submitted to the voters. Voters will decide whether to repeal the ordinance.

Until then, if the developers and the city want to proceed they are doing so at their own risk with the understanding that this issue is outstanding. Developers cannot act on an approval in this situation with “justifiable reliance” on this. So, if they do act, they cannot come back on the city to reimburse them.

The Real Story Here Is Why Would They Ignore Us?

The real story here is why the Mayor and the commission would vote on this and just ignore more than 1000 of their constituents’ concerns about the projects. 1025 people (2/3) of the people who voted in the last city election oppose these developments.

And, perhaps more compelling, is why the developers would want to pursue projects that have met with such citizen outrage.

City officials must not want to stay in office... based on their voting on the massive developments.

City officials must not want to stay in office… based on their voting on the massive developments.

What is it that the commission doesn’t get?

These voters, in March, rejected by a 2-1 margin the commission’s attempt to steal away the authority to sell city property without citizen approval. Do they think that residents will not do what is necessary to stop this?  City officials must not want to stay in office… based on their voting on the massive developments?

Election Results, Mayor

Number of voters voting in this election vs Number of voters signing the Petition for Referendum (1025).

0