City response to DEP: Go to ...

The story about the DEP deed restriction changed mightily from the time I posted it on this blog yesterday afternoon until it hit papers this morning. Read the updated version here.

Comments

[Practical Man]

Great work, Aaron. Thanks to you and Trox for adding insight to this issue. Your reporting, supported by the Memos Trox linked to, that the City regards the DEP request as a voluntary action sheds important light on this issue.

Good job!

[Steve Lange]

Before Aaron wrote about this "deed restriction", I read the applicable paragraph from the July 2007 FDEP letter which was written to the City of St. Petersburg regarding the need for a deed restriction on the Tropicana Field site. I read this paragraph into the public record during my 3 minute speech at the May 22nd Public Hearing. I then turned into the city clerk a complete copy of the FDEP letter, along with my speech, so that the public would be able to access this FDEP letter for themselves and respond accordingly.

This is just another example of how POWW has been of service to St. Petersburg. I did not find this document but other POWW supporters did. They researched, discovered and delivered this document to POWW for use at the public hearing. I was just the messenger.

This deed restriction announcement is just another example of many "firsts" in reporting that POWW has been responsible for.

As for Mr. Conners stating that this deed restriction is voluntary, I say that that is a bunch of hooey.

I implore Aaron to print the applicable paragraph of the July 2007 FDEP letter (page two, third paragraph) in print for the entire community to read and judge whether the FDEP deed restriction language is voluntary or mandatory.

If this deed restriction were in fact, voluntary as Mr. Conners says, then why has the FDEP been repeditively asking for it since 2000?

And regardless of whether or not it is voluntary or mandatory, its intent is to announce to future land owners of this property of the concerns and limitations of the site relative to its contamination. In other words it would not only protect the new property owners during the purchase process it would protect the future land users which is us.

For the city to continue to hide from this issue, to sherk its responsibility, is no different than what they have done at Raytheon. They are hiding, blocking and minimizing our public safety and welfare, AGAIN.

Aaron, you have the clout and ability to dig into this deed restriction and learn the truth as to whether the deed restriction is voluntary or mandatory. You have the ability to find out just what language the FDEP is looking for in this deed restriction. Just what restrictions are being sought?

Please seek this out for the citizens of St. Petersburg.

Will you do this for us?

[Rick K]

Relax Steve.

Trox posted links to both FDEP letters in his blog.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/troxler/

[get-smart]

Mr. Lange - This article and quote should help your business immensely.

The next time you need a city permit just say, "We're not interested in pursuing something that appears to be voluntary on our part." They'll understand.

[Rick K]

Actually, GetSmart, you are pretending to not "get" the rest of the story.

Now, we may learn of additional details which change my take on this story. In the meantime, it seems obvious to me that what the FDEP wants from the City is not something the City is required by law to give to the FDEP. It seems to me that if the conditions at the Trop Site were horrible, the law would give the FDEP more power in this specific case.

I would imagine that City staff receive all kinds of requests that they try to handle (from other government agencies, from the media, from citizens) I imagine there is a process for handling all those requests that staff determines do not require some sort of legally mandated specific response.

In this case, there was probably legal review by City attorneys, who advised the City staff that they could ignore the request from FDEP, if instructed by city executives to do so.

That the City chooses not to reply to a request that the City voluntarily do something the FDEP wants them to do (but which is not required by existing law) merely reinforces my belief (stated with insufficient frequency) that City staff is comprised of devoted, competent professionals who do a good job of getting their work done, despite a seemingly endless flow of "requests" of all shapes and sizes.

If this story ends up looking like what has been reported so far, the fact that the City hasn't granted the deed restriction (and the fact that some City Council members don't know about it) will give me yet another reason to cheer our City government!

[DEP is for Losers]

The DEP is trying to get some good "proacticve" press after looking like a monkey fizooking a football with the Raytheon situation.

Stadium or not - DEP needs to pull their heads out of their nether regions and help our neighbors who are sitting on a toxic plume the DEP should have known about years ago.

Stop trying to appear like you're doing something (deed restirction my sweet patoot) and actually do your job - STOP RAYTHEON!

[Steve Lange]

Get-Smart:

While it is true that I use all of my energy and abilities in things that I believe in, it is not true what you say about me and others.

Please speak to the facts.

When you don't, like the shot about my workload, you say more about yourself than you realize. Not everyone here has a low mentality. We can read between the lines and can tell when someone's only point is to get us all off message by your making personal attacks on us.

Your ploy does not and is not working.

My message, which you have yet to stop me from making with your distractions is:

No NEW Waterfront Stadium.

There, I have successfully stated it again.

Rick K.: I believe what the FDEP is asking for is required hence why ask for eight years and why refuse to close out the permits on the Tropicana Field site contamination? The reason is that the deed restrictions are required. And why? Because they will protect you and I.

Remember you and I are living tissue. The government is an entity. Deed restrictions are intended for people. They are not some superfluous, incidental non-important paperwork by some lowly staffer to be filed away in some back room.

Deed restrictions are to protect prospective land buyers and future land users. Again, you and I.

Trust me on this, if the FDEP is putting something in writing, over and over again, while not closing out a permit, you can believe it is required and it is important.

So ask me again. What is the purpose of asking for a deed restriction for over eight years?

[get-smart]

Mr. Lange - My lines are a joke! This is a blog. You are taking this too seriously. I am for no development of the waterfront.

[get-real]

I have a question for anyone to answer.. I'm actually hoping for a serious answer to this one though, rather than the regular BS that gets thrown back and forth.. Lets assume whatever that is under the trop is a disaster waiting to happen... Who would pay the costs.. would it be the rays? No, right, since they would pay for costs that are over the 450.. but not related to the development of the trop site... (correct?) Would it be the developer that paid 70million? They obviously would have some vested interest in making that site work.. or would it be the tax payers.. if so, how and why? Thanks!

[get-smart]

get-real

The Trop needs to be evaluated for contaminates and an estimate of min to max cost. It might be best to give the land away to a developer. The value of the land could be less than the clean up. A large hotel/condo/conference center and light industrial complex (high quality-paying jobs) would be my goal. Re-working the entire midtown should be looked at. Unfortunately, the mayor, city council and chamber are too caught up in their own personal petty schemes.

[NO NEW STADIUM]

Get-Real

Here's your honest answer. Currently, Pinellas County is on the hook, because St. Pete sold them the land as a tax shelter to avoid paying property taxes on the Trop. HOWEVER, the county could sell the property back to St. Pete, who in turn will sell it to a proposed developer. The city (not any current developer) would then be on the hook for remediation (clean-up) and DEP permitting, or lifting the deed restriction. Then the city has to apply for a zoning/land use change with??? You guessed it, the DEP, as well as the state of Florida. They need to request to change from industrial use to a commercial/residential level, which means an even "safer" level of toxins in the soil than if it were to remain "industrial" (brownfield).

Both current developers "could take a hike" as they currently have no obligation. This is a possible scenario. And the city or county (whoever owns the land in the end) would still be on the hook for remediation IF we decide to move the Rays. The DEP is essentially telling the city "you asked for a stadium & parking lot there, and now you've changed your minds. But you WILL agree to pay for & fix it before that parking lot is bulldozed."

Here's the punchline...

The city (they bought the property from the Gas Plant), could sue the previous land owner for contaminating the soil underneath their business. You're talking about years and years of litigation and appeals with that very expensive (lawyers) longshot.

I hope this helps.

[Reality]

and even if they build a new stadium the Rays could take a hike. A new stadium isn't going to keep them here, not after they see that attendance will be no better than what the Trop. has now.

[Steve Lange]

Get-Smart: I apologize. I did not read it with your take and intent.

[Rick K]

Steve Lange.

You must not have years of experience dealing with the FDEP and USEPA. They ask for stuff all the time.

Why they ask for it is a complex question. Obviously, two parts of the answer are a) because they want to, and b) because they can.

Their obvious hope, in asking, is that the property owners they ask will do what they ask. Asking is different from the powers of enforcement specifically granted to various regulatory agency. The fact that the DEP's own memo refers to this as a request the City has ignored tells me that the condition is not one that the DEP has the legal authority to force the City to remedy.

I, having read hundreds of these memos over the years, know the difference between actual environmental conditions which require remedy, and overreaching by the government.

You, apparently, aren't aware that the Environmental regulatory agencies issue requests for voluntary compliance that dwarf the number of legal demands for action by landowners.

By reading the memos provided here, it seems exceedingly obvious, that this is a case of the DEP asking for something to which they are not legally entitled.

In fact, I propose the following. Call the City and make a Freedom of Information Act request for any internal memos or emails about the DEP Memos, specifically, anything from internal or external legal counsel about the City's obligations related to the "request" by the FDEP.

I bet you find I am right and this is overreaching by the FDEP.

[Steve Lange]

Rick K.:

With all due respect.

I am an architect and have read my fair share of these sorts of letters and documents over the last thirty two years of practice.

I have, as I write this blog, the two last FDEP letters (Dated: July 27, 2007 and May 8, 2008) to the City, where they say, and I quote, "that a deed restriction must be executed" (July 27 letter) and again, "A deed restriction is needed" (May 8 letter).

There are numerous other words in these two letters requiring absolute compliance by the City of St. Petersburg but you get the idea with the two samples I provide.

If you go to Troxlers blog he has a link to these two letters where you can read the mandatory and obligatory wording in both letters demanding that the City comply with the Consent Order.

And as I am sure that you realize that a Consent Order is an agreement between the parties to comply.

So the City has promised to comply and for eight years has refused to comply with its own agreement.

You must simply ask why would the City do this?

My take is they are hiding results, do not want to publicly document the contamination for fear of future land dealings, such as selling or developing the Trop land.

But I digress.

The words are in the FDEP letters for you and everyone else to read. What I said was and is true.

Deed restrictions are required and the City is failing, willfully, to comply.

[Don Mott]

Thank you Mr. Lange

[Dr_Dug]

Rick K .... your an assclown. Since when is this a good deal? And if 70% of the people voted for someone else in office..then Baker wouldn't be Mayor. That should be considered when the Mayor GOES AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE in favor of a future job with the Rays.
Investigate City Council....why....? Because within the last year we've had many questions about the "Truth" coming out of City Hall. Remember the Child Molester that sat on City Council? Everyone heard the rumors about John Bryant molesting children....but our Mayor said he never heard anything....!?
Our Mayor is a crooked as his nose!!!! Call the Mayor on Monday and ask him why he doesn't listen to the people who voted for him and follow thier wishes. CALL CITY HALL!!