Tampa Palms homeowners reject bridge plan

Tampa Palms residents this afternoon roundly denounced a proposal to build a bridge connecting their neighborhood with West Meadows.

The bridge spanning Interstate-75 has been planned since the 1980s. But it was linked nearly all that time to a proposed east-west expressway, connecting West Meadows to Interstate-275.

Officials shelved the expressway plan this summer, as too expensive. The bridge appeared stalled too.

But city officials recently revived it.

"What didn't go away is the city's obligation to build that bridge," said Steve Daignault, Tampa's administrator for public works. "It's committed to doing that."

Council member Joseph Caetano, previously wary of the $20-million project, agreed. "We should carry through on it." he said.

Some 40 of Caetano's constituents, nearly all from Tampa Palms, disagreed today in a meeting at Freedom High School. They argued that the bridge could turn Tampa Palms Boulevard into a popular bypass around Bruce B. Downs Boulevard.

"How do you do that to us?" asked Warren Dixon. "What can you be thinking?"

--Bill Coats, Times staff writer

Comments

[Warren Dixon]

At the meeting, the city rested its position on a series of agreements with several developers, including those for West Meadows and others, as legally binding them to build the bridge. These agreements came about as part of the "Smart Growth" statutes meant to ensure that development did not outstrip the infrastructure to support it.

The problem is, the city entered into agreements with these developers in a manner that seriously and adversely affected the rights - the safety, and the quality of life for which we have paid dearly - of Tampa Palms residents, and the neighborhood as a whole.

Because the city rests its position solely on contract law, the city must be reminded of a fundamental principle of contract law: That that two parties cannot enter into an agreement that adversely affect the interests of a third, that is not party to the contract. That is exactly what the city is trying to do.

The bridge was never a condition of approving the development of Tampa Palms. Tampa Palms never promised it, and we certainly did not promise to throw away our rights to a safe and quiet neighborhood and the quality of life for which we paid dearly to establish and still pay to maintain, because the city and surrounding developments want to turn Tampa Palms Boulevard into Alternate 1 to Bruce B. Downs.

The city completely failed to justify any other reason for the bridge. It could advance no economic case for spending $22 million on shorter commuting times for 200 high school students; to benefit possibly 25 businesses in a new professional park; and the efforts of one attendee to argue safe evacuation of schools necessitates a second way out of Commerce Park Boulevard fail, because schools don't evacuate in dangerous conditions, except one; they lock down. And building the bridge would increase the chances of the one situation that would require an evacuation - a HAZMAT incident - occurring. But daily, the 14,000 vehicles that the city asserts would use the bridge (a low number, I think - build it, and they will come) would present a danger to kids in the vicinity of the schools.

No - there is no sustainable reason for that bridge that justifies its $22 million cost - and the "legally binding agreements" that left out a party whose rights and interests are affected, are invalid as to the bridge.

Frankly, if K-Bar Ranch and other developments cannot be approved without the bridge, then don't approve them!! Isn't that what "Smart Growth" would require?

The city very conveniently tried to sidestep what the county is doing to Tampa Palms, at the same time. However, the problems are inseparable, and we insist that the city (and county) deal with what is actually going on - not some mythical traffic modeling scheme where each ignores the actions of the other. By creating a huge bottleneck in the middle of Tampa Palms with its harebrained terminus of the Bruce B. Downs widening project in the middle of Tampa Palms (no funding to continue it past beyond, even through 2025), the county is doing the same thing the city is doing - converting our neighborhood collector boulevard into BBD Alternate 1, with 3 traffic lights and turn lanes into Tampa Palms boulevard right where they have planned the bottleneck.

We're not going to let the city get away with that - or the county either. Secession from the city is looking more and more attractive. We seem to pay much more in taxes than the value we get, in the first place; perhaps we are better off to secede, and to build new gated entrances into Tampa Palms Boulevard (set back to allow shopping center access), for residents only.

Indeed - what ARE they thinking?

[Scott]

The BBD needs alternate routes. The simple fact is the developers built up the area and did not consider the traffic problems associated with 1 main road to service the communities. I grew up in a city were we had streets and blocks which provided many routes to get to the same place and as a result spread the traffic out so it would not take 20 minutes to get a couple miles down the street. Here in New Tampa we have 1 way, the BBD.

[Stop the madness]

Don't put this on the developers. Our elected officials allowed this to happen. BBD should have been expanded 5-10 years ago and then we could make educated decisions about places like Kinnan, Cross Creek and Tampa Palms. That said, we have to live with the reality that we are going to have more homes built, which is only going to add to the pressure on BBD. I say put the $22m into BBD expansion and get it done faster!!!

[Warren Dixon]

If you read my words carefully - "The problem is, the city entered into agreements with these developers in a manner that seriously and adversely affected the rights ... of Tampa Palms residents" - I do not "put this on developers." I place the blame squarely on both the developers and the city, and will continue to do so.

The developers are as aware of the transportation problems as the city is, but they keep pressing to build. It's what they do - but the grid is saturated, and they know it.

The city is at fault because it knows of the saturation of the grid, and it has collected impact and other money to address the problem - but have not addressed it in any effective manner - not since they gave up on the East-West Connector.

And one way they have sought to address the problem is by entering into annexation agreements and development agreements and orders to build this bridge into a neighborhood that never agreed to have it, and was never required to have it, taking away its quality of life and safety. The agreements are between the developers and the city. They are the parties to them. Tampa Palms residents are negatively affected by such agreements, were never party to them, we say NO!

I will also note that during yesterday's meeting, the city pointed specifically to the West Meadows agreement. Mr. Daignault read from the relevant text. The "Bridge" had to connect West Meadows to the "transportation system on the West side of I-75." It did not say to Commerce Park Boulevard. It did not say to Tampa Palms. It did not specify any location, other than "the transportation system." In fact, at the time of the agreement, the "transportation system" west of I-75 envisioned the bridge connecting to the East-West Connector.

The meeting made it clear that the impact fees were not tied to the bridge specifically; they need only to be applied somewhere in New Tampa. And Mr. Daignault, Ms. Dorzback, and the City Attormey admitted that under such arrangements, alternative solutions could be applied.

The city representatives did not wish to address the county's widening of Bruce B. Downs as that alternative. They did not wish to discuss efforts to cooperate with the county so as to speed the unfunded (at least through 2025) widening of the southernmost, and most heavily overloaded section of BBD so that traffic could flow smoothly without using Tampa Palms Boulevard as Alt. 1 to BBD. They did not wish to address the alternative that the widening of Cross Creek Boulevard through to Morris Bridge Road would relieve West meadows' traffic burden, and allow traffic to pass under an existing bridge at I-75, connecting to the "transportation system west of I-75" that way rather than over I-75 at a cost of $22 million.

Instead, they cling to this bridge, and want to do it while ignoring the traffic bottleneck it will create in our neighborhood; the effects on quality of life, with our quiet streets suddenly becoming akin to BBD; our safety, as we try to walk, jog, ride our bicycles, or even get the kids to school or to our parks - and at the same time, they continue to consider approving further development at K-Bar Ranch.

This is idiocy.

Neither developers nor the city escapes the criticism.