Column: St. Petersburg's bid to grab island is a troubling sign

In case you didn't see my Sunday column on St. Petersburg's plans to annex part of Tierra Verde...

* * *

If you take the Bayway exit off Interstate 275 southbound in Pinellas County, head for the beaches, and then turn left toward Fort De Soto Park, you'll pass through the unincorporated island community of Tierra Verde.

There's a little village of marinas, restaurants and shops on your right just after you cross a drawbridge over the Intracoastal Waterway. I used to stop there at the Bait Bucket on my way to the park, back in the days when I pretended to be trying to catch snook or redfish.

But if the city of St. Petersburg has its way — and if the residents of Tierra Verde can't stop it — this northern end of the island will soon be known as, uh …

"St. Petersburg."

Welcome to Tierra Ver -- uh, to 'St. Petersburg'

My Sunday print column will be about the pending effort by St. Petersburg to reach across the Intracoastal Waterway and begin annexing parts of Tierra Verde, an unincorporated community at the southern end of Pinellas County. There's quite a lot of opposition in Tierra Verde -- but it doesn't seem to matter to St. Petersburg. The photo above, facing south across the waterway, shows the northern end of the 18.25 acres of land (along with 10.07 acres of submerged land) targeted.

A few property owners at the northern end of the island are willing to be annexed by the city, perhaps in part because of future development plans. There are allegations that to avoid the requirement for an annexation election, property owners forced the few residents of a marina inside the area to change their voter-registration addresses -- leading to a complaint from the county elections office to the U.S. Justice Department. Pinellas County is objecting to the city's plans as well.

The city is reaching across the water to create an isolated, appendix-shaped spit of new territory. Presumably, once the city is there, it can keep grabbing more land, on the theory that it is "contiguous to the city limits." In the meantime, the city can approve all the development it wants in Tierra Verde without fear of voter repercussion -- there aren't any voters to complain! The city also claims it has enough police resources to take care of the new territory, although I wonder if our friends who actually drive the police cars would agree. What happens if the only guy on duty on the south end gets stuck on the drawbridge?

The first public hearing on the annexation is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. Thursday at St. Petersburg City Hall. The second public hearing is the following Thursday.

Dr. Wilcox's successor

Funny how the mind works -- I had just stopped thinking of Clayton Wilcox as "the new guy" in charge of Pinellas County schools, even though he was hired in 2004. Now he's quitting to work for a national textbook publisher.

Wilcox never dominated the school bureaucracy in the style of his longtime predecessor, Howard Hinesley, who basically created it. But he did try to reform it and make it respond better -- I liked the way, early in his tenure, he kicked the bureaucracy in the butt when it failed to deal vigorously with a series of school bus accidents. And of course, his main legacy will be the transformation of the school system from the old days of busing and quotas to the new world of "close-to-home" schools, for better or worse.

Neither did Wilcox enjoy the same dominance that Hinesley had over the School Board -- or more precisely, the co-cabal that Hinesley shared with some previous board members known collectively as "the boys." Instead, a new and fractious board never stopped taking potshots at him. But it wasn't just him; they took plenty of potshots at each other too. No matter what he says graciously, I bet he was plenty sick of it, and now is taking secret delight at the prospect of not having to put up with it.

The question  will be whether the board replaces him with strong leadership, or whether the system will just flop along for a while under the board's inconstant direction.

Australian pine wars II

Australian Pines (Casuarina trees) are not indigineous to this area and are probably the dirtiest tree one can imagine.  They rob indigineous flora of nutrients and continually drop their needles, creating a continual mess. In this area they are nothing more than a weed.  There is no salutary reason for having them in public parks. The sooner they are all eradicated the better. Good for whomever is responsible for this program. -- Anthony Camisso, Tierra Verde

Australian pine wars

Christopher Davies writes about Fort De Soto Park in Pinellas County:

Several friends came across a park ranger ringing a mature shade bearing Australian Pine with a chain saw. We were told that all exotics are to be removed from the park.  Many of us consider these trees make the park with their beauty and welcome relief from the sun. Fort Desoto Park was voted #1 park in 2005. If we drastically alter the appearance of the park and make it look like Florida scrubland will we still have such a popular beach park? ... I assume we will see many more cases of skin cancer in the years to come as a result of this action.

Howdy. I got 3-4 e-mails on this same topic last week. Sorry, but I side with the county folks on this -- Australian pine is an invasive species that does far more harm than good. I wrote about this in a blog post a few months ago, saying: It is a harmful, terrible, terrible invasive species that has been a curse ever since settlers brought it here. It drives out native habitat. It actually sterilizes the soil and blocks native plant species. It provides no food source for species and it displaces other plant food sources. It does nothing except provide shade -- and that, generally in places that ought not have shade, blocking the light for the natural habitat. Along with Brazilian pepper, it is the enemy of the natural mangrove ecosystem that is typical of our inshore areas. I hope that Joyce Kilmer -- who wrote that only God can make a tree -- will forgive me, but the same must go for mangroves too, I think....

Want to see Ft. De Soto? That'll be $3.75

If the state Department of Transportation gets its way, then as of July 1 it will cost $3.75 in tolls, as opposed to the current 85 cents, to get to Fort De Soto Park at the southern tip of Pinellas County.

That includes an increase from 50 cents to $1.25 on the Pinellas Bayway, and from 35 cents to $2.50 for another toll leading to the park itself, south of Tierra Verde. Over time, the tolls could double again, to $2.50 on the Bayway and $5.00 on the way to the park.

This hefty jacking-up of tolls is pretty harsh. The DOT says it needs the money to replace the toll bridges in the next few years. (That's the DOT's vision of the new Bayway to the right].  But in that case, why has the state robbed the toll fund to pay for other projects elsewhere in the past?

Some folks will say, "This is just tough luck for the rich folks down in Tierra Verde. The heck with them. Besides, the folks going to Fort De Soto ought to be the ones paying for it."

But by that same logic, there ought to be a toll booth on Interstate 275 in downtown Tampa to pay for all that road work, and on the Bayside Bridge in north Pinellas -- why should those who don't drive there regularly have to pay for it? Fort De Soto is one of Pinellas' great public assets, one of the smartest things the county has done. It is NOT "rich folks" who go there, but families from all over Pinellas County and the whole Tampa Bay area, and beyond. It is frequently named one of America's best beaches. So, naturally, that means we ought to exploit and punish the people who go there...

I notice with some amusement that state Rep. Jim Frishe is behind the move to give the DOT the power to raise these tolls. If I understand his comments correctly, he is FOR the law letting DOT do this, AGAINST the full proposed toll increase, and he is trying to "find" money so the tolls aren't necessary.  Riiiiight.

I think we should name the toll booths for him and the Senate sponsor, Dennis Jones. Not the BRIDGES, mind you -- just the toll booths.

Things you don't see in Pinellas County, #347

(Miami Herald)

Eager to avoid a taxpayer backlash, Miami city commissioners Thursday voted unanimously against granting former City Attorney Jorge Fernandez any form of severance pay -- rejecting a proposed payout that could have cost taxpayers nearly $300,000.

That figure represented a combination of accumulated vacation and sick days along with six months of severance pay. Fernandez was earning $257,231 a year at the time of his resignation earlier this month.

[Link to full article]

Tierra Verde public hearing DELAYED

Update from St. Petersburg City Hall: the annexation public hearing scheduled for this afternoon has been DELAYED. See item on our breaking news blog. Questions have come up about the status of residents inside the targeted area. No dates yet for the rescheduling, but I wanted to post this so no one is inconvenienced.

The Spratt Aftermath

Two points about Steve Spratt's resignation as the Pinellas County administrator on Tuesday, in the wake of the Jim Smith land scandal. [Times photo | Jim Damaske]

(1) First, although Spratt's resignation was appropriate, it isn't a magic wand that takes care of everything in the immediate little scandal.

The taxpayers don't get back the $225,000 that the county paid  to Smith, the county's elected property appraiser, for a small piece of land that Smith owned personally. In fact, between six months' severance for County Attorney Susan Churuti and a year's severance for Spratt, the taxpayers are on the hook for well more than they paid for Smith's land.

Smith, the last time he said anything publicly, said he hasn't done anything wrong and intends to run for re-election. And the ultimate responsible party -- the County Commission, which voted 7-0 to buy Smith's land -- is intact. A couple of times, commissioners have bandied about the idea of resigning, but only in a rhetorical context, musing aloud as they pushed Churuti and Spratt out the door.

I am not making these points to be vindictive or ungracious the next day after a traumatic upheaval in the county government. I'm just saying that any rhetoric about "putting this behind us now" or "beginning the healing process" seems to connote that it's all over now, and it isn't.

(2) The second point is much bigger and longer-term in scope. The Pinellas County Commission now has to begin the process of choosing a new administrator. This is a chance for a clean slate and a break from the past in the way that this large, urban county has been governed.

For many years, the Pinellas administrator was a strong, military-style leader named Fred Marquis (the Pinellas Trail is named in his honor). Marquis ran things his way, he ran them behind closed doors, and he ran the County Commission as well. This was "efficient," and the county had a reputation for running "smoothly," but there was never much public discussion or input. Marquis was a bridge between older, small-town way of doing business and the modern world.

That meek deference by the County Commission to the administrator carried over to Spratt's six-year tenure, but Spratt was not Marquis. Ironically, I think, Spratt suffered because he was NOT the heavy-handed top dog that Marquis was. Spratt was bureaucrat-in-chief, and the commission never stepped up and filled the policy and political vacuum that Marquis had left. Spratt by default was expected to play Marquis' role as "county mayor,'' requiring political as well as bureaucratic skills, but he never mastered them.

This is the same situation that the County Commission faces looking ahead. The commission can choose a dynamic, go-getting leader with both political and administrative skills -- a new, de facto "county mayor'' -- and continue in its fairly passive role as the rubber stamp. Or the commission can choose someone in the Spratt mold, more comfortable as more-or-less chief secretary to the board. But in that case, either the commission has to evolve, becoming more of a policy engine and a provider of aggressive oversight to the administration -- or else we will repeat the cycle.

Spratt worked incredibly hard as the county administrator. I disagreed with his approach on several issues but have to give him that. As for his faults, they would have been balanced by a more aggressive commission. In the end, even the fact he had to resign is the County Commission's responsibility.

More in tomorrow's column.

Steve Spratt Resigns

Pinellas County Administrator Steve Spratt resigned this afternoon, effective Sept. 30. Here's the link to the breaking news. The county government had been criticized in a recent grand jury report concerning the Jim Smith land deal.

So much for our speculation in today's weekly live chat as to whether he would stay through the county budget process or even longer. More on Mr. Spratt soon.

The Mail, Part II: The Pinellas Scandal

Again, by far most of this week's mail has been about the Pinellas-Jim Smith land scandal. Several readers found the County Commission's barrage of unsuccessful motions not very convincing:

Let me see if I understand this. 1) Commissioner Susan Latvala moves to reinstate suspended Susan Churuti; it doesn't get a second. 2) Commissioner Calvin Harris makes a motion to get rid of both Susan Churuti and Steve Spratt; it doesn't get a second. 3) Commissioner Ken Welch moves to fire Churuti; gets a second. 4) Latvala says she supports firing both Spratt and Churuti [wait....didn't she just make a motion to reinstate Churuti and now she wants to fire her?!] 5) Commission votes unanimously to fire Churuti. 6) Latvala makes a motion to fire Spratt; it doesn't get a second [wait...didn't Harris just make a motion to get rid of Spratt -- why didn't he second Latvala's motion?!] Well, maybe I can hurry up and watch this session re-broadcast on my Bright House cable before they move it to channel 953 when I won't be able to watch it. -- Rick

If Susan Latvala made a motion to dismiss Spratt, and 4 other commissioners were for the action, why did not Calvin Harris second the motion? Or Karen?  Ronnie could have passed the gavel also.Was this merely a show of authority without teeth? Showtime for the citizenry?  --  john

I don't think it was staged, but just typical dithering. They couldn't get their motions in sync, since Latvala didn't want to fire Churuti without Spratt. It is puzzling why Harris didn't go along with Latvala's Spratt-motion, which would have solved the dilemma. When Latvala had no other choice, she went along with just firing Churuti. Duncan's COMMENTS made it sound like he was willing to fire Spratt, but he was holding the gavel... but I think you are right, he could have passed the gavel if he wanted to. Bottom line is, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO FIRE SPRATT. They were willing to scapegoat Churuti immediately but did not have the ... whatever noun you want to insert here... to fire Spratt. To me, this HAS to be considered an affirmative, deliberate decision by the board to keep Spratt for now -- for which the commissioners should continue to be held accountable by the voters. He is their man. They affirmatively decided to keep him on the job.

And here's a letter about keeping our eye on the real ball here:

Wasn't it the Commission that actually voted to buy the land? Do they just simply do whatever Steve Spratt or the County Attorney tell them to do? Without investigating on their own? They should be held accountable. They act as though it was none of their doing. And what about Spratt? Did he just sort of muscle this deal along? My biggest question is what about the man that made out in the deal, Jim Smith? He's the one that pocketed 5 times the assesed value of his property. I wish the County would buy my property for 5 times the assessment, I'd sell it in a heartbeat. According to Spratt, this was a good deal. Then buy my property, please! -- Greg F., Largo

Dear Greg F., I heartily agree. They sat there and voted for it 7-0 without saying boo, and all their protestations do not change the fact that they did it. As for Smith (by the way, the sales price was not quite 4x the previous year's appraisal by Smith's office), last I heard he still is running for re-election and is not resigning.

Churuti Walks The Plank; Spratt's Wrist Slapped

Immediately after the Pinellas County Commission voted Tuesday evening to fire County Attorney Susan Churuti, one of its members, Susan Latvala, made a motion to do the same to County Administrator Steve Spratt.

Latvala's motion hung in the air for a few ticks, then it died for lack of a second. So Spratt was spared Churuti's fate. Instead he gets a "reprimand," whatever that means, and the commission will review his status at the end of the year.

This means Churuti is the only one paying a permanent, real price (so far) for the Jim Smith land scandal. (On the other hand, her contract provides for six months' severance.)

So, to review the action here...

Smith: Land still sold. Smith keeps the $225,000.

Spratt: Still employed.

Commission: Still elected.

Churuti: Fired, but cushioned with six months' severance.

Several of the commissioners did apologize to the citizens during the meeting for approving the purchase of land owned by Smith, the county's elected property appraiser, with so little discussion. As far as any future political price to be paid by the commissioners, that has to be decided by the voters.

As for Spratt, he apologized too, but it was in classic Spratt fashion -- making an 11-minute statement insisting at every step that the county staff had followed all "procedures" correctly in buying Smith's 1.5 acres. In fact, Spratt went to great pains to say, the county staff would do it again. So it sure wasn't clear what he was "apologizing" for.

Latvala and commission chairman Ronnie Duncan (who, as chair, could not second Latvala's motion to fire Spratt) expressed the opinion that if Churuti went, Spratt should go, too. But their five colleagues -- Bob Stewart, Ken Welch, Calvin Harris, John Morroni and Karen Williams Seel -- wouldn't go that far.

Even though Spratt stays, there does seem to be a new distance, a new skepticism, between him and the commissioners -- and that's a good thing. At the heart of this whole flap is the fact that the commission for too long has sat in Clearwater rubber-stamping the administration. If this means Spratt's bosses are less likely to take everything he says at face value, then the county is better off.

More in tomorrow's column. [Times photo | Joseph Garnett Jr.]

Letter: Show Your Support For Public Access

Here's a letter asking for public opposition to the decision by Pinellas County to eliminate public-access cable programming as part of its budget cuts (while keeping the government's own channel intact, of course):

Pinellas Community Television (PCTV) is declaring Tuesday, September 4 as Freedom of Speech Day in
Pinellas County. We are encouraging everyone who cares about Freedom of Speech to dress in their best  RED WHITE and BLUE  outfits (and/or wear pins, flag ties, flags!) and show up at the Pinellas County Commissioner's Meeting on the fifth-floor in the Assembly Room of the Pinellas County Courthouse to speak up by showing up to save Access Pinellas at 6:30, Tuesday, September 4. We must get the word out ! Without a strong showing we feel the cause is lost. It may be already, but we are going to show our colors of freedom and let them know they too should hold precious our freedom of speech avenues of expression . We have given them several alternative plans that will not cost nearly as much money. We just want to keep our station and our access. -- Michael Bagby

The Readers: Pinellas Scandal

Excerpts from reader comments about the Jim Smith-Pinellas County land scandal:

Left out of your column today was the role played by Bernie McCabe and his office. Just as it is said a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich by the same token they can get a grand jury to find no criminality when the facts blatantly denote otherwise. McCabe has never -- NEVER -- brought a charge against a public official. He is the great "protector" in the county's club of officials. Witness the Bruce Tyndall case et al. -- Leo Coughlin

Dear Mr. Coughlin: Well, I agree that if the state attorney WANTED an indictment, he probably would be able to talk the grand jury into it. I have heard of rare cases over the years where a grand jury insisted on indicting when the state attorney didn't... and a few more cases where the state attorney wanted one and the grand jury refused. In this state, I predicted from the beginning there would not be a criminal charge and I think it would be hard to make one stick. If "making a bad deal for the taxpayers" was a crime a lot more people would be in the pokey. Personally, I don't think the decision was unreasonable, but I have heard from several citizens who disagree.

As a 23 year employee of Pinellas County I have been disgusted with the under handed, good old boy, lookin' out for each other, we'll just slide this one by quietly land deal. I love my job and have always been proud to tell people who I work for. My parents were far more proud of me for getting hired by the county than when I graduated from college. A good government job with benefits was what they wanted for this girl. But now I find myself embarassed by my employers...The Board of County Commissioners. I put them right up there with all the other moronic behavior of politicians lately. Dishonest, misleading, hypocrites who are lying to the people who they work for...uh, that would be you, me, the taxpaying public. ARRRGGGGHHHH.

Thanks for the strong comment. The grand jury took pains, at the end of its presentment, to point out that there are a lot of good, hard-working public employees trying to serve the taxpayers, and that this affair ought not hurt their reputation. Over the years as I have criticized the Pinellas leadership I have tried to make the same point, too.

Here is one reader's "translation" of the apology by County Administrator Steve Spratt, as published on the op-ed page:

Paragraph #1 contains and acceptance of responsibility for the "Jim Smith Property Matter" (Rape of the tax payers). Paragraph #2 places the blame on those pesky field workers. Ahh, their hearts are in the right place but they don't know the rules. Paragraph #3 tells how daddy will make it better. Paragraph #4 "I'm not a crook!!!" somebody else was responsible for the analysis. Paragraph #5 I don't know the rules either, can an "independent expert help us? (Consultant???--$$$$$$$) Paragraph #6 The Public Works Department is the culprit. (Who do they work for?? the County Administrator I believe). Paragraph #7 Susan Churuti did it. How much is the tax payer footing the bill for the "legal Guidance that can only be trusted to a certain point and then someone has to use "independent judgement". Paragraph #8 Most commissioners said they knew nothing about Jim Smith's involvement. (Minor communication breakdown).... -- Dave H

Dear Dave H.: Thank you for the subtitles...

A Look At The Pinellas Grand Jury's Report

The grand jury that investigated the Pinellas County land deal did an excellent job. Here is its report: Download tb_presentment.pdf

As expected, the grand jury did not find any criminal violations surrounding the county's purchase of land from the elected property appraiser, Jim Smith.

Neither did the grand jury find that Smith, the County Commission, the county staff or the county attorney had "maliciously'' abused their positions. Nobody sat down and said, "I will now deliberately do something wrong."

But what the grand jury DID find is -- what's the right word? Disgusting? Outrageous? Disturbing? Deeply discouraging? The main points deal with:

* The values of Smith's land, as set by his office, and reported by him on his financial-disclosure forms.

* The county staff rushing the deal, ignoring normal procedures, and using shaky methods to come upon the purchase price.

* The county attorney pushing the issue and clearly advocating Smith's personal interests, while failing to make clear her role or the situation.

* The County Commission sitting there and let the whole thing sail through with no public discussion.

THE LAND VALUE

We're talking about 1.5 acres in northeast Pinellas that, two years before Smith bought it in 1994, was listed his office as having no usable upland, and being worth $1,200. The year he bought it, it was listed as having .47 acres of upland and being worth $22,500. It was reduced the next year. By 2006, the year before the county bought it for $225,000, it was listed by Smith's office at $59,600.

Without question, county workers violated Smith's property following the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005, which was his justification for seeking the county's purchase. But the grand jury found that the actual extent of damage is rightly disputed. After all, Smith was trying to sell it as a "beautiful custom home site'' for $400,000. The grand jury found "no satisfactory explanation" for that discrepancy.

On his financial disclosure form as a public official, Smith reported the value of the land to be $179,800 -- AFTER the county had agreed to buy it for $225,000. The grand jury used the adverb "incredibly" to describe that deed. "These valuations," the grand jury said, "cannot be taken lightly.''

THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION'S ROLE

The grand jury found that the usefulness of buying Smith's land can be "hotly debated." Maybe the county can use it as a parking and staging area. The county used a guesstimate that Smith's land consisted of 70 percent upland. The county's appraisal was based on some questionable estimates -- one of the comparable land sales used for the appraisal was from a gated residential community!

The county did not follow standard procedures in weighing its legal liability in the case against the value of the property. The county staff felt pressured by the deal; notes in the file refer to interest in the purchase "from above." The grand jury found "a number of red flags" in the way the county went about the purchase.

THE COUNTY COMMISSION

The County Commission comes across looking like a group of passive patsies. Some did not even know, when they approved the purchase, that it came after Smith's legal threats. The commissioners approved the purchase with no public discussion, when it was patently obvious that one government agency buying land from another public official required the highest scrutiny.

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY

The county attorney, Susan Churuti, was clearing advocating Smith's personal interests. The waiver form that she got the county to sign more properly deals with conflicts of interest that occur between the county and other county AGENCIES. The grand jury said Churuti failed to make the situation clear. Her stated desire to make the process go more smoothly did not justify it.

CONCLUSIONS -- WHAT'S NEXT

I thought the grand jury also did a good job of putting this in perspective. We are not talking about bribery, or indictments, or the most serious level of corruption. Neither should this scandal call into question the integrity and hard work of the vast majority of public employees.

However, the grand jury said, this episode "should serve as a reminder to all officials and public employees that every citizen is entitled to prompt, fair and unbiased treatment and that maintaining the integrity of government and the public's perception of that integrity will require continuing vigilance."

My column in tomorrow's newspaper will deal more with what ought to happen next. The initial reactions by Smith ("Why should I resign?"), Churuti, County Administrator Steve Spratt and some of the commissioners do not show that they get it. If anyone thinks that the county can continue with business as usual after this, they are mistaken. Neither is it enough to point all the fingers at Churuti, make her the scapegoat and fire her. All parties share the responsibility.

Angelo Cappelli

I like competitive campaigns and good candidates, regardless of ideology. Last fall, for a while at least, I heard good things about Angelo Cappelli, a Republican candidate for the state House from St. Petersburg. One guy whose judgment I trust even described Cappelli as one of the better legislative candidates he had seen. In the end, Cappelli's side lost its way with a stupid attack on the Democratic candidate and eventual winner, Bill Heller, trying to label the veteran college administrator as a "nutty professor." The community knew better.

Cappelli, 37, now has been charged with stealing more than $100,000 from the estate of a deceased client of SunTrust, where he worked as an investment adviser. Police arrested him at his lawyer's office on Wednesday, and according to police, he gave a full confession. Naturally, some folks will take delight in this and try to draw some kind of bigger conclusion -- check out some of the public comments following today's news story. The only conclusion I would draw is that no one is immune from temptation, and no one is made virtuous by party label, or endorsements, or what other people say about them. It's just too bad.

It's Not All On Churuti

Well, the Pinellas County Commission has done something about the controversy over the county's purchase of land owned by county Property Appraiser Jim Smith. It has suspended County Attorney Susan Churuti, who represented both sides of the deal, pending a grand jury investigation. With pay.

Some of 'em said they had lost faith in Churuti. One of 'em, Karen Seel, said she had lost faith in County Administrator Steve Spratt too, since he and his staff also played a role in the deal, but nobody else joined her in the idea of suspending him as well.

So it's good that they're taking it seriously. On the other hand...

Didn't Ronnie Duncan, the chairman of the commission, sign the waiver that allowed Churuti to represent both sides? Does that improve Churuti's position any? Didn't Duncan, after all, himself repeatedly inquire into the status of the county's purchase of Smith's land? How odd it is to see Duncan now saying, "This is a dark hour in the history of our county."

Didn't the entire County Commission vote 7-0 to buy Smith's land when it came up on the agenda? Didn't the commissioners have every opportunity to express reservations, raise objections, put something on the record about what was happening? Haven't the details of the story, as related by Spratt and the county staff, continued to change each time that a new detail comes out?

It's not all on Churuti. Smith pressed not only Churuti and the county staff, but some on the County Commission. The commission, at least Duncan, kept asking the staff about it, so naturally the staff moved it along -- the reporting by my colleague Will Van Sant shows the trail of memos, notes and concern at the staff level, with the staff keenly aware of the attention being paid from higher up. In the end Spratt is responsible for the staff, and the commission is responsible for Spratt. Churuti played a role, absolutely, but it's not like she brainwashed a bunch of unwilling innocents into doing her bidding.

As I said before, I predict the grand jury will find that no laws were broken here, and I would be surprised if Churuti were found to have done anything contrary to the rules governing lawyers. This is a story about a clubby, insider government, with one group of elected officials, as well as that group's staff and lawyer, moving along a deal to buy another elected official's land -- and at that, the very elected official that the County Commission depends upon to set the size of the county's tax roll.

What's Wrong With The Jim Smith Deal

In this morning's paper, Pinellas Property Appraiser Jim Smith is quoted again as saying he believes he has done absolutely nothing wrong in this scandal over Pinellas County's purchase of his personal land for nearly four times its appraised value.

Smith probably believes that, too, which shows a considerable capacity for denial. Let's consider several possible problem areas:

* First and most importantly, there is just no circumstance in which the elected county property appraiser -- who sets the size of the county's tax roll -- should be benefiting from doing personal land deals with the county. The Pinellas County Commission, which operates on the basis of the tax roll set by Smith, has paid him personally to the tune of $225,000. It is an automatic conflict of interest -- on both sides. Smith calls this an "arm's-length'' transaction. In the case of the county property appraiser, there is no such thing.

* Second, either Smith's own office appraised his personal land at a ridiculously low price, or he asked a ridiculous amount for it, and the county obliged by paying nearly four times the tax value. Smith says that everybody knows his tax appraisals are below market value. But how many people in Pinellas County could sell their land today for four times its tax appraisal from Smith's office?

* Third, Smith repeatedly and personally lobbied, if not pressured, the county administrator, the county attorney and the chairman of the County Commission into buying his land.

* Fourth, it is a good question as to just how damaged the land was, given the delay between the alleged damage caused by county workers and Smith's demands that the county buy it, since he was advertising it in the meantime as such a wonderful site for building.

Of course, the other half of this scandal involves the county's actions. The administrator, the county attorney, the County Commission chairman and the full commission did not have to listen, did not have to do him favors, did not have to rush through a deal on shaky grounds that was not available to the average citizen. The county attorney CERTAINLY did not have to represent both sides of the deal in the transaction.

The grand jury should investigate the county's actions.

But as for Smith's denial, how many people can look at this sequence of events and agree with his, er, appraisal of the situation?

Here's my column from this morning's newspaper.

The TV Wars, Hillsborough and Pinellas

Looks like there are battles now on both sides of Tampa Bay over the proposal of county governments to eliminate public access cable channels, and in Hillsborough to eliminate funding for the educational access channel as well. In both cases, the government is favoring its own, government-run access channel.

I wrote about this in a column on July 17. Of course, broadcasting public meetings and the workings of our democracy is a good thing, but government TV often goes beyond that, and serves as a puff-piece propaganda mill, giving rosy coverage to existing elected officials. If we're cutting budgets, it seems like a prime target.

Last night, supporters of Access Pinellas asked the Pinellas County Commission to keep public access, and it was a better-than-average pitch. They even came up with their own, alternative budget proposal to keep public access going while making trims to the government station. The commissioners gave no indication of whether they were listening. In a meeting earlier this year, though, some of them said that public access was one of the first things they wanted to cut.

In the following two posts, I'm printing the text of letters addressed to the Hillsborough County Commission from Ann Goldenberg of the Tampa Educational Cable Consortium and from Louise Thompson, executive director of the Tampa Bay Community Network.

Pinellas Land Deal Under Investigation

Given that the topic dominated today's weekly live chat, I thought I should point out here that my colleague Will Van Sant is reporting on The Buzz that Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe has, indeed, opened an investigation into the land deal between the Pinellas County Commission and county Property Appraiser Jim Smith.

Here's the link. Meanwhile, the County Commission is convening at 3 p.m. for its regular meeting; it will be interesting to see what is said about all this. The meeting is being broadcast live on Pinellas 18, the county government's cable channel.

Sunday Column: Goober, Opie and Gomer In Pinellas

For starters, and just for starters, I want my money back.

I want Pinellas County to sell back that land that it bought from the elected county property appraiser, Jim Smith.

I want Smith to give back the $225,000 that he got.

They should do it tomorrow. Either that, or Smith should resign.

Have they lost their minds?

Under what circumstance should a County Commission do land deals with the county's elected officers?

Under what circumstance should the county's property appraiser be doing personal land deals with the county?

Here's a hint: none.... [rest of column]

Tuesday Column: Citizens Are Left To Watch, Not To Be Seen

Today's newspaper is filled with news of all the ways that citizens will suffer through service cuts if local governments are forced to cut their taxes. I didn't plan it this way, but it makes today's column about Pinellas County eliminating its public-access cable channel, while keeping its government propaganda channel, all the more timely....

Here is a tale of two channels on the TV dial, and why one must die so that the other can live.

The one to be axed is Channel 96, the "public access" channel on some of the cable TV systems in Pinellas County.

(Some cities have their own city channel and don't carry public access.)

Known as "Access Pinellas," Channel 96 features citizen-producers churning out their own programs - religious, cultural, book talk, dance, politics, personal rants.

But the Pinellas County government plans to eliminate Access Pinellas' budget as of Sept. 30.

There are tax cuts taking effect, see. Everybody has to tighten their belts.

This brings us to the other TV station. Pinellas 18 is the county government channel... [rest of column]

A Criticism Of Tonight's Brooker Creek Ordinance

I am grateful to Mathew Poling of the Friends of Brooker Creek for this highlighted copy [Download sale_of_park_and_env_lands_061107_hilite.doc ] of the ordinance to be discussed tonight by the Pinellas County Commission. The ordinance is supposed to protect Pinellas parks and environmental lands.

In my column this morning I said I thought the language had been tightened up in places, but still has the net effect of letting the County Commission operate without voter approval. Poling, however, points out that in some of the highlighted areas it seems worse than before, as in allowing the county to lease the lands for up to 10 years at a time without voter approval. He writes:

Here is the latest version of the ordinance from the county.  Changes are highlighted in yellow.  As you can see, it is even worse than it was before.  They are specifically defining "utilities land" and are allowing unrestricted utilities uses on it AND they are allowing parks and env. lands to be sold/used for utilities uses.  Also among other changes they are now allowing leases/licenses under 10 years without referendum approval.

Thursday Column: Why Not Just, Uh, Preserve The Place?

The second Brooker Creek Preserve public hearing begins at 6 p.m. today on the fifth floor of the Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court St., Clearwater.

It has been darned inconvenient for Pinellas County, having a big nature preserve up in its northeast corner.

It seemed like a good idea back in the 1990s to set off 8,300 acres of public land and call it the "Brooker Creek Preserve."

But that "preserve" label turns out to be trouble when you want to build something.

That's why there have been a series of fights for more than a year between the leaders of Pinellas County and various tree-huggin' folks... [rest of column]

Update: The County Doesn't Want To Talk About It

Just as soon as I posted the last item about Brooker Creek, this e-mail arrived from the county, saying that tomorrow night's hearing will NOT deal with the new map of the preserve:

The proposed zoning revisions will not be presented because staff is continuing to assess the future needs of Utilities properties. The zoning revision will be brought to the BCC at a later date.

In other words, the county wants to have a public hearing about Brooker Creek, but DOES NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IT WANTS TO DO WITH THE PRESERVE! Sheesh. I hope citizens talk about it anyway.

Last Call For Brooker Creek

The Pinellas County Commission's last public hearing on the Brooker Creek Preserve will be held at 6 p.m. Thursday in the commission's assembly room on the fifth floor of the county courthouse, 315 Court St. in Clearwater. Note the 6 p.m. start time, as the meeting originally was scheduled for the afternoon.

The controversy over the county's 8,300-acre Brooker Creek Preserve in northeast Pinellas has been the county's wishes to use land in the preserve for other purposes, such as youth recreational fields and for the county utility system. Some of the land in the preserve was originally acquired by the utility system in the first place.

Just on Tuesday, county officials announced a deal with the Pinellas schools to relocate the youth fields to a site in the East Lake area outside the preserve, which would seem -- at least for now -- to solve one of the immediate problems.

But the larger problem remains, and that's what kind of long-term protection will exist for the preserve. The fact that the county found a different place for these fields does not keep it from proposing the same thing tomorrow -- instead of a case-by-case fight over building stuff in the preserve, there ought to be an overarching prohibition.

One of the things to be discussed Thursday night, then, is an ordinance or county charter amendment that would grant the preserve a protected status -- that the county couldn't simply turn around and waive any time it wanted. The earlier versions of a proposed ordinance were basically meaningless -- the county could do anything it decided was in "the public interest."

The second big thing coming on Thursday night is the county's proposed map for how to carve up the preserve into different categories -- pure "preserve" versus something called "preserve resource management,'' which is where the county could put utility stuff. The last version of this map I saw put about 2,300 acres of the 8,300 total acres of the preserve into the "resource management" category -- which means it could be used one way or the other.

In the county's eye, this actually is an improvement, since even more than 2,300 acres were originally utility land. So the county claims it is ADDING to the preserve. But the county has been claiming all the land as a preserve all along. To me, this map codifies once and for all that the county can use a quarter of Brooker Creek as it sees fit.

Instead of a weak ordinance, or a map pre-designating 2,300 acres, I would pass an amendment to the county charter protecting the entire preserve, and requiring a case-by-case, strict public review of any proposed disturbance by the Utilities Department or anybody else. But maybe that's just me.

At Least This Item Is Not About Susan Stanton

Reader Jane Watmough saw this item on the BBC News web site and sends it along with the comment: "This makes Largo seem a little silly, doesn't it?

A female councillor who was born a man has been sworn in as the UK's first transgender mayor.

Liberal Democrat Jenny Bailey, 45, who underwent a sex change operation when she was in her 30s, will become the civic leader of Cambridge City Council.

Ms Bailey's mayoress is her partner, former councillor Jennifer Liddle, who also underwent a sex change... [link to story]

The Brooker Creek Hearing

By my count there were 36 speakers at Tuesday afternoon's workshop on the Brooker Creek Preserve held by the Pinellas County Commission. They waited through 1 hour and 40 minutes of preliminary presentations and discussions before they were allowed to speak. Of these, 34 spoke in opposition to the county's plans for the preserve, and two spoke specifically in favor of the county's idea of placing youth recreational fields on preserve land. [A disclaimer: I couldn't be in Clearwater and watched the thing on the county's cable channel.]

Tarpon Springs Mayor Beverly Billiris was the first speaker and she pleased the crowd by saying her city wanted to work with the county to provide another site for ball fields. Many of the speakers identified themselves as "just a citizen" (I would leave out the "just"] but there were also several organizations represented, including the Coalition for a Livable Pinellas, the St. Petersburg' Council of Neighborhood Associations, the Audubon Society, the League of women Voters and the Suncoast League of Cities.

As I tried and probably failed to explain in my Tuesday column, there are three issues here in the public's mind, although not necessarily the county's.

* First: Whether to use 2,400 acres of the preserve for utility purposes. In the county's mind, that isn't even a decision to be made; it's a done deal -- there is nothing on the county's agenda to change it.

* Second, whether to locate recreational fields on preserve land north of Old Keystone Road. At least on that subject the county and the majority of speakers were disagreeing over the same thing.

* Third, what rules should apply for preserve (and parkland) in the future. The county is considering an ordinance that, in the critics (and my) view, pretty much allows the county to do whatever it wants. The citizens want a stronger amendment to the county charter.

Nothing was decided Tuesday and the commission will meet again in June.

Largo, City Of Regress, The Sequel

It turns out that simply firing longtime City Manager Steve Stanton in March for wanting to become a woman is not enough closure for Largo, the self-labeled "City of Progress."

Perhaps fearful that there might still be cooties in City Hall, the  City Commission has voted 5-1 to ask the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office to investigate who knew about Stanton's secret in advance.

After that they will dunk the accused parties in water; if they drown it will prove they are innocent. (No, wait, I am mixing up my investigations. Scratch that last part.)

Mayor Pat Gerard was the lone voice against asking for the investigation. The rest of the commissioners voting agreed with a citizen petition (signed by 28 residents) to investigate whether an inner circle of city leaders and officials who knew about Stanton's secret, including the mayor and the police and fire chiefs, violated the City Charter by covering up malfeasance, misconduct, and so forth.

No word yet on whether Sheriff Jim Coats will agree to conduct the investigation in between fighting violent crime, gangs, the drug trade and managing an overcrowded jail. As for Stanton, it has been hard to miss the rest of his story to date: Steve petitions to become Susan, gets plenty of press and photos, and at this moment is one of six finalists to become the new city manager of Sarasota.

Three Things

(1) This story shows exactly why Florida needs higher-education reform -- and why the existing higher-education system is not capable of carrying it out. Nobody wants to give up turf or be told what to do. Florida needs a top tier of research universities, a middle tier of four-year degree-granting colleges and a strong tier of community colleges. None of the universities wants to be considered middle-tier, and none wants to give up any branch campuses either. What are we going to do, just wait until every state university has 100,000-student campuses and is too busy remediating the K-12 system to do anything else?

(2) Watching the Devil Rays game last night from Orlando felt uncomfortable -- like watching your spouse with an arm around somebody else at a party. Even when it wasn't immediately visible from the camera angle you could tell it was a small ball park. So it felt a little bit like a minor league or college game on TV. And they couldn't even fill up the stadium with all the advance notice... I hope Stuart Sternberg is right, and it's part of building a regional audience. But as my colleague John Romano points out this morning, building a winning team will build a regional audience as well.

(3) The next Gulfport or St. Petersburg city official who talks about this mess at Clam Bayou being the other city's fault should have to go clean it up personally. [Times photo: Scott Keeler.]

The Readers On Brooker Creek, With One Funny Criticism

A few readers yesterday and today have shared e-mails they have sent to the Pinellas County Commission on the Brooker Creek issue (see previous post). A couple of excerpts:

You KNOW that once you start compromising, it cannot be reversed.  This natural treasure can never be restored, there is nothing else in Pinellas County to replace it. We need balance. This protected area makes major contributions to the environment, the plants and wildlife have no where else to go... -- Eva DeHart, Seminole

Why now are you choosing to disregard the word PRESERVE..... Just because land costs have gone nuts does not give you or anyone else for that matter the right to undo this project....  Lack of forward planning on the part of previous leaders does NOT give you the right to go the route of EASY PICKINGS.... It has never been a secret that the northern part of the county would need more recreation space. -- Judith E. Jones

And this proposal via e-mail from a critic of the county:

There is only one way to stop the run-a-way train known as the Pinellas County Commission. We in East Lake must form our own city and take land use control away from the county. We are froming a committee to do just that. -- Robert Loos

Lastly, I couldn't help including this sharp reader comment from the previous post:

If a tree falls in a preserve, it only makes a sound if Troxler is there. Good grief, you prima dona, this issue has been hashed and researched and reported with the assiduity of I.F. Stone on a Times property, and you point people to your blog to learn more? Others have spent months beating the bushes, you take a hike with a Brownie and suddenly you're the font of knowledge? Heck, whatever you know only came from reader emails anyway. -- straub

My reply: Sorry if I came across as a "font of knowledge." I was not trying to take anything away from the folks who have spent a lot of time on this, such as the Friends of Brooker Creek, and will make it clear in future columns that it is not just me harrumphing from on high. It was a Canon, by the way, but I had to chuckle at the "Brownie" reference...

Brooker Creek

My print column today is about Pinellas County's plans for the Brooker Creek Preserve in the northeastern part of the county. The county wants to designate more than a quarter of the preserve's 8,300 acres for utility uses such as water-treatment plants, utility infrastructure, recreational fields or whatever else the County Commission deems to be in the "public interest." Naturally, the plan is controversial.

Part of the county's justification is that much of the land in the preserve was originally acquired by the county's Utilities Department for exactly such purposes and that it is not pristine anyway. The "good" part of the preserve, largely the portion south of Keystone Road where there are trails and an education center, would be left undisturbed. In addition, about 1,200 acres of utility land would be set aside and protected, in exchange for the other two-thirds being designated for possible use.

This week I knocked around the preserve and took these amateur photographs. The first three were taken from Trinity Boulevard facing south, just west of the existing water-blending plant. This upland pine forest is on the north side of a large, roughly square of land north of Keystone Road that would be designated for possible use. Even if it isn't pristine, it is the habitat for many plant and animal species.

The fourth photograph (below) was taken from Old Keystone Road facing north, looking at the proposed site of the new recreational fields. There is a crying need for more such facilities in the northern county, but opponents include both the neighbors who fear the activity, and environmentalists who don't want to tap the preserve for such uses. There's already a sign there announcing it is the future site for the fields.

To the right is a map of the overall plan for the preserve. The blue areas represent the area marked for possible uses. The larger reddish area represents utility-acquired land to be protected, and the gray area lands that would be undisturbed.

The Pinellas County Commission will hold a workshop on the preserve on Tuesday, May 22, from 2 to 4 p.m. in the fifth floor of the Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court St. in Clearwater. For more information, and information on how to contact the commissioners, go to the county's web site: www.pinellascounty.org.

When Is A Preserve Not A Preserve?

You have to give Pinellas County a certain amount of credit for chutzpah. Faced with criticism over building recreational fields or utility facilities in the Brooker Creek Preserve, the county has a proposed solution -- un-preserve some the land in question, to varying degrees. Here's the story by my colleague Theresa Blackwell.

The problem with Brooker Creek is that the county has boasted all along of its preserve status, while still wanting to use it for other needs (one example being the now-abandoned idea of using the preserve to irrigate a nearby golf course). Making things more complicated is that much of the preserve's 8,300 acres was acquired by Pinellas County Utilities for its own purposes, and then later thrown into the pot.

The current proposal is to designate 2,398 acres of utility land both north and south of Keystone Road for possible other uses. The other 1,146 acres of utility land, along with the rest of Brooker Creek, would be off-limits. Friends of the preserve (dismissed by one county commissioner as a "very small group," which to me seems pretty clear not to be the case) are outraged.

Naturally, all this comes after the county won renewal of its Penny for Pinellas sales tax for another 10 years -- with a campaign, based in part, on how the Penny helps acquire environmental lands. Whatever grief the county catches now serves it right, for trying to have its cake and eat it too (which is the way everybody says that, although the original saying that makes more sense is "to eat its cake and still have it'').

Whack-A-Budget

Here's a letter (Download spb_letter.pdf ) from the mayor of St. Pete Beach to the governor pointing out the effects of the budget cuts the Legislature is talking about. Ward J. Friszolowski says the House plan would cut about $3.2-million out of the city's budget -- out of only about $10-million in general funds that could be whacked. He says for example the city could eliminate ALL library, park and recreation spending and only save $1.5-million.

Unfortunately for them, the recent efforts of Friszolowski and St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker to slow down the tax-cutting train in Tallahassee are coming late in the game. The consensus is not WHETHER to cut local taxes, but simply by how much. I like to bash government spending as much as the next guy, but there ain't no way to cut $3.2-million out of $10-million without getting rid of something that is going to hurt.

How locals deal with whatever the Legislature does will be the Next Big Story across our state.

Snack Shack II

Today's print column follows up on yesterday's TroxBlog post about the fate of the former Snack Shack on Madeira Beach:

The people of Madeira Beach petitioned. They rallied. Some vowed, if necessary, to form a human chain to stop the bulldozers.

And, what the heck, it worked. To combine two sayings, now and then you really can fight City Hall, especially if it is a child (or an especially impressive sixth-grader) who shall lead you.

Let's begin at the site in question. If you take the Tom Stuart Causeway past the Bay Pines VA Medical Center all the way to the gulf, you will run smack into a place called Archibald Memorial Park... [more]

The Snack Shack

If you take the Tom Stuart Causeway over to Madeira Beach, you'll hit the beach just about at Archibald Park. Sitting on this public property is a log cabin that was originally built many decades ago by veterans, originally intended as a place for recovering patients to go as a respite. Over the years the building also has been home to a Boy Scout troop and a snack bar run by disabled vets.

The Madeira Beach Board of Commissioners proposed to tear down the building. A lively protest among citizens -- led, in part, by Kaitlyn Chalke, a 12-year-old sixth-grader at Madeira Beach Middle School -- rose up to try to stop it. The Board of Commissioners met again last night and agreed to delay a decision, instead of starting demolition as early as Monday as it could have done -- which, if you know beach politics, is a fairly refreshing decision. It seems like a fine topic for my column in tomorrow's newspaper.

The PSTA, Defended

Just wanted to call extra attention to the interesting responses from board member Karl Nurse and from the planning director of the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority to my earlier post -- go to that post and click on the "Comments" link at the bottom. (I do challenge the guy's claim that my  column was not based on "facts," in my comment following his, but he has other stuff to say too.)