CLEARWATER – In 1925, the state of Florida gave Clearwater the land on which to build its Memorial Causeway and municipal marina, but the gift came with strings attached.
If the marina property on Clearwater Beach is ever used for purposes other than “public parks and places of recreation,” the upland portion of the marina, although not its docks and submerged lands, will revert back to state ownership.
At its Nov. 5 meeting, the City Council will explore ways to modify that reverter clause and give the city more latitude in redeveloping the marina property. The current plan is to have State Rep. Jim Frishe, a St. Petersburg Republican whose district includes Clearwater Beach, sponsor a local bill that would ease the terms of the 1925 reverter clause to allow “viable water-dependent support facilities such as lodging, boat hauling and repair and commercial fishing activities,” as long as the public’s access is not restricted.
The idea is to replace the outdated 1925 reverter clause with language more compatible with the 2007 Waterfronts Florida Program, which requires Florida’s coastal cities to adopt Working Waterfront Programs that encourage the preservation of the state’s maritime and fishing industries. But the plan is expected to face stiff opposition from beach residents who fear that word “lodging” in the proposed local bill would allow the construction of a high-rise hotel on the marina property, even though the revised reverter clause would still require a public referendum before the property could be leased for more than 30 years, with a 30-year renewal, or sold.
“Leave the reverter clause alone until our City Council acknowledges that this (marina) is the people’s property and they have a public hearing and they will listen to us about what we want there,” longtime beach activist Anne Garris urged at an Oct. 26 meeting regarding the reverter clause. At the same meeting, Dave Muzio, president of the Island Estates Civic Association, called the reverter clause “the protection we have against the city.” But Mayor Frank Hibbard says the city is only interested in modernizing the marina property, not selling it.
“I’ve always wanted the marina to remain in the ownership of the city and be a magnet for tourism,” Hibbard said at the council’s Nov. 2 work session. He added that the inclusion of the word “lodging” in the local bill does not automatically mean that a hotel will be built on the site.
“We don’t want boat hauling or repair on the site either,” even though the private bill also mentions those activities, Hibbard said.
Hibbard and Vice Mayor Paul Gibson also dismissed residents’ fears that the local bill would also allow boat slips to be built south of the Memorial Causeway.
“We have plenty of boat slips,” Gibson said.
Although the reverter clause has been treated as a single entity until now, City Attorney Pam Akin explained that there are actually two reverter provisions that affect the marina property. One says that the northern end of the parcel must be used for recreation or open space. The other says that the remainder of the property must be used for public purposes.
The council ordered staffers to prepare graphics that will make it easy to tell which portion is which, at the Nov. 5 meeting.
