|
Council OKs reverter clause change
By LESTER R. DAILEY
| Article published on Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2009 |
|
 |
CLEARWATER – Back in 1925, hotel rooms were scarce on Clearwater Beach and most visitors were “tin can tourists” who camped in or near their flivvers. The idea that Clearwater Beach might someday have too many hotels seemed as far-fetched as going to the moon.
The year 1925 also was when the state gave Clearwater the land on which to build the Memorial Causeway and a municipal marina. The gift included a clause saying that the land would revert to state ownership if it ever stopped being used for public purposes such as parks and recreation.
Now, Clearwater officials want Jim Frishe, the state representative whose district includes Clearwater Beach, to sponsor a local bill that will weaken the 1925 reverter clause and give them more latitude in redeveloping the marina in accordance with the state’s 1977 Working Waterfront legislation, which encourages Florida’s coastal cities to support their maritime industries. The proposed bill would allow “viable water-dependent support facilities such as lodging, boat-hauling and repair and commercial fishing activities” at the marina site. Critics fear that the “lodging” provision could be used to justify a large hotel on the site and say that Clearwater Beach already has enough big hotels.
In the early 20th century, hoteliers recognized the need for affordable lodging on Clearwater Beach and the other Pinellas barrier islands and began to build hotels with inexpensive rooms. By the middle of the century, Clearwater Beach had become what one speaker at a recent City Council meeting called a “working-class Riviera.” But by the end of the century, developers had discovered that building condominiums was more profitable than building hotels, and many older hotels were either converted to condos or razed to make way for condo complexes.
At the turn of the 21st century, fearing the loss of their tourism industry and wanting to curtail the condo boom, beach cities began offering tax breaks, density pools and other incentives to developers who want to build hotels. Critics say the policy has worked too well and there is now a glut of hotel rooms, but Clearwater officials say that weakening the reverter clause will not automatically mean that a hotel will be built on the marina site.
“You cannot build a hotel (there) without a referendum” to change the land use plan, City Attorney Pam Akin said at the Nov. 5 City Council meeting. She agreed with Vice Mayor Paul Gibson that “practically speaking, virtually anything that would be done there would require a referendum.”
Akin explained that most of the marina site is zoned Transportation Utility and is limited to such uses as a marina, airport or public utilities facility. When asked, Akin replied that a public parking garage on the site would be permissible.
“My feeling is if it isn’t broke don’t fix it,” Sarah Jane Hinkle told the council. “The marina should stay exactly as it is. … We have an identity here that we must keep.” But others were reassured by Akin’s explanation that a hotel cannot be built on the site without first being approved in a public referendum.
“I think you’ve done your homework on this one … ” former Clearwater Commissioner David Hemerick told the council. “I think, from what the city attorney said, it sounds like you’ve got a good policy here.”
The council unanimously voted to have Frishe proceed with the plan to change the wording of the reverter clause.
|
Article published on Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2009
Copyright © Tampa Bay Newspapers: All rights reserved. |
