Saturday, July 28, 2012

Mayor Foster And Police Chases

We were going to post a story last week about the Gulfport police chase, the resulting crash with a bus and a building, and Mayor Foster's criticism of it. But right before we did, there was a similar crash after a police chase, which was started right here in St. Petersburg. Both police chases were of stolen vehicles, the St. Petersburg initiated crash was related to string of burglaries in an upper-class area of the city, but the results were the same, a lot of twisted metal, and several people going to the hospital.

We are conflicted with the debate about police chases, offenders need to be caught, but is the collateral damage too high a price to pay when the suspects are almost always repeat offenders that we would have caught soon anyway? Is it worth sending innocent people to the hospital when the police or a criminal crashes into them because of the chase?

We went back to the horrific case of innocent driver Thomas Atherton, who was killed during a high speed police chase, his car was cut in two by a police cruiser chasing a man fleeing north in the southbound lanes of I-275. This is one of the cases that helped to change the police chase policy in the first place, the thinking was that the collateral damage is not worth chasing a non-violent offender. So the policy was changed to only allow chases when the offender was involved in a violent felony. That policy was then changed when Bill Foster became Mayor in 2009, allowing police chases in more cases.

Earlier this year there was the case of purse-snatcher Kenneth Gordon Davis Jr. who died after he crashed while being chased by police. The crash also sent six other people to the hospital. Davis was known to police, and he was unarmed, but because purse snatching is classified as a violent felony they decided to chase him, and a half-dozen people ended up paying the price for that decision.

As for last week's police chase crash, it came out that the suspects in the fleeing vehicle were all wanted for questioning in several burglaries, and one had already been positively identified by fingerprints, they were also not armed. This crash sent four other people to the hospital.

So we have 10 innocent people hospitalized(with several critically injured) in just these two St. Petersburg initiated crashes, to catch known suspects that were unarmed. In these cases, the human cost was too high, the suspects should not have been chased.

Back to the recent Gulfport-initiated crash, Mayor Foster immediately had some harsh words for the Gulfport police saying "They got to own this one... That pursuit wouldn't have been authorized by the St. Petersburg Police Department.". Yet when asked about the Davis police chase a few months ago he was much more reserved, "I'm waiting for the facts and the investigation to be concluded before I can comment... With any authorized pursuit there are a number of conditions that must be weighed." He is reserved when it could be his fault, but quick to place blame when he's in the clear.

The Gulfport Gabber had some criticism of it's own for Foster, saying "Mr. Foster, an attorney specializing in real estate, probate and corporate law, lists no law enforcement experience on his resume." Suggesting that Mayor Foster should stop arm-chair quarterbacking, and stick to things that he knows about.

Earlier this year, a Tampa Bay Times editorial called for a review of police chase policy in St. Petersburg. We agree with the Times, we think that in cases where the suspect is unarmed, and known to police, that the chase should be called off immediately, the human cost has proven to be too high.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

The "New Pier" Presentation by Lisa Wannemacher

A couple of weeks ago, we posted our top ten list for things to do out on the new Lens pier. Now Mayor Foster has taken to calling it "The New Pier" instead of the Lens, because he says the competition is over, and we need to brand this as the new pier instead of just some design concept. In furtherance of that goal, he got Lisa Wannemacher from the local architectural firm that is working with Michael Maltzan Architecture on the Lens pier to make a presentation right before the successful referendum vote at last Thursday's city council meeting.

First, some notes about Lisa Wannemacher herself. She was present at many of the pier task force meetings, often advocating for the demolishing of the existing pier and the building of a new pier structure, even claiming that "renovating pier approach would cost most or all of $50M and public wouldn't like that since nothing changed". Of course she offered no evidence of this, no study was done to back up her claims of no public support, but this statement she made was taken as fact by the task force and included in several of their notes and recommendation drafts.

Also, voteonthepier.com found out that Wannemacher and her husband own Cassis American Brasserie, a restaurant on 2nd Avenue North, right on the approach to the Pier. It might seem to some like a conflict of interest for the owner of a restaurant that would benefit significantly from the demolition of several competing restaurants on the Pier, to be advocating for the demolition of those restaurants, and the building of a pier that could not house any significant retail or restaurant space. Here is a link from Philippe Berriot's Linked-in page, that shows one of his "Company website" links as Wannamaker's architectural firm, as well as the pair owning several "BW"(Berriot-Wannemacher) businesses together.


Now on to the "New Pier" presentation itself.

It started with the list of things to do out on the pier, this list had a lot of small print, and it was only on the screen for a few seconds for the day and night lists, we had to pause the video to write the list down, and here is the list of the 27 activities out on the new Lens pier(with land-side activities and duplicates removed):
Casual dining, Bayside fishing, Refreshments, Gelato shop, Spectacular view, Reef viewing and education, Dockside fishing, Pelican feeding, Electric boat rentals, Transient boating, Kayak rentals, Dockside drinks, Concessions, Water taxi, Pier walks, Shaded balconies, Biking, Roller Blading, Walking, Live music, Light shows, Movie projections, Boat drive-in movies, Evening walks, Intimate balconies, Family outings, Night fishing, Skyline views.

The problem is that several of these seem to be duplicates, like "casual dining, refreshments, gelato shop, concessions, dockside drinks", so we just grouped these all under the heading of "Food & Drink". We also condensed the several "Views" activities into "Signtseeing". There are several separate activities related to "Boating", and "Walking, Evening walks, Biking and Roller Blading" are all listed separately as well.

We aren't too sure what exactly "Reef viewing and education" means, since the reef won't really be viewable in the murky water so we'll remove that one.

Next was "Water taxi", which is a bit confusing, since the inner harbor of the Lens pier won't allow for boats larger than 20 or so feet, and any viable water taxi would need to be twice that size, which wouldn't fit, so we'll remove that one.

"Live music" is mentioned, but as much as we've looked, we can't seem to find a reference to how many people can safely gather out on the Lens pier to watch the live music.

"Light shows" are listed, but those didn't seem to last too long when they were tried in the 80s.

"Movie projections" and "Boat-in movies" are also listed separately, but are really the same thing.

We were also wondering how "Shaded balconies" was an activity, then we saw what that changed into at night: "Intimate balconies". Burst of laughter at that point, those must be SOME balconies they are planning on building if you can get "intimate" on them at night. Do you think the city would exempt those balconies from the public exposure ordinances?

In the end, we arrive at only 10 unique activities, and even some of those are pretty weak "Food & Drink, Fishing, Sight-seeing, Pelican feeding, Boating, Pier walks, Biking and Roller Blading, Live music, Light shows, Movie projections"


After showing the activities lists, Lisa Wannemacher says "over 30 activities one can do at the new pier... there will be plenty to do". Just because you list the same things multiple times, doesn't mean you get to count them multiple times Ms. Wannemacher.

Then she showed a picture of an old beer grotto complete with stone walls, we're not sure how you give the feeling of a beer grotto without ANY walls, especially when the sideways rain starts pouring in on a summer afternoon out on the Lens pier.

She did a comparison of the 1926 pier pilings to the new Lens pier design pilings. A bit unfair comparing almost 90 year old building techniques to today. If she was being fair she would compare it to the "Wave" pier design which is much closer to how a renovated pier approach would be constructed, with a lot fewer support pilings.

New features like inner-harbor water buffers, shaded walkway balconies, the expanded promontory area and several others are mentioned, but all of these new features cost money, and there is no money for these things in the Maltzan budget. As we have covered before, they already had to shrink the Lens, move it closer to the shore, remove the railings and replace them with concrete walls, remove the wood planking, the docent theater and over a dozen other features just to fit within the $45 million budget. No mention is made of how these new features will be paid for.

At the end, she tried to compare the Lens pier to the St. Louis Gateway Arch, which is a bit of a stretch since the Arch would cost more than double what the Lens is budgeted for if it was built today, and the Arch's design competition lasted for 3 years instead of only a few months like the Lens. "Functionally, it is an observatory" she said about the Lens, which just contradicted most of what she had said previously about there being "plenty to do" on the Lens pier.

The presentation itself was nice, but after analyzing the details in the presentation it is clear that it was all flash and very little substance. Not much at all has really changed after this presentation.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

The Pier Referendum Vote

The vote last Thursday was 5 to 3, in favor of putting "some kind of question" on the November general election ballot about the Pier. Curran, Danner and Kennedy were the "no" votes.

There was heated discussion for almost 2 hours amongst the council members about the ballot question issue and the Pier design process as a whole. Mayor Foster offered his own symbolic support for a referendum, saying: "They've been working on this for two years... The process was not designed to stop a referendum... If they get the signatures, they've earned it... now, the signatures have been verified... to me, I think they deserve something on the ballot."

We applaud Mayor Foster for his stance, even though it was an easy position for him to take, because he doesn't get to vote on the issue, and even if the referendum had not been approved he could have said he tried.

Council-chair Curran and councilman Danner(who have both been very vocal about their support for demolishing the Pier for over two years) got very upset that a referendum on the pier might be approved, they tried argument after argument to try to convince their fellow council members to not approve a referendum on the ballot. The desperate tone to their voices and poorly thought out arguments were really just sad to watch.

Here are some of Danner's points: Councilman Newton had many chances and nobody seconded his motions, the referendum question isn't valid, council should have started the referendum process earlier, the vote on the pier group has spread too much misinformation, we've already looked at ways to save the pier, if there is a referendum we can't advocate for the Lens pier.

Here are some of Curran's points: The people that signed these petitions only wanted this one question on the ballot not just some question, the people that went through the pier design process need to be represented too, the petition gathering was funded by someone who didn't like the Lens, the one thing that people don't like or understand is change, I do not feel that I am cutting anybody short by voting no, the petition is from Safety Harbor not St. Petersburg, nobody will want to go through a city design process again if we overthrow this one.

Councilman Kennedy also ended up voting "no" because he said a vote won't make the pier pilings stable and it won't change the subsidy, he ignored any options for reinforcing the caissons and he also completely missed the point that the people don't want the Lens.

All three of the "no" voters ignored the spirit of the verified referendum petitions, that people don't feel like they have been heard in this "open" process, and that the majority of people don't like the Lens.

We have covered this process before in quite a few postings here on BillFosterWatch, and it is clear that there is a big divide in the city on this issue, and ignoring the referendum petitions would have only made that divide worse. We would like to thank the 5 councilmen who did the right thing and voted "yes", especially Councilman Newton who was the lone voice of the people for these last 20 months after council voted to demolish the Pier(at Mayor Foster's urging) at an unannounced meeting with no public input allowed.

Hopefully city council will put some unbiased questions on the ballot, and will follow through with what the people vote for in November.

Up next, an analysis of the "New Pier Presentation" that Lisa Wannemacher gave at the same meeting last Thursday...

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Mayor Bill Foster Sets A New Fee-Raising Record

Today the Patch reported that Mayor Foster will be proposing later this month to raise 60 existing fees and add 29 new fees, most of them aimed at St. Petersburg businesses. It seems that Foster has gone "fee-crazy" while he is also pushing for a massive new "fire readiness fee", and less than a year after raising dozens of permitting related fees as well as adding new ones. Add on to this the hundreds of new parking meters he added, as well as his doubling of the parking meter rates and the raised parking fines he pushed for to punish the "spoiled" residents of St. Petersburg.

This latest fee assault is mostly aimed at businesses, but it also targets the city's dog-friendly restaurants. Yes, you read that correctly, one of the new fees is going to be a "Dog Dining Permit" that any restaurant which allows outside dining will have to pay for to allow patrons to eat with their dogs while outside. This will affect hundreds of businesses around the city with outside seating, and if a restaurant doesn't pay for the new permit, they are subject to up to a $1000 fine if a dog is seen in their outside dining area.

For a full list of the proposed new and raised fees, here is a link to the city website.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Foster's Top Ten Reasons To Constantly Go Out To The Lens Pier

This piece on Fox13 about the voteonthepier.com group turning in 15,000 petitions on Friday had a great quote from Mayor Bill Foster about him sending two staff members to Maltzan's office to meet with the architect about the Lens pier design:

"My instructions to my staff: don't come back from California without ten visuals, the top ten reasons why [we] are going to constantly go out to the new St. Pete Pier"

We initially thought this might be another Foster cost-cutting measure, a way for him to get rid of two staff members by giving them an impossible task and telling them that they can't come back until they complete it. But then we thought of ten ways all by ourselves to get people to "constantly" go out to the new Lens pier.


So in the David Letterman tradition, here are the top ten ways to get the citizens of St Petersburg to keep going out to the pier:

Number 10: Put a parking ticket payment booth out at the end of the pier, and offer a 10% discount on your bill if you pay out there

Mayor Foster has doubled the price of parking meters and added hundreds of new parking meters around downtown just in the last two years, causing a lot more parking tickets to be issued. Putting a parking ticket booth at the end of the Lens pier won't take up much space, and it will force people in search of a discount out on to the Lens pier.

Number 9: Promote the "Manatee vs. Speed Boat Destruction Derby" shown in the Lens pier marketing materials

Boats and Manatees together at last, what could go wrong? How about we outfit the manatees with armor, and boat-piercing flipper gloves, then they would have a fighting chance. The city could even sell it as the latest reality show, complete with underwater cameras to showcase that crystal-clear water around the Lens pier.

Number 8: The end of the Lens pier will be the only private place in downtown

With Mayor Foster spending another $270,000 to put more surveillance cameras all over downtown, the Lens pier will be the only place to get some privacy away from Big Brother Foster's prying eyes.

Number 7: Make visiting the Lens pier count as community service for school children and non-violent offenders

If you can't get people out there voluntarily, then force them out there. Many school kids need community service to graduate, and there are always non-violent offenders in need of community service hours. So what better community service than helping the city to justify it's $50 million boondoggle by making it seem popular? All you would have to do is walk out to the end of the Lens pier, and the parking ticket booth attendant, from Number 10, can sign the community service forms.

Number 6: Scrub your own name into the algae on the Lens pier

Give people the chance to scrub their own name in the the algae that will grow on the constantly wet concrete at the end of the Lens pier. It will help to keep them less slippery, and people can have a temporary graffiti picture memento of their trip to the Lens pier. It will always grow back, so they have to keep coming back to do it again.

Number 5: Scrub your own name into the bird droppings on the Lens pier

See Number 6 above, except with the bird guano that will be all over the Lens pier.

Number 4: Get St. Petersburg College to offer an Underwater Basket Weaving course out on the Lens pier

Every college kid needs an easy-credit course, so why not the perennial favorite, underwater basket weaving out at the end of the Lens pier.

Number 3: Hand out virtual reality glasses, so you can pretend you are somewhere other than the Lens pier

Since the Lens pier itself will get kind of boring after the first time you visit, the city should lend visitors virtual reality glasses so they can pretend they are somewhere else every time they go to the Lens pier.

Number 2: Put some of those Redbox and Blockbuster DVD rental vending machines out there

We always see people at those DVD vending machines at Publix and Walgreens, but there aren't many in downtown, so to get the residents of downtown to go to the Lens pier, just put a bunch of those at the end. Like the parking ticket booth, they won't take up much space, and you are guaranteed repeat visitors.

And The Number 1 Way To Keep People Going To The Lens Pier.... GELATO!

We must have heard the word "Gelato" hundreds of times in reference to the Lens Pier and what is out at the end waiting for us. It is the only thing that all city staff members can think of when asked what there is to do out there, it's their go-to answer, so we had to make the undeniable lure of this magical frozen wonder treat number 1 on the countdown.


There you go Mayor Foster, we came up with your ten ways to get people to constantly go out to the Lens pier, no need to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to send city employees on a week-long California vacation now.

Monday, July 2, 2012

What If Foster's Pier Thinking Were Applied To Tropicana Field?

We ran across this article from last year in the St. Petersburg Times about the rising subsidy that the city has to pay to keep Tropicana Field running and the Rays playing games there, and this sentence really stood out for us:

"Costs usually outpace revenues $1 million to $2 million a year, creating an operating subsidy on top of St. Petersburg's annual $6 million debt service on the Trop construction bonds."

So, lets just average that out and say there is a $1.5 million net operating subsidy each year on the Trop and the Rays(exactly the same as the subsidy on the Pier), and added to that there is another $6 million the city pays each year on the debt for the costs to build the Trop. The Pier generates $74 million in economic impact to the city each year on $1.5 million in net costs, and the Trop and the Rays generate a $92.5 million economic impact to the city each year on $7.5 million in net costs(of course this doesn't include the "little" expenses that the city has spent on both structures over the last several years either, just the fixed yearly costs.)

     <abacus clattering>

For more than a decade, for each dollar the city has spent on the Trop and Rays we got $12.33 back, and for each city dollar spent on the Pier we got $49.33 back. Which one seems like a better business model to you?

The answer is that both are worth keeping, they are both strong assets for the city of St. Petersburg, and you can't find their equals across the bay in Tampa. They both generate many times more dollars in economic impact than they cost to maintain, and they are both icons of our city.

So why is Mayor Bill Foster determined to destroy a city icon that has a much better economic rate of return than Rays Baseball?

It may be because Foster is a "sports guy", he goes to Rays games all the time, and he almost never goes to the Pier, so it could be a simple personal preference.

But maybe he is really laser-focused on reducing all city subsidies(like the Pier, the Coliseum and Mahaffey Theater), and if the Rays weren't under contract he would do the same thing to Tropicana Field as he is trying to do the the Pier, tear it down and build a cheaper stadium with one-third the size of the current yearly subsidy.

Imagine a smaller(but very artsy), minor-league baseball stadium sitting where Tropicana Field is now. No dome or air-conditioning to keep spectators dry and cool. No in-stadium restaurants. No events other than baseball games taking place, and a much much smaller economic impact. That could be the future for the Trop under a Foster "subsidy reduction at all costs" plan like the one he is pushing with the Lens Pier. And as for the Rays, they would go the way of the pelicans that have called the Pier home for generations, off to a better roost, where they are wanted, perhaps in Hillsborough County close to the water somewhere.