Sarasota Election Guide

Don't be intimidated. Despite the incredibly obtuse language in many of this Tuesday's ballot initiatives, the concepts are relatively comprehensible. And the issues are important: the so-called "penny tax," the super majority question and several other measures will have a distinct effect on shaping both our city and our county in the years to come. Here's a quick rundown of what's on the table; feel free to take it into the booth with you on Nov. 6.

Proposed County Questions

REFERENDUM TO CONTINUE THE SALES TAX AND THE CITIZEN TAX OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES

What is it? The so-called "penny" tax, which been in effect for nearly two decades, tacks an additional 1 percent (or a penny of every dollar you spend in Sarasota County) onto the usual 6 percent sales tax for another 15 years. This bond referendum also calls for a committee to vote, super majority-style, on how the proceeds are allocated.

Who's for it? Everyone at City Hall, people who are nervous about future budget cuts, people who work in public amenities and infrastructure, environmentalists, the School Board.

Who's against it? Skeptics who don't want to give municipal and county governments any more money to play with, tourists (who comprise 30 percent of the added tax revenue).

What's at stake? The tax has been in effect since 1989, so you won't see any difference in your expenses if the measure passes. But you should see the rewards: In the city alone, the tax is expected to net about $145 million over the coming years, most of which would go toward affordable housing, parks and city infrastructure. County wide, a generous 25 percent goes to the School Board. On the other hand, detractors say the "penny" moniker's misleading -- that 1 percent could add up to as much as $200 in extra sales taxes per household. That's one expensive penny.

SUPER MAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO APPROVE CERTAIN INCREASES IN LAND USE DENSITY OR INTENSITY

What is it? A controversial amendment to Sarasota County's charter that would require a "super majority" vote -- the OK of four out of five county commissioners -- to approve land-use changes in the county's comprehensive plan. Right now, three of five is enough.

Who's for it? Anti- or slow-growth advocates who feel the super majority would make it harder for developers to increase density, constituent groups like Citizens for Sensible Growth, environmentalists.

Who's against it? Growth-minded investors, developers, pro-business types, theorists who claim a super majority would be "undemocratic."

What's at stake? Proponents claim the measure would force commissioners to reach a stronger consensus before crucial land-use decisions are made, giving worried neighbors more of a say as well. Critics say the measure is not only bad for business, but undemocratic in that it deliberately strips power from current and future pro-development commissioners. This all came to a head last week, when a group of landowners filed suit against the amendment in hopes of getting it thrown off the ballot for what they consider misleading language. In turn, super majority advocates, including County Commissioner Joe Barbetta, say legal action "just shows that they're afraid."

Proposed City of Sarasota Bond Question

ED SMITH SPORTS STADIUM GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND REFERENDUM

What is it? The city's pledge of up to $16 million toward fixing up Ed Smith, the spring training home of the Cincinnati Reds and home to several other events.

Who's for it? Baseball fans, people who like hot dogs and those tasty peanuts.

Who's against it? Advocates of putting hard-earned city dough toward other things, a myopic minority who think dilapidated Ed Smith looks fine as is, people who are tired of talking about Ed Smith.

What's at stake? The debate rages on -- and renovation plans for Sarasota's premier baseball stadium keep changing. Here's the latest: Last year, tourist-tax funding for a updated venue -- ADA-compliant seating for disabled spectators, an outdoor park, ticket booths where there were once only trailers, etc. -- was supposed to come from various sources: the city, the Reds, the state. But the largest contribution, $21.6 million, was to come from Sarasota County. When budget cuts became an issue last August, however, county commissioners announced they'd be holding back on their initial offer, saying they wanted a better sense of how badly Sarasotans wanted a revamped stadium. And what better litmus test than the upcoming elections? Results in favor of Ed Smith investments could be what it takes to get the county involved again. But then, $16 million is a lot of cash -- cash that some say would be better spent elsewhere.

Proposed City of Sarasota Charter Amendments

INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING (IRV) AMENDMENT

What is it? A new voting strategy during citywide commission elections which would eliminate the need for a second, runoff election between two finalists.

Who's for it? Depressed campaigners suffering a lower turnout in follow-up elections, those who want a faster and more accurate elections process.

Who's against it? People who are confused enough by the elections process as it is, constituents who worry about introducing any more variables in our electorally challenged district.

What's at stake? Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is, according to some, a chance for the city to rectify old glitches in the voting process and limit the wait for a winner. For an example, consider last February's City Commission races: In District Two, Mary Anne Servian and Dick Clapp squared off for a second round -- almost a month after the initial election. Through added technology, IRV would enable voters to rank their candidates in order of preference, eliminating the need for that second race. And when you consider how much each voting round runs the city -- $1,400 a precinct, according to city clerk Billy Robinson -- the savings may be worth the potential confusion of having to rank candidates.

ALTERNATE MINIMUM WAGE AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA

What is it? The initiative would establish a higher minimum wage for companies with 50 or more employees that receive at least $100,000 in subsidies from the city. The new minimum would correspond to the wage you need to earn to meet the federal poverty level for a family of four -- currently around $9.62 an hour.

Who's for it? Progressive organizations support the measure, which was spearheaded by the St. Petersburg office of Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now. The group began the petition drive after Wal-Mart expressed interest in a Newtown property that required environmental cleanup, for which it would receive money from the city. Supporters argue that Sarasota should not be subsidizing businesses that pay below the poverty level.

Who's against it? Businesses may be naturally suspicious of government-mandated higher wages, but so far no real organized opposition has emerged. And with Wal-Mart's decision to abandon its Newtown plans, the ballot item does not immediately affect any upcoming developments.

What's at stake? While the amendment may seem moot now that Wal-Mart has bowed out, it's an opportunity for the city to gain more control over how companies spend tax dollars.

SUPER MAJORITY VOTE FOR CERTAIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS

What it is? Similar to the county's voting amendment item but on a smaller geographic scale, this modification would call for a super majority of Sarasota's five commissioners before they can make land use amendments to the city's comprehensive plan.

Who's for it? Generally the same slow-growth activists, environmentalists and neighborhood preservationists as those voting for the county's super majority amendment.

Who's against it? The same interests as the ones against the county's amendment. Plus a few who believe a super majority clause might unnecessarily stymie affordable housing development in the city.

What's at stake? This hot-button issue might explain the current commission's neighborhood-friendly makeup. Earlier this year, a development proposal for District Three's School Avenue enraged Kelly Kirschner enough to make the super majority vote a key talking point on his campaign trail. Now at City Hall, he's championing the cause further. Detractors, however, believe that a municipal super majority would make it harder for commissioners to negotiate with developers for affordable housing. It would certainly make it harder to leverage easy density bonuses in exchange for cheaper units.

TWO HUNDRED DOLLAR MAXIMUM CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT AMENDMENT

What is it? If passed, this initiative would cap contributions made to City Commission candidates at $200 but would not affect money donated to either political action committees or political parties.

Who's for it? A charter review committee that met last year recommended the move, which would bring the city in line with current county restrictions and help insulate candidates from escalating campaign costs. The previous City Commission balked at the committee's recommendation, but Kirschner raised the issue at his very first commission meeting. Activist groups support the measure as a way to ensure that campaigns aren't totally dominated by cash.

Who's against it? Developers, and other big-money entities in particular, are unlikely to support the measure because it lessens their sway over both candidates and voters. At the national level, those that argue against strict campaign finance laws often say new rules would be an infringement of freedom of speech.

What's at stake? While federal campaign finance reform clearly hasn't done much to limit the influence of big-money elements or to improve our public discourse, proponents of the amendment say that reform can work on a modest, local level, where it is still possible for candidates to connect directly with voters instead of relying on costly advertising.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS RESTRICTED TO NATURAL PERSONS ONLY AMENDMENT

What is it? Allows contributions to City Commission campaigns only to be made by citizens, not by businesses.

Who's for it? Like the $200 cap, this initiative is the result of a push by Vice Mayor Kirschner. Its intent is to put an end to businesses or families creating shell corporations as a way to bundle a series of maximum contributions.

Who's against it? Obviously, businesses aren't crazy about losing the right to donate to the candidates of their choice.

What's at stake? Supporters say the measure -- combined with the $200 limit -- would be a way to guarantee that citizens' voices are heard most loudly; detractors suggest it hampers the ability of candidates to campaign.

HAND DELIVERY OF FINAL TREASURER'S REPORT AMENDMENT

What is it? The amendment would require candidates to have their final financial reports delivered by hand by 5 p.m. six days before election day. According to the current rules, the candidates only have to have their statements in the mail the Friday before election day.

Who's for it? The idea for the move came after a handful of City Commission candidates mailed in their reports postmarked from places outside of Florida, which guaranteed that the statements would not arrive before election day. This meant that voters were voting for or against candidates without any sense who was donating what in the final stages of the campaign. Yet another initiative pushed by Kirschner, this move would increase transparency by allowing the public and the media to get crucial details right before election day.

Who's against it? No real opposition has emerged. Candidates may have abused the current system, but it's unlikely they would come out publicly against a measure that would let voters be better informed.

What's at stake? The initiative sounds innocuous, a technical formality, but it would give voters more knowledge when it matters most.

AMENDMENT TO CHANGE DATES TO ALLOW FOR COUNTING OF PROVISIONAL BALLOTS

What is it? Sarasota has had the same election ordinances for thirty years. Aside from a few hiccups, *cough*, they've worked fine. In 2001, though, the state legislature introduced provisional ballots -- which allow people to vote even if they can't prove their eligibility -- and gave those voters until two days after the election to come up with the goods. That's great, except that the city charter requires the Tuesday election to be certified by the commission on Wednesday. Oops. This ballot measure changes that certification deadline to Friday.

Who's for it? The entire law-breaking city of Sarasota, especially City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, who (as of now) is always a day late with the election results.

Who's against it? People who hate Billy Robinson.

AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CITY MANAGER TO EXERCISE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT POWERS AS PROVIDED BY ORDINANCE

What is it? When disaster strikes, who will answer the call? Currently, nobody, until the City Commission convenes a special session to grant emergency powers to the city manager. This measure will alter the charter to expand the city manager's powers in case of emergency, without that extra meeting.

Who's for it? Anyone who wants to live under the iron fist of Commissar Bartolotta (or who just wants faster storm response).

Who's against it? Those who don't want clear roads and clean drinking water after a hurricane.

What's at stake? Exactly what the "powers" will be has yet to be determined; the commission will have to pass an ordinance specifying that after this election. We're guessing invisibility and super-speed will be in there.

AMENDMENT RE: AUTHORITY AND APPOINTMENT OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEES AND PROCEDURES AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT

What is it? Your classic municipal housekeeping measure: an amendment that would force the city to review its charter at least once a decade via a commission-appointed committee.

Who's for it? Reasonable types who want the keep the charter current and relevant.

Who's against it? Detail-phobes and weirdos who believe dusting off the city charter more regularly would be a waste of time.

What's at stake? When a ten-person committee was appointed by the City Commission to examine certain clauses in the city charter last fall, they couldn't help but notice other inconsistencies in the charter. "When was the last time you guys looked at this thing?" they asked the commission, incredulously. Um, 1995. This measure would effectively entail looking at the charter as a whole, and more frequently. For the charter review board, each commissioner would likely select two people (citizens, lawyers, etc.) to bring loopholes or insufficiencies to the city's attention.

 

Editor's note: This story has been modified to reflect a correction. Tom Lyons was not against the penny tax, but against the way it was promoted, which he believes was misleading.