Fix it now

Tampa officials have discovered something that landlords (at least in this city) have known for years: For a high-end restaurant space to succeed, it has to serve beer and wine. For years, the Iorio administration has increased the costs of these R(restaurant) wet zonings — restricting locations, adding fees, documentation requirements and cost to landlords.

But when the city is landlord to a restaurant, things look a little different.

The location is Ballast Point Park tucked below Gandy Boulevard at the end of the Bayshore. The restaurant is the Taste of Boston. The city owns the park and pier where the restaurant is located, so it is the landlord in this case. And because the city likes to have its commercial spaces rented out, as most landlords do, it filed for a rezoning and a wet zoning that would allow Taste of Boston to serve a taste or two of beer and wine.

What makes this so funny is not the fact that the city was asking for a rezoning, nor the fact that while the city claims it is so short on tax revenue that it has to cut services but that the city paid the rezoning application fees out of its own pockets — actually, that is, out of our pockets.

So the Parks and Recreation Department went before City Council recently and explained how selling beer and wine in the middle of a park right next to a brand-new $200,000 playground renovation for kids was a good idea, and that the administration supported the sales of alcohol because their sale had no negative impact on children. Council members were so outraged they asked if the upper levels of the administration (i.e. the mayor) knew the parks and recreation position. The answer? A resounding yes. Council members voted the application down.

So Tampa, known for hosting the most strip clubs per capita in the nation, where we promote cigar smoking because it is our history, now has a new credit: shill for the liquor industry. And what is worse, it was done with taxpayer money.

The city, which is often so quick to tell landlords how to run their businesses, once again does not like it when the rules are applied to itself. Even worse, while complaining about revenue shortfalls and offering no more tax relief then what is state mandated, city officials have the money to pay lawyers for rezoning applications. I hope the city now realizes the detriment it has caused to property owners and small restaurants and will re-examine its policies.

Gay marriages can commence in Cali in 30 days after that state’s highest court strikes down two laws limiting marriage to being the union of one man and one woman. NYT coverage here.

The opponents of Amendment 2, aimed at discriminating against gay couples who want to share the same marrriage/partnership benefits as straight couples, have been saying it for a long time, and now the Michigan Supreme Court agrees: a law there aimed at gay marriage has been applied to strip domestic partnership benefits already granted to same-sex couples.

This from Florida Red and Blue, one of two main groups fighting the November ballot initiative:

Dear SayNo2 Supporter:

It’s not often acceptable to say, “We told you so.”
But on occasion, nothing quite says it better.
Just hours ago, the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that that state’s amendment banning ‘gay marriage’ also prohibits offering benefits to unmarried employees.
This is the exact scenario we’ve been talking about from the start – Amendment 2 could be used to strip existing benefits from Floridians.
We’ve said it, the Florida Legislature’s independent analysis says it and, today, the Michigan Supreme Court confirmed it – broadly worded amendments sold to ban ‘gay-marriage’ will actually take away benefits from everyone.
When we’ve talked about what Amendment 2 can do, the sponsors have been quick to deny it.
In fact, right now, their website says: “our amendment will not invalidate benefits granted from domestic partnerships or any other source.”
Sure. Tell us another one.
Want to hear the kicker?
According to today’s Michigan ruling the Justices on the losing side, wrote, “circumstances surrounding the election suggest Michigan voters didn’t intend to take away people’s benefits.”
And the Associated Press reported today that legal arguments were made in which, “…the ballot committee that sponsored Proposal 2 “consistently and repeatedly” assured voters that the initiative was only about protecting marriage.”
Remember, our opponents – the sponsors of Amendment 2 – claim that their amendment “will not invalidate benefits granted from domestic partnerships or any other source.”
But there’s just no argument any more.

The court’s opinion came in National Pride at Work Inc. v. Governor of Michigan.

(An important aside: A reading of the opinion in the case finds the decision narrowly tailored to prohibit granting same-sex domestic partnership benefits for public employees. It is not clear from the case whether private company benefits would similarly be prohibited, or if domestic partnership benefits for straight non-married couples would similarly be banned, and, of course, the ruling is not binding on Florida courts.)

Florida Red and Blue is dead on point about the “reassurance” that Florida’s Amendment 2 supporters make about their amendment not taking away partnership benefits. Here is what the Michigan court said about that:

Plaintiffs and the dissent argue that Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, an organization responsible for placing the marriage amendment on the 2004 ballot and a primary supporter of this initiative during the ensuing campaign, published a brochure that indicated that the proposal would not preclude public employers from offering health-insurance benefits to their employees’ domestic partners. However, such extrinsic evidence can hardly be used to contradict the unambiguous language of the constitution.

In fact, the Yes2Marriage group’s language and tack is eerily similar to that used in Michigan anti-gay marriage brochures:

Marriage is a union between a husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life. This has to do with family, children and the way people are. It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is—for families today and future generations.

When it comes to the law, it is about what the people vote on, not what supporters promise, as the Michigan court reinforced in a footnote to its decision:

 … [I]t should bear little repeating that the people ultimately did not cast their votes to approve or disapprove counsel’s, or any other person’s, statements concerning the amendment; they voted to approve or disapprove the language of the amendment itself.

(photo from 2007 St. Pete Pride Parade by Tom Stovall) 

Our guest blogger Spencer Kass is a regular attendee at Tampa City Council and other city government meetings and is a real estate broker in West Tampa. He files his latest report:

For the past few months I have watched as neighborhood groups complained to the Tampa City Council about repeat offenders of the city’s codes and ordinances. The story told to Council often repeats itself: a violation is found, the offender is given a chance to fix it, they do fix it and then they violate the same ordinance a few weeks later. The response from neighborhoods is that the business is just using a legal trick, a technical maneuver that is allowing someone to do something which is clearly not the intent of the law, that there is no honor in the business owners’ actions.

And they are correct.

Then an unusual situation occurred. Tampa officials on April 8 went before their own Variance Review Board, which has the power to bend development rules if it is in the public interest. The city sought a permit to remove 153 trees, and I objected. The board quickly ruled in favor of the city and I was not able to appeal because of a technical requirement that you must own land within 250 feet of the location in question in order to have standing to complain.

The situation is even more egregious when you discover that the trees are being killed to make way for a place that is supposed to highlight beauty and truth and aesthetics in our community: the new Tampa Museum of Arts on the riverfront in downtown.

When I explained this situation to a friend of mine, he said, “Well, the city did not technically break any laws, did they?” While he was technically correct, his question leads to a more basic one: Just because you can do something wrong does it mean you should?

In this instance, the City and variance board members did not use their standard criteria for review. Board members did not give the city the hassle they usually give to a private landowner. They did not ask their usual questions about the well being of the citizenry. They instead focused on the fact that they wanted a new museum and were not going to let anything stand in its way.

By using criteria that was different for the city than everyone else was wrong, and although the city can get its permit because no one can object, the question remains: Is this the right thing to do? The best way to think of this is: Would the variance board have given the variance if this was an adult book store that wanted to go in and remove trees? Would you want them to grant such a variance.

So the city got away with skirting the law, placed the tree ordinance in permanent jeopardy, and brought into question the entire variance process. And for what? To get something built quickly? As fair-minded individuals, if we believe that there is a formulation to allow for the removal of trees then why not change the code to reflect that position? Why debase ourselves to twisting the law to merely allow us to get away with something?

It is only by holding ourselves to the highest standards that we can expect others to do the same. We certainly cannot expect individuals to act in a more honorable fashion then our own elected city officials. The do-as-I say-not-as-I-do mentality of days gone by is past. I hope a reasonable dialog with all residents emerges as a result of this situation, one in which we can openly discuss the priorities in our community and creating answers so we can finally fix it now.

In the latest green news, Tampa Congresswoman Kathy Castor is marking Earth Day by filing a bill long sought — and long denied — by the Florida delegation and most Democrats: a permanent ban on offshore drilling around the state’s Gulf coast.

Initial media reaction is that the bill has a tough road ahead of it, caught up in the Democratic leadership’s lack of desire to revisit the contentious issue after a 2006 compromise that resulted in a temporary ban for Florida until 2022. Caster has led the fight in recent days against an effort to open Florida offshore drilling grounds for natural gas exploration, a Republican-led effort that had hoped to take advantage of public dismay with rising energy prices.

From her office comes these quotes from the Democrat:

“It is ridiculous, not just ironic that they are trying to allow drilling as part of a beach water-quality bill. If they go as far as to introduce an oil drilling amendment in a beach water-quality bill, I don’t know what else they wouldn’t do,” said Castor.

“Drilling off of our beautiful beaches is the energy policy of the past,” said Castor. “If President Bush and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly wanted to address high oil prices, they should have voted with the Democratic majority to take the huge tax breaks away from the big oil companies at a time that they are making record profits. Instead of these huge tax breaks for big oil the New Democratic Congress wants to invest those dollars in alternative energy and transportation opportunities to break our addiction.”

“We are fighting for a new direction on energy policy and renewable sources of energy. We value our natural environment, and we value the public health of our communities,” Castor continued. “Tomorrow, we will celebrate the 38th Earth Day, which gives us an opportunity to focus on the key challenges facing us in preserving our planet.”

“This year’s Earth Day coincides with a deepening economic crisis in America. That’s why the New Direction Congress has begun to address the global warming crisis and to spur a cleaner, greener, and more prosperous economy for the American people,” said Castor. “We have begun to reverse the failed energy policies of the past, committing instead to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting renewable energy for the future. By focusing on rapidly expanding the production of clean, alternative energy and reducing our use of oil, we can both reduce global warming and create green jobs.”

“More can and must be done to deal with these challenges facing us in preserving our planet and strengthening our economy,” Castor concluded. “We shouldn’t be endangering Florida’s natural environment and vital tourism economy for 25 days worth of oil and 35 days worth of natural gas, which is all that is estimated to be produced by the area opened up under the compromise of 2006.”

Here’s a good piece by the League of Conservation voters on Dubya’s obsession with fouling our tourist beaches.

(Photo by Enrico Strocchi) 

Creative Loafing is about to come out with 100 green technologies you can use now to go green. However, while green technology may be all the rage, local governments don’t really want you using green technologies. The reason is simple: governments like to spend money, and one of the local government’s largest sources of income is taxes on utilities. Unknown to most residents is that every time you buy a gallon of gas, turn on a light, or flush a toilet, the government charges you a utility tax, and the more you use, the more revenue goverment collects in utility taxes.

For example, Tampa took in nearly $11 million in gas tax, $26 million electric taxes, and $3.4 million in water taxes, for a total of more than $40 million for fiscal year 2007. What makes matters even worse is that these taxes are based upon price, so the more you pay at the pump or the more you pay to TECO, the more revenue the City collects. This places the City in the awkward position of wanting utilities to charge residents as much as possible so City revenues grow in step.

The unfortunate consequences of this scenario are that it creates a perverse reward system for government to want its taxpayers to pay more and more for utilities, while at the same time it discourages residents from adopting green technology. The government is the largest consumer of energy in the United States. If there was a large demand from federal, state and local governments for green technologies more and more companies would produce these products, ultimately driving down price and making them more available and affordable to the ordinary consumer.

Ultimately what we end up with is a bunch of politicians who talk up green technology but ultimately don’t implement any of the technologies, or they use these technologies in such a limited way that the demand for the products is negligible because of cost. For example, if Tampa replaced all of its street lights with LED street lights, the city would save close to $6 million a year. That is $6 million it would not have to collect in taxes, not to mention the environmental benefits the upgrades would produce. Did you know that Tampa is building a new parks and recreation building that won’t be LEED-certified? If any building was going to be environmentally friendly, don’t you would think it would be the parks building? Did you know that Tampa has not replaced any of it existing office lighting systems with LED bulbs?

So if you believe in green technology you should call or write to your local government and demand that they adopt green technology. You should call your state legislature and tell them that they should exclude green improvements from property taxes and tell them to FIX IT NOW.

All of the green technologies I mention above don’t cost jobs; they could be funded from the capital improvement budget (which is not property tax revenue) and would ultimately save the city millions of dollars a year that could be given back to the taxpayers.

For the record energy-wise, because I am often asked, I drive a Mini Cooper (I get about 25 miles to the gallon) and my office uses high-efficiency lighting. On most days you don’t have to put on a single light in our offices because our window design allows sufficient light into the office during the day. The coatings on our windows allow light to enter but does not heat the office. In addition, we use programmable thermostats and an on-demand electric hot water system for our restroom. Each of these systems was installed to make our office energy efficient and results in thousands of dollars of savings a year. So whether you believe in saving the planet or just saving money, green technology can work for you.

Bonus Tracks: download the city’s utility tax revenue and local option gas tax fund documents. (in Adobe Acrobat .pdf files)

The Florida Legislature might have a long way to go in protecting gay rights, but recent legislative decisions indicate that they might be taking a step in the right direction.

Last Tuesday, the Florida Senate Commerce Committee approved a Civil Rights bill that would ban anti-gay discrimination in employment and housing statewide by 7-1. The bill will now be reviewed by the Senate Community Affairs Committee.

The Civil Rights bill, sponsored by Sen. Ted Deutch, is similar to a bill sponsored by Rep. Kelly Skidmore, which is currently making its way through the House. While both bills would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, the House bill bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity, as well.

Gov. Charlie Crist has yet to comment on whether or not he would approve the bill.

Currently, Florida protects residents from employment and housing discrimination via the Florida Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act, which both ban discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap or marital status, but omit protections based on sexual orientation.

Also under legislative review is the Safe Schools anti-bullying bill, sponsored by Rep. Nick Thompson, which was heard on Tuesday by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. It would protect all students from sexual, racial, and religious harassment, but makes no mention of bullying based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Despite this omission, local activists view the bill as a step in the right direction.

“You don’t want to kill the bill. It may not pass as is, but it is a start. You don’t want to push too hard to kill what is the start of a good bill,” said Florida ACLU legislative director of Larry Spalding.

The city of Tampa, which has a mixed record (at best) on going green, has named a “Green Officer” for the municipal government, according to a City Hall news release today:

Mayor Pam Iorio has designated Thom Snelling, the current Deputy Director for Growth Management and Development Services, as the City’s Green Officer.  Snelling will perform these new duties in addition to his duties as Deputy Director.

His primary responsibility in this role will be to ensure the City of Tampa reaches its goal to become a Certified Florida Green Local Government by October of 2010 and to coordinate programs that will help the City fulfill its commitment to the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement.  As part of his duties, Snelling will work continually to advance the use of green building techniques and sustainable development practices.

Roberta Fernandez of Planet Partnership, an organization that works to mobilize communities to take action in reducing carbon footprints, spoke about methods both big and small to reduce our own impact on the environment.She began by saying that while natural variations in weather patterns have always been a part of the Earth’s history, most scientific research supports the theory that the extreme weather we’ve seen in recent years is a result of human negligence.

She supported this by citing some shocking statistics — for example, that two-thirds of China’s glaciers may be melted by 2060, that the Alps could be ice-free by 2050, and that Greenland lost 220 cubic kilometers of ice in 2005, the equivalent of billions of gallons of water.

These and other issues, she said, will be the most devastating for developing countries, which do not have the economic capacity to survive issues like the loss of potable water supply or the flooding of coastal homes.

Fernandez emphasized the importance of environmental consciousness in the business world.

“Eighty percent of graduating college students say that working for an environmentally responsible company is important to them,” she said. It’s not only employees who seek out green companies, Fernandez says, but also vendors and consumers.

“Lead by example,” Fernandez urged. “Look at Wal-Mart. They’ve published vendor guidelines that give suppliers 12 months to comply with their environmental standards, or they say ‘okay, you’re off our vendor list.’ But don’t think that just because your business isn’t as big as Wal-Mart means that the steps you take aren’t making a positive impact. “

Fernandez said that reducing the effects of climate change and preventing future damage “begins with the realization that it starts with me, not that guy over there … take a look at your consumption and reduce it in every way that you can.”

(Bonus track: download Fernandez’s “The Little Book of ‘Convenient’ Things You Can Do To Stop Global Warming” in .pdf here.)

Editor’s note:  CL intern and USF journalism student Franki Weddington files from the USF Going Green Expo:

My first seminar of the day is “Biodiesel and Biofuels,” presented by Michael Lokey of Lokey Trucks. If you’re surprised to hear that a lecture on environmentally-friendly fuels is being presented by someone who sells gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs, join the club.

While most of the audience of about 40 people seem to be at least somewhat familiar with the concept of homemade biodiesel, I don’t even know how a diesel engine works, much less how to create fuel for it.

Fortunately for me, Lokey begins the discussion by briefly explaining the difference between traditional gasoline-powered internal combustion engines and diesel engines, which use compression and don’t require a spark plug. He says that a diesel engine is “basically just like a bicycle.” Sure it is.

Instead of using diesel fuel, Lokey says, a more environmentally friendly option is using vegetable oil or biodiesel to run your car. (A Dodge truck biofuel converter is shown at right.) Among their advantages is that they clean and lubricate your engine, can be stored safely for more than a year and reduce carbon emissions. Also, it keeps otherwise wasted veggie oil out of our sewer systems, which Lokey says currently costs the city of Tampa $300,000 annually.

Lokey explains that engines that run on straight vegetable oil (or “svo’s” as they’re called in the industry) will never become a viable option for mainstream consumption but will remain popular in the realm the environmentallyaware individual.

This is because unaltered veggie oil solidifies if not kept at the proper temperature, which is difficult in most environments and often requires two engines to be feasible. The factory engine houses the majority of the oil, which can be used once the engine is running and has heated it to a usable temperature, and another that uses the car’s coolant (which, apparently, is actually quite warm) to heat the oil while the car is turned off.

For most people, Lokey says, biodiesel, which is basically just veggie oil that has been chemically or physically altered to remain at a usable viscosity, is a more practical option.

While this may seem like an arduous task, Lokey says that “if you can check the pH balance in your pool and wash a load of laundry successfully, you’re probably overqualified” for making your own biodiesel, because essentially the only requirement is adding chemicals that stabilize the veggie oil.

Toward the end of the seminar, someone finally asks the question that we’ve all undoubtedly been thinking: “Don’t you own a truck dealership? Are your trucks all run on biodiesel?”

Lokey looks as though he’s gotten this question more than once. “For a small sum tacked on to each monthly car payment, we can convert the trucks to run on biodiesel. That’s with approved credit, of course.”