Help us defend 7,577 petition signatures

Our answer: Florida law bans referendums on development orders, meaning official decisions “having the effect of permitting the development of land.” Giving away a public street is a different kind of decision. State law defines “development” by pointing to section 380.04. That section says that ending rights of access, easements, or other rights in land is not development. The ordinance we petitioned grants no building use, height, site plan, or design. It ends the public’s rights in a street. That is the question we have asked the court to decide.

Sources:

• Fla. Stat. 163.3167(8), the referendum ban
• Fla. Stat. 163.3164(14)-(16), the definitions
• Fla. Stat. 380.04(3)(h), what is not development
• Ordinance 9907-26, the street giveaway

Our answer: An Attorney General opinion is advice. The Florida Supreme Court has said these opinions do not bind the courts, and they have no authority over Clearwater’s City Charter. Judges decide what the law means. At the November 5 meeting, Mayor Rector and Council member Teixeira both said a question like this belongs before a judge. That is where we have taken it.

Sources:

• State v. Family Bank of Hallandale, 623 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1993), on Attorney General opinions not binding courts
• November 5, 2026 Council meeting video, item 6.14, starting at 58:56

Our answer: The City Charter says that when a referendum petition is filed, the ordinance “shall be suspended from taking effect.” We filed on September 16. We have asked the court to declare that the giveaway has been on hold since then. We have also asked it to bar the City from issuing any permit that closes the street or allows private construction in it while the giveaway is on hold.

Sources:

• City Charter, Article VI, Section 6.07
• Verified Petition, paragraph 41 and request (f)

Our answer: 10,812 people signed our petition. We filed it within the 90 days the Charter allows, with the full text of the ordinance attached to the petition throughout circulation. On October 13, the City Clerk certified 7,577 valid signatures, where 7,067 were required. The Charter excludes certain ordinances from referendum, such as budgets, taxes, and emergency ordinances. None of those exceptions apply here.

Once a petition is certified, the Charter gives the Council two choices. It can repeal the ordinance, or it can put the ordinance to the voters at an election 90 to 150 days later. On November 5, the Council voted 3 to 2 to do neither. We are asking a court to enforce the Charter and give Clearwater voters the election it promises.

Sources:

• City Charter, Section 6.02, the voters’ referendum power and its exceptions
• City Charter, Section 6.08, the Council’s two choices
• Certificate of the City Clerk, October 13, 2026
• November 5, 2026 Council meeting video, item 6.14, starting at 58:56
• Verified Petition, paragraphs 22 through 25 and 29

Our answer: Our petition names one law, Ordinance 9907-26, the street giveaway. A successful vote repeals that ordinance and nothing else. We filed the petition on September 16. The City issued the separate development order for the Church’s building on September 25, nine days later. The permission to build comes from the development order, the building permits, and the right-of-way permits, and none of those are at issue in this case. The development order never mentions the street ordinance, and it stays in place whatever happens to the street.

Sources:

• Ordinance 9907-26
• Certificate of the City Clerk, which records the September 16 filing
• Development Order, case FLS2026-04022, September 25, 2026 (Petition Exhibit B)
• Verified Petition, paragraphs 11, 12, 39, and 40

Our answer: Repealing the street giveaway leaves the Church’s development order and its own land untouched. In 2018, the City approved a hall for this same applicant on this same block with Garden Avenue kept open. The applicant’s own engineers wrote that “Garden Avenue is maintained as a 2-lane, 2-way road” and that “all areas within the right-of-way are maintained as public spaces.” The City’s approval required South Garden Avenue to be “rebuilt at full depth” before the building could open. It also required the public metered parking beside the property to match what was already there. That approval expired without being used, but it shows the hall and the public street can exist side by side.

Sources:

• 2018 application, case FLS2018-08036 (Petition Exhibit C)
• 2018 Development Order, December 28, 2018 (Petition Exhibit D)
• Verified Petition, paragraphs 14 through 18

Our answer: The City’s own staff raised concerns. In the City’s review of the request, the City Engineer wrote that “staff prefers the applicant’s previous site plan, which retained Garden Avenue.” Staff noted that the vacation “will eliminate 22 public parking spaces.” The Development Review Manager wrote that it “would remove an established street frontage type” from the downtown plan and would require a higher level of Council review.

Source: Verified Petition, paragraphs 7 and 8.

Our answer: We are asking the court to declare four things:

• the ordinance is not a development order, so state law does not block the referendum
• it is an “adopted ordinance” that voters can reconsider under the Charter
• the petition was determined sufficient on October 13
• the giveaway has been on hold since September 16

We are also asking the court to order the City to hold the special election the Charter requires.

Source: Verified Petition, requests (a) through (f).

Our answer: This campaign is about a public street and the voters’ right to decide what happens to it. 7,577 verified Clearwater voters signed the petition, and we followed every step the Charter requires. We keep our case on the law and the land, and we ask everyone who supports us to do the same.

Sources:

• Certificate of the City Clerk
• City Charter, Section 6.02

Our answer: Save The Garden is a registered political committee. Every contribution and every expense is reported publicly, as Florida law requires. The money raised pays to defend the voters’ signatures in court.

Sources:

• Save The Garden campaign finance reports

Our answer: The Charter sets the clock. The Council had 30 days after the October 13 certification to repeal the ordinance, which ran out around November 12. If it doesn’t repeal, the election must be held 90 to 150 days after certification, between about January 11 and March 12, 2027. Without a court order, that window closes and voters lose the vote the Charter guarantees. That’s why we asked the court to hear the case quickly.

Sources:

• City Charter, Section 6.08
• Verified Petition, paragraphs 28 and 50