Save The Garden (the citizen advocacy group) reported to City Council that more than 10,000 people have signed a proposed Charter amendment requiring voter approval for certain City land transfers and street vacations. Why will the Council not wait and allow residents to complete that process before permanently closing these public rights-of-way?

Florida law allows voters to propose a city Charter amendment through a petition signed by at least 10% of the registered voters from the last city election. Fla. Stat. § 166.031(1) (2026).

Who owns the land underneath Laura Street, Grove Street, and the alley today? The City's own Real Estate Coordinator wrote in the pre-vote Internal Review record that Myrtle Development "does not own all abutting land" and recommended the application be placed on hold or denied until it did. Has that ownership gap been resolved? Who will receive each section after the vacation, and will the City publish a map showing current and future owners before the final vote? (City of Clearwater Internal Review record, VAC2026-08; Fla. Stat. §95.361.)

If Clearwater owns any of the land underneath the streets or alley, Charter §2.01(d)(5)(ii) requires that surplus real property be sold "to the party submitting the highest competitive bid above the appraised value." What is the independently appraised value, and how much will Myrtle Development pay? The City used this exact process for Garden Avenue — hiring an MAI-certified appraiser and setting the price at full appraised value, based on its own conclusion that it held fee title "by statute." Has a comparable appraisal been obtained for Grove Street, Laura Street, and the alley? Separately, because these parcels also sit inside the Downtown CRA, Fla. Stat. §163.380(2) requires an explicit public-interest finding and a duly noticed public hearing if the price comes in below that appraisal. If the City believes no payment is required at all here, will it provide a written legal explanation before the final vote?

(Clearwater, Fla., Charter §2.01(d)(5)(ii); Fla. Stat. §163.380(2).)

City staff warned that closing Laura Street could remove free parking, push cars into nearby neighborhoods, reduce the number of traffic routes, and affect access to the Station Square garage and special events. Staff also identified a parking garage as an alternative. Why not keep Laura Street open and require structured parking?

(City of Clearwater, 2026d.)

City staff across at least three departments told Council in writing, before the vote, that this vacation conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Community Development Code, and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, and that it creates exactly the "superblock" those plans say to avoid. Staff also identified Laura Street as the last remaining railroad crossing between Cleveland and Drew Streets. Why did Council approve the vacation over its own staff's written, multi-department objections, without requiring the replacement connectivity City code calls for?

(City of Clearwater Internal Review record, VAC2026-08.)

The proposed ordinance reportedly gives the developer four years to obtain a certificate of occupancy. Florida courts have held that a city may condition a street vacation on the developer's promised project actually being built, and that the whole vacation can fail if it isn't - City of Temple Terrace v. Tozier, 903 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Does Ordinance 9908-26 include an enforceable condition and reverter along those lines? If the project is not completed, is substantially changed, or the property is sold, will the streets and alley automatically return to public control? And where, specifically, is that written into the ordinance?

(City of Temple Terrace v. Tozier, 903 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Fla. Stat. §163.380(1).)

Outside legal analysis commissioned for this campaign, the "Margolis Memorandum," written by a former Clearwater city attorney and two board-certified real estate specialists, concluded the City owns Garden Avenue in fee simple and could not give it away without following the Charter's surplus/appraisal/bid process. The city ultimately proceeded without payment after being swayed by the State Attorney General’s opinion that reached the opposite conclusion. Grove Street, Laura Street, and the alley were platted separately and haven't been through the same historical review. What fact or law makes them different? Has the City's own legal team reached any written conclusion on title to these three segments, and if so, will it be published before the final vote?

(Margolis Memorandum, 2025; Clearwater, Fla., Charter §2.01(d)(5)(ii); Fla. Stat. §163.380(1), (3)(a).)

Myrtle Development requested the street vacation on April 17. At that time, the City still owned 103 N. East Avenue. The Council did not declare the property surplus and approve its transfer to the CRA until July 16. The CRA's bidding period did not close until August 18. Who was selected to buy the property? Has a purchase agreement been approved, and has the sale closed? If not, why is the Council permanently changing the surrounding streets before the property's future owner is known?

(City of Clearwater, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c; City of Clearwater Community Redevelopment Agency, 2026.)

The City's own Real Estate Coordinator wrote in the official record that "the premise of Vacation is only valid if the Applicant owns the land that abuts ROW," that Myrtle Development does not own all abutting land, and recommended the application "be placed on hold or denied without prejudice" until it did. Has that ownership gap been resolved? If not, on what legal basis did Council approve first reading over its own staff's written recommendation?

(City of Clearwater Internal Review record, VAC2026-08.)

The City and CRA invited competing proposals for 103 N. East Avenue, but both notices described only Lots 8 through 11. The proposed street vacation would add about 3,250 square feet from Grove Street and the alley. Were all bidders told that the property could become larger? Were they given the same opportunity to include the additional land in their plans? If not, will the City reopen the bidding process so everyone is competing for the same property?

(City of Clearwater, 2026b, 2026c; City of Clearwater Community Redevelopment Agency, 2026; Fla. Stat. §163.380(3)(a).)