One of five proposed amendments to the city of Anna Maria’s charter will not make it to a ballot.
Mayor Dan Murphy announced in a June 24 email to city commissioners that he vetoed a proposed charter amendment that would have added a mission statement about the protection of municipal home rule.
The amendment would have been to Sec. 1.02 of Article I, Creation and Powers, adding language that, “The city of Anna Maria will take steps to see that the single-family detached residential character and home rule of the city is maintained and protected …”
The charter review committee completed its quinquennial review in March and unanimously recommended the amendment for commission approval.
However, the proposed amendment received less love from the commissioners, where the ordinance was approved for ballot inclusion on a 3-2 vote in June.
Commissioners Jonathan Crane and Mark Short voted “no,” citing concerns about the nature and necessity of the amendment.
Murphy explained his reasoning for vetoing the proposed amendment in his June 24 email.
He wrote that the amendment was unnecessary, could not be effectively enforced, could potentially harm the city and should instead be addressed in the city’s comprehensive plan.
Murphy told The Islander June 28 that the potential risks of putting the ordinance on a ballot outweighed its possible benefits since, if it failed, it would give the state ammunition in its efforts to consolidate the three island cities.
“Just the mere possibility of putting this amendment on the ballot, then having someone who has enough money to put together a misinformation campaign and have it turned down, would really be a tremendous backfire for the city,” Murphy said. “It’s not something to gamble. And I’m not the midnight gambler.”
Crane, the proposed amendment’s most vocal opponent, reiterated his belief that it was an “aspirational” item that did not belong in the city charter during a June 28 interview with The Islander.
The city charter is akin to a municipal constitution and establishes city limits, government structure, election procedure and more.
Crane said he supports efforts to perverse the city’s home rule and residential character but added that such language should be established elsewhere.
“Charters are much more nuts and bolts,” Crane said. “There’s nothing wrong with being aspirational. Just not in a charter.”
“I’m one of those guys who likes things to be done right, and this wasn’t doing it right,” he added.
On the other hand, Commissioner Charlie Salem, the proposed amendment’s most vocal supporter on the dais, told The Islander June 27 that he was “very disappointed” in Murphy’s veto.
Regardless, Salem added that he hoped the city would pursue other ways to preserve its residential character, such as a suggestion from Short to increase taxable value exemptions for elderly property owners in the municipality.
“Things like that might help people afford to stay here longer,” he said.
Christopher Arendt, who chaired this year’s CRC, told The Islander June 28 that he was hopeful for the amendment but had less confidence in it than the other proposals.
He said he understood most of Murphy’s concerns with the proposed amendment and acknowledged it was an aspirational item that lacked teeth.
“I’m actually very happy and proud of the fact that the good work that our CRC did end up in four items that are going to be put to the vote of the people,” Arendt added.
The surviving four proposed charter amendments will be included on the ballot for the Nov. 5 general election and decided by the electorate.