Misplaced Civil Unrest

Last night, the St. Petersburg City Council voted to turn over a section of public sidewalk to the owners of BayWalk. This was a revote from a meeting two weeks ago where the motion failed. The sidewalk in question has been used for years as the unofficial protest location for the indignant masses of St. Petersburg. Their causes varied from anti-Iraq war to anti-poverty to African-American civil rights and beyond.

BayWalk is a retail/entertainment area built a decade ago that supposedly ushered in the revitalization of St. Pete's downtown. It has fallen on tough times the last few years, and tenancy is at about 30%. The existing tenants, including a few restaurants, stores, and a movie theater, have claimed that the protests interrupt business and bring negative attention to the development. That is an entirely reasonable assertion. By ceding the right of way to BayWalk, protesters may now be prohibited from demonstrating on private property.

I am not an advocate of limiting free speech in any way, nor of the criminalization of protesting. However, repeated and habitual protesting in one select location that punitively damages the ability of private enterprises to conduct business is completely reprehensible. By definition, protests should take place at an area appropriate to their grievances: City Hall, public parks, the National Mall in DC, etc. According to precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lloyd Corp v. Tanner 407 U.S. 551 (1972), protesting may not take place on private property that has "no relation to any purpose for which the center was built and being used."

The City Council was right to transfer the public right of way to BayWalk in order to prevent unmerited protesting. If a group wishes to protest a BayWalk restaurant's use of tomatoes grown by farmers who operate under unjust migrant labor practices, they have that right. They do not have the right to protest against abortion or war or any other cause unrelated to BayWalk that disrupts their business.

The real icing on the cake of this issue was the egregious display of misplaced civil unrest at the Council meeting last night. Following the City Council's vote, fanatical free speech advocates marched out in objection to the decision. A heated discourse then took place between two men on opposite sides of the debate, which led to a physical altercation. It should be noted that one of these men was the brother of a Councilman who voted in favor of the motion.

Local politics is nasty, period. Citizens get more enraged, rude, and out-of-line over local issues than they ever do for national issues. Don't believe me? Just attend a few city or county government meetings. This type of behavior is inappropriate and is disrespectful to every person seeking a legitimate discussion of the issues at hand. I am disappointed and embarrassed for the City of St. Petersburg for the manner in which this meeting digressed. All Americans should hold themselves to a higher standard of civilized political discourse.

(I should have prefaced this by stating that I used to work for the Sembler Company, the developer of BayWalk. However, Sembler sold BayWalk to another owner in September 2008 and therefore has not been involved in this current debate.)

Common Since: The St. Petersburg City Council was right to transfer public sidewalk space to BayWalk in an effort to impede the spiraling decline of a development critical to the success of their downtown. Fanatical free speech activists should start conducting themselves with dignity and move their assorted protests to the steps of City Hall or other public venues. Better yet, they should cease the desire to gripe about everything they don't like and involve themselves in constructive solutions.