Palm Beach Royal Poinciana Playhouse Referendum (2010)

This local ballot measure article needs significant improvements to meet Ballotpedia's standards.

---

Not on Ballot
This measure was not put on an election ballot

The Palm Beach Royal Ponicana Playhouse Referendum was a ballot measure proposed to appear on a special election on the February 2, 2010 ballot in Palm Beach County, but was stalled in court. If enacted, the referendum would have prevented the demolition of Royal Poinciana Playhouse, a local theater.

This measure was taken off the ballot and deemed invalid by a district judge.

Second Attempt

Due to the first petition being stalled in court proceedings, the group decided to try another petition drive, this time focusing on a group of historical buildings in the city. The proposed amendment to the charter was designed to require that if any of the mentioned historical buildings were proposed to be demolished, that a city vote must first take place to see if residents agree with the demolishing. There are 264 buildings in the city that are marked as landmarks but the city council spokesman said that the playhouse would just be de-landmarked and then would not be an issue. In order for this to be on the November 2 election, 800 signatures were required.

April 10, County officials stated that the petition submitted to them did not get the required number of valid signatures, with only 744 verified.

New efforts are petitioning to get this measure on to the November 2, 2010 ballot. Another petition drive was launched to amend the town charter so that voter approval would be needed before a historical building could be removed from the landmark designation and demolished. 817 of 801 needed signatures were turned in to the clerk's office, and the city council was set to debate the issue in June.

June 3 was the first public hearing of this issue, the 'Palm Beach Civic Association hosted the meeting.

Background

A group named Preserve Palm Beach wanted the referendum passed to incorporate into the Town Charter portions of a 1979 property-use agreement that protected the Playhouse.

The Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Office stated that Preserve Palm Beach gathered enough petition signatures, 970, from the town's registered voters.

The group that organized the petition planned to use the playhouse as a regional theater. The company that owned the building at the time planned to demolish it and build a smaller theater, condominiums, and shops.

Court Case

The Town Council asked a judge to review the proposed ballot language after Town Attorney John Randolph cited vague wording that may conflict with state comprehensive planning law. The defendants listed were the Preserve Palm Beach group and founder Patrick Flynn.

At a hearing on July 30, 2009, Palm Beach Circuit Judge David Crow heard arguments from Preserve Palm Beach attorneys. They insisted that in order for the ballot language to be reviewed, some of the more than 800 voters who signed the petition must be named as defendants. Otherwise, the court's decision would not be binding to the town's electorate.

The judge ruled in favor of the city, stating that the ballot proposition was not constitutional. The group advocating the petition took the issue to the court of appeals. The judge also denied a motion that wanted to place a stay on his decision. Proponents of keeping the playhouse intact thought a stay was needed on his decision in order to ensure the city would not demolish the building, but the judge thought that if he put a stay in place he would be admitting his decision was wrong.

This issue was up for review by the town council, it got pushed back to April 21. It was hoped that the issue would have been decided in April so that the planning of the new building could continue or halted depending on the outcome. The council decided on the issue during its June 22 meeting.

The council decided to submit the petition to the courts to decide if it was constitutional instead of putting it on the ballot. The town attorney suggested to the council that the language may not be constitutionally correct. A judge heard this case before October 5th, expedited so that there still would be time for it to be voted on in November.

A further appeal made by proponents led to the court deciding to hear the case again on October 6th. Arguments were heard on the appeal of this measure. The judge ruled that he would not rehear arguments on this issue though proponents affirmed that it would again be appealed.

Opposition

The Sterling Organization, which controls the theater under a long-term lease, proposed to demolish all but the eastern facade of the playhouse and build condominiums, a restaurant, and a waterfront park at the site. The organization also proposed to build a smaller theater on the 12-acre plaza site. Councilmembers seemed to be in agreement with upgrading the site where the theater stood.

Additional reading

• Palm Beach Daily News, "Council accepts Preserve Palm Beach offer to dismiss Playhouse referendum lawsuit," June 14, 2011
• Palm Beach Daily News, "Town Council consider referendum lawsuit options," April 11, 2011
• Palm Beach Daily News, "Offer made to negotiate wording of second proposed referendum," December 15, 2010
• Palm Beach Daily News, "Preserve Palm Beach PAC focuses on parcels at landmarking referendum rehearing," October 6, 2010
• Palm Beach Daily News, "Landmarking referendum’s fate delayed; Sterling granted right to intervene," August 20, 2010
• Palm Beach Daily News, "Judge denies bid to dismiss referendum challenge; Flynn cites 'travesty'," July 15, 2010
• Defendants reviewed in Playhouse referendum

External links

• Town of Palm Beach Website (dead link)
• Sterling Organization Official Website
• Town of Palm Beach Code of Ordinances