The red signs have been hard to miss. From front lawns to storefronts to mayoral candidate stump speeches, “Stop the Lens” has become the moniker of disapproval for the current contracted design for the new St. Petersburg Pier. The city has already invested $3 million on the design that is to replace the current structure by 2014. 

Once a staunch supporter of the Lens, the Chamber has seemingly seen the writing on the wall and is moving to keep the waterfront from going into limbo while also becoming the single most important political platform among potential mayoral candidates.

In a memo sent yesterday to Mayor Bill Foster and the St. Pete City Council, the Chamber urges that the Council “cancel the Lens contract immediately.” The Chamber states that St. Pete is now a city divided over this issue, whereas the Pier should “unite our city and guide us as we move forward.”

The Chamber requests that the City Council create a new process for a unified community with four steps:

1. ”Cancel the Lens contract immediately.” The Chamber says that this is what petitioners have called for in the referendum against the Lens design.
2. The Chamber urges the Council to start the process of approving a new design immediately, expressing concern for a “blighted waterfront” if we allow the Pier to remain in disrepair. The Chamber suggests that the city conserve all funds allocated for the project until this step is complete.
3. Although the Chamber strongly suggests the city cancel the Lens contract, they do suggest that the Lens remain a finalist in the next competition. “After all, we’ve spent $3 million on a sound design with many supporters.”
4. Allow the citizens of St. Pete to vote on a number of design choices for the Pier.

“Knowing all have been heard, all have had the vote and at the end we have something to build.”

The Chamber reiterated that the current Pier approach and structure remain in disrepair. Estimates to refurbish both have come in as high as $80 million, far more than the $50 million dollar budget allotted for the project.

While most in favor of “Stopping the Lens” have expressed dissatisfaction with the design, supporters have maintained that the public has simply not been educated on key items such as amenities, activities and features. That has allowed misrepresentative statements about the project, such as describing it as “a sidewalk to nowhere,” to perpetuate. 

The memo goes on to say that “this proposal allows for a shared victory for all. It’s been said that this city ‘can do better’…this proposal accepts that challenge. It does so in an expedited manner which should be important to everyone.”

Do you think we should "Stop" now or let it go to vote?