Council votes 3-2 to conditionally vacate portion of South Garden Avenue for Scientology project, with public concerns about downtown access and oversight

Clearwater City Council on March 17 approved on first reading an ordinance that would vacate a one-block portion of South Garden Avenue between Court Street and Franklin Street to allow construction of an auditorium and entry plaza proposed by the Church of Scientology. The council approved the vacation ordinance on a 3–2 vote after prolonged public comment and debate over downtown access, historic resources and contractual safeguards.

City Manager Jennifer Poirier outlined the background of the request and the negotiated terms staff brought forward: the city holds title to the parcel by operation of law, the city received three appraisals to establish market value, and the draft purchase-and-sale agreement in staff’s packet contains provisions intended to protect public interests. Tom Mahoney of Public Works summarized technical points, including retention of utility easements to protect city infrastructure until relocation or confirmed abandonment.

Public comment ran more than an hour. Opponents warned that vacating Garden Avenue would remove a publicly accessible route to downtown and said the Church of Scientology has not fulfilled earlier public promises about downtown activation. Speakers raising those objections included Mark Bunker, who urged the council to “hold off on selling the street until [the buyer] comes through with everything he promised,” and Barbara Sorey Love of the Clearwater African American Foundation, who asked the council to consider the area’s African American history before approving a sale.

Supporters and other commentators emphasized potential economic benefits and community contributions from the church. Several speakers said the property owner’s investment could catalyze downtown renovation and bring construction jobs and visitors. A business owner representing the 500 block urged cooperation and asked the council to enable development.

City Attorney David Margolis and staff described the legal and procedural framework. Under Florida law the City must advertise the property for 30 days prior to disposing of real estate within the community redevelopment area; the vacation ordinance and purchase-and-sale agreement are intended to be interdependent. Margolis said the draft contract conditions include: requiring a purchase price informed by the three appraisals; retaining easements for city utilities; a requirement that a majority of the vacated Garden Avenue be developed as publicly accessible green space; and a closing condition that the property will not transfer until the buyer obtains building permits and substantially completes the project.

Margolis described time‑limit mechanics in the draft agreement: the buyer must obtain building permits and complete (or substantially complete) construction by the contract timeline or may purchase extension periods by paying nonrefundable extension payments (the draft provides $300,000 per year as the nonrefundable extension fee). If the buyer fails to meet the agreed deadlines and does not purchase extensions, city staff described a contractual terminus date after which the city may withdraw from the transaction.

Council debate tracked a split of views. Council Member Ryan Cotton, Vice Mayor David Albritton and Council Member Michael Menino supported the ordinance, with Cotton and others citing recent activation of nearby properties and staff assurances that protections are included. Council Member Lena Teixeira and Mayor Bruce Rector voted no, citing concerns about privatizing a public right-of-way without stronger, enforceable activation commitments such as binding design agreements, hours of public access, or measurable activation metrics. Councilmember Teixeira said she would support the vacation only if paired with a negotiated activation agreement requiring "high-impact, open-access" uses and written assurances tied to performance metrics.

The council approved the vacation ordinance on first reading (Ordinance No. 980012-25 as listed on the agenda) by a 3–2 margin. The city attorney noted that if the council approves first reading tonight, the purchase-and-sale agreement will be advertised and considered at the city's April 3 meeting, and the ordinance is drafted so it will not take effect unless and until the purchase-and-sale agreement is approved as well.

The decision marks a contentious step in a long-running downtown conversation. Supporters argue the negotiated protections and escrow/timing provisions reduce risk to taxpayers and will bring private investment; opponents say the city is surrendering public access and should require more detailed, enforceable commitments on design, activation and historic acknowledgment before conveying the right-of-way.