Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Petition And Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioners and opponents clash at Boca Raton hearing over effort to overturn ordinance ahead of March 10 vote
Summary
Save Boca petitioners told the council they are collecting signatures to overturn Ordinance 57-69 to "protect the right to vote," while opponents and the mayor said the petition is redundant because a binding referendum is already scheduled. Speakers made competing claims about contract language and motives.
Members of the petition effort and other residents used the Jan. 27 special hearing to press opposing views about a new petition that would seek to overturn Ordinance 57-69.
Joe Magus, identified in the record as a Save Boca organizer, told the council: "Public land deserves a public vote" and called a repeal of Ordinance 57-69 "a subversion of democracy." Magus urged the council to adopt the resolution to prevent what he described as attempts to "take away the sole mechanism" for a public vote.
John Perlman, who said he represents petitioners, accused the city of inserting language that would have made the contract binding if the referendum did not occur. "This city lawyer had put in an extraordinary clause where... if a referendum didn't take place, the contract that they signed last week would have still been binding," Perlman said. He said petitioners plan to use the charter's process and deliver signed petitions to the city clerk within 30 days.
Mayor Singer and City Attorney Taylor strongly disputed Perlman's account. Mayor Singer said many of the statements were "completely incorrect" and reiterated that the council and the developer agreed to a binding referendum; Taylor said the agreements and the ordinance plainly condition effectiveness on voter approval. "If the voters reject the project, the ordinance is automatically repealed," Taylor said.
Other speakers questioned who is funding pro-yes campaigning and asked what would happen if voters reject the measure. Richard Warner asked how much money backers expect to make and who is behind the campaign; the mayor and council members said they were not coordinating with any outside funders and that ballots are being printed for the March 10 referendum.
Several commenters said they did not trust the city and cited various concerns about political influence and process. Council members described the petition as redundant and said it would likely confuse voters ahead of a binding election.
The hearing record shows competing claims and denials: petitioners maintain they are protecting voter rights and will pursue an overturn petition, while city officials maintain the March 10 referendum is already the controlling mechanism. The council adopted Resolution 6-20-26 to direct the clerk not to process petition signature pages it found duplicative; petitioners signaled they will proceed with signature-gathering anyway.
