And that's why city officials weren't all that into it either, believe it or not — even if the issue quickly turned into an opportunity for political mudslinging against incumbent Mayor Rick Kriseman, who is fighting for reelection against former Mayor Rick Baker, the latter of whom enjoys the support of the Tampa Bay Times brass.
The controversy over mandatory solar came earlier this week after members of the St. Petersburg City Council's Energy, Natural Resources and Sustainability Committee held a public meeting Wednesday to hear questions and concerns about the not-yet-nascent proposal, which was supposed to be (probably loosely) based on an ordinance South Miami passed earlier this summer. That policy's based on a law several cities in California have passed, and it requires all new construction and, in some cases, roof expansions and other modifications to include rooftop solar panels that generate a certain amount of power.
Tampa Bay Times environment beat reporter Craig Pittman wrote that residents voiced some concern Wednesday over what it could potentially cost, among other things. After all, replacing a plain old roof can cost $10,000 or more, and one can expect to shell out $11,000 to install solar panels (though they save money on power bills over time). At the meeting, as Pittman reports, committee members showed support of measures making solar more affordable to residents, but they did not appear all that enthused about forcing anyone to do anything.
But the widespread perception that city officials want to force people to buy solar panels is just wrong, said Councilman Steve Kornell, who made the motion at the committee's May 25 meeting to ask the city attorney's office to draft an ordinance — which officials would have then modified based on extensive input from stakeholders.
"It was a jumping off point," Kornell said of the proposal. "The idea that we were getting ready to cram this down people's throats with no input is just wrong."
The May vote followed a presentation from activist Delaney Reynolds, the young woman behind the climate change awareness project Sink of Swim, who successfully urged South Miami to pass its solar mandate.
Kornell said it was always obvious that mandatory would likely not work in St. Pete, but he thought it made sense to start with South Miami's policy and customize it in a way that made sense to St. Pete — all while bringing in a young, bright, passionate activist who could use St. Pete as a model for other cities that have similar practicality issues when it comes to mandatory solar.
"It's so much easier to have something in writing to discuss," Kornell said. "I think it's a shame that it got a little bit misconstrued."
On Thursday, Council Chair Darden Rice said she plans on proposing a vote to take the discussion off the table for a year.
But the two-day kerfuffle managed to make its way into the contentious mayoral race; Kriseman opponents (the Times and Baker), fresh from Kriseman's unexpected besting of Baker in Tuesday's six-way primary, saw it as an opportunity to rail against the Kriseman administration.
Thursday afternoon, the Times penned a scathing editorial that appears to try to loosely tie the proposal to Kriseman at the tail end, and not too much later the Baker campaign released this incredibly misleading ad on Facebook.
Ben Kirby, a spokesman for the mayor's office, said though Kriseman knew of the possible ordinance after Reynolds' presentation, he wasn't backing it. City staff who had been tasked with drawing up the proposal, including sustainability coordinator Sharon Wright and urban planning/historic preservation manager Derek Kilborn, technically work for the mayor, but are regularly directed by city council — not the mayor — to assist in drafting policies, as was the case with the South Miami solar framework.
Kirby said Kriseman never proposed or supported "mandatory solar" and sees the controversy stemming from the discussion as a symptom of a heated election season.
“It's really important that things like our sustainability efforts and the policies we're working on not be misconstrued by the media for political gain,” he said.
This article appears in Aug 31 – Sep 7, 2017.