I Am Now Worried For Our City, Part 1

By Bill Yanger

Okay, now I’m worried.

Way back when, the pre-election rhetoric and the bright line division between those supporting unchecked development and those urging thoughtful lawful development was tense and at times personal. But it wasn’t a particularly unusual debate in Florida’s history, nor Anna Maria’s for that matter, and there did not appear to be any fences that could not be mended. So I was not concerned.

A couple blogs cranked up and for the most part provided an avenue for the few to reach the many. Some folks, including Micheal Coleman (he spells Micheal with the “e” first by the way), were miffed at the use of pseudonyms (user names) on blog posts instead of owning up to one’s words by using one’s real name (Coleman on October 30, 2010: “Just an aside, why so many aliases? Can we not stand behind our own words?”). In other words, if you say it you should own it. Fair enough but some are more comfortable with that premise than others. Anonymity tends to breed dialogue and dialogue, honest productive dialogue, is a good thing. Nothing to be concerned about, right?

Then there was Bonner Joy’s sweaty love affair with all things PAR. I gagged a bit but then realized that, hey, it’s her rag and her ethics not mine. If assumedly intelligent people with functioning mental faculties want to drink her kool-aid instead of taking the time to become informed (Mr. Carter, can you hear me?), well, c’est la vie. A lot of folks think Fox News is gospel and Sean Hannity is Abraham so whom am I to burst their bubble. At least The Sun tried to uphold some reasonable journalistic standards and that was comforting. And so I still was not really concerned.

Next came the parking wars. Mayor Barford stacked the Parking Safety Committee with starry-eyed PAR groupies but, still, that’s politics and her prerogative, right? As Micheal Coleman himself once said to me while licking his post November 3rd wounds, “Elections have consequences” meaning we have to live with what the people have wrought. If only he had meant what he said... anyway, so these parking guys met a few times, compared testosterone levels, scratched out some parking plans and, due of the lock-step adherence to the PAR doctrine by several unapologetic stepford-like members on the committee, they essentially agreed on nothing. But still it was just political jockeying and nothing to cause real concern.

Near the end of the year, rumors swirled regarding a split by the Thrasher’s from PAR. When the Thrashers, through their Topazfish LLC, purchased PAR’s lots at Tarpon and Pine just before Christmas one could infer that the rumors were confirmed and, considering PAR’s banking relationship at the time, who could blame the Thrashers? PAR netted a tidy $200,000 on the $1.33 million sale after holding the property for just 2 years , but the heralded PAR vision for Pine Avenue seemed to be shriveling if not unraveling altogether. Just days before the sale to the Thrashers, PAR’s bank recorded what amounts to a legal straight jacket on PAR’s finances – an “agreement” requiring PAR to “cross-collateralize” and “cross-default” nine of its properties totaling $3,395,302. The “agreement” (I use quotes because it is doubtful PAR had much choice in the matter) effectively turned PAR’s holdings into a line of dominoes – should one go down they all go down. Sobering, to say the least. But considering the vagaries of development financing in this economy nothing seemed particularly onerous about it and PAR was able to continue operations. I was still not concerned and, hey, Lizzie Thrasher's vision for that parcel seems far more island-friendly than PAR's previous plans.

Perhaps in recognition of his company’s newly minted financial high wire act, sans net, early this year Mr. Coleman stood before the City Commission and P&Z Board and applauded them for their efforts at clarifying code language. Was this a sign of conciliation? Humility in the face of potential failure? A few weeks later, again in front of the City Commission, P&Z Board and dozens of gathered citizens, he admitted that the LDR’s (Land Development Regulations) needed to be amended. He also told them that PAR would willingly reconfigure its 216 Pine site plan to conform to certain new parking regulations should they be enacted. Was this a Micheal Coleman we could believe? Was he equivocating? Becoming flexible? Maybe. I was reminded of what Mr. Coleman had said back in October before the election: “I moved around a lot as a kid. Lot’s of experience with bullies and cowards.” Was there a realization on his part that he and PAR were perceived by many as those very bullies that haunted him and that it was essential that PAR change that perception? Maybe so. I was not only not concerned, I was hopeful, but it didn't last long.

Then came the Sunshine Law fiasco. On March 10th, Federal Inmate #15549-075, one Michael Barfield, repeatedly hailed by the Islander’s Rick Catlin (who carries the title “Reporter” but one has to wonder: why?) as a “government watchdog” and deified by Mayor Barford as if he were the second coming of Bobby Kennedy, here to save us all from the evils of conspiracy and corruption, slid from under the slimy rock he shares with PAR’s lawyer long enough to write a letter to Alice Baird requesting emails from Harry Stoltzfus and Jim Conoly. I then became concerned. Okay, I’ll give you Stolzfus. He willingly stepped into the breach and invited criticism and opposition. But Jim Conoly? A man whose only sin was to spend some of his precious time in retirement selflessly serving his community? Shameful, really. Things were getting ugly. I thought this email thing could easily snowball into uncontrolled chaos for the City and Alice in particular. But like I told a PAR principal at the time, “This isn’t Gaza” and so long as there was the hope of open and honest good-faith dialogue, I was not worried, at least not yet.

On March 12th, when told PAR was rumored to be behind the hiring of Inmate #15549-075 to do its dirty work, Mr. Coleman point blank told me, “You are misinformed.” I was skeptical but chose to take the man at his word. After all, though I have been a consistent and vocal opponent of unlawful development on Pine, I have been an equally consistent and vocal proponent of PAR and its principals. Read my posts. I dare say there is no one out there who has more often insisted that PAR and its resources, when channeled legitimately, are a blessing to this community. Of course, we all now know that Mr. Coleman was lying to me. He has since admitted in a “statement” to the press that PAR, through its lawyer, “hired” Inmate #15549-075 (I place hired in quotes because it’s a stretch to say Valerie Fernandez hired a guy with whom she has repeatedly teamed to bully cities into public records submission and fat paydays at the expense of taxpayers). Mr. Coleman tried to somehow justify PAR’s sleaziness by touting the convict as “the recognized expert in that field” notwithstanding that Barfield tried to flee the country, has spent time behind federal bars in three consecutive decades for serious crimes of moral turpitude like trying to set up a respected federal judge, and on top of that attempted but ultimately failed to escape. As the saying goes, when you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas and Mr. Coleman was scratching a lot of itches. At this point I was still just concerned. But dark clouds were drifting low over our end of the island.

As the content of the Stoltzfus emails were revealed through the last half of March, some the revelations, as we've all seen, were surprising. Ironically, by some cyber quirk, many of my blog “Conversations” between the two old guys at the pier made an appearance and I must say I was grateful for the added exposure to a new and engaged audience. But seriously, back in February when P&Z Board member Sandy Mattick suggested PAR’s 216 Pine site plan be approved, she hedged her vote by commenting that, based upon her understanding of the law, if 216 Pine were later found to be non-compliant or in violation of LDR's, the City could simply force PAR to knock it down. Mr. Dye, the City’s lawyer, concurred and gave the concept legal heft and legitimacy by citing an actual case example. Mr. Coleman was there and heard it all. Mr. Chiles was there as well. PAR’s lawyer was there, dog-eared note cards and all. Yet each of them sat in mute assent of Ms. Mattick’s suggestion and Dye’s confirmation. There was none of the lame histrionics or faux outrage we have come to expect from Valerie Fernandez. Simply put, no one cared. Why then the sustained rumble and roar of outrage over Mr. Stoltzfus’s suggestion that the same thing occur should the projects be approved and be found to be illegal? Was it the graphic image of a dusty yellow bulldozer rumbling down Pine Avenue, diesel smoke spewing and front-end bucket chewing into the latest in “green” construction? The reality is that there is no difference in the message, only the messenger. And we all know that worn out cliché. Like the scruffy villagers with torches, axes and clubs swarming Dr. Frankenstein’s manor seeking revenge on a man and a creation they knew little about and made little effort to understand, this lynch mob mentality was getting scary and I finally began to worry.

Then, in keeping with his modus operandi, Barfield, at PAR’s behest, stretched his definition of “public record” to the absurd and his definition of “public official” into fantasyland by seeking private records from private citizens. And why not? The law invokes no penalty for asking for too much from too many too often. As a result anyone who has had the audacity to look at Mr. Coleman sideways has found a letter (complete with poor grammar and misspellings) from Inmate #15549-075 in their in-box. Bullying circa 2010. The Sunshine Laws do not provide for sanctions for harassing public officials or even private individuals with baseless records requests, so when and where this will end is anyone’s guess. For instance, and most importantly, do the citizens who are considering signing the Stoltzfus recall petition realize that upon signing they immediately become a member of the Recall Committee and as a member of that committee their emails would thereafter be subject to public records scrutiny? Is Mr. Carter providing informed consent to potential signees of this significant fact? I doubt it but even if you sincerely believe you have nothing to hide, do you really want that hassle? Think about it. It’s terribly worrisome.

It is ironic, is it not, that on the very first day the Recallers (are they connected to the "Birthers"? Just asking) are hitting the streets, a circuit court judge has slapped down PAR’s initial attempt at judicial intervention. On Thursday April 22nd, the judge cautioned Inmate #15549-075 and his lawyers that they were overreaching the bounds of what they are entitled to receive and slammed the door on their demand that computer hard drives be produced. And on the streets and in the shops of our little town folks like you and I are saying “No” to signing the recall petition, as it should be. But worries linger because we know it’s not over.

One has to ask why this thing has devolved so quickly and with such nastiness. What motivates individuals to lie and debase themselves so publicly and with no sense of remorse? What persuades respected and successful members of this community to associate enthusiastically with admitted felons and others of questionable integrity and purpose? What drives intelligent, articulate and industrious people to physically, profanely and repeatedly threaten fellow citizens with whom they happen to disagree? What justification does anyone have for trying to badger the elderly into doing something they have made clear they do not want to do? And after championing transparent dialogue and criticizing those who use pseudonyms and user names, why would one then seek to fool the reading public by posting childish and hateful comments under someone else’s user name in the Bradenton Herald, especially when that someone has been supportive? Desperation? Most probably. Has the bullied become the bully? It appears so. Are we watching a meltdown before our eyes? Anecdotal tidbits seem to say yes. But why? Public records seem to indicate other reasons.

Stay tuned and check back often. Anecdotes, public records and comments on these questions and more in my next post coming soon. Until then, all the best.

© 2010 – William L. Yanger