The column below, by Julie Hauserman, appeared in the Sunday, May 9, Perspective section of the St. Petersburg Times. I am sending it to two entities: Those that govern one of the smallest political parcels in America--The City of Anna Maria--and to the guy who heads up the largest, Mr. Obama.
The reasons are simple: 1 ) Our City Commission recently voted NOT to support the county's appeal to prohibit drilling close to our coast; and 2) Mr. Obama has succumbed to lean in the same direction.
All I ask of either is, after you read the column below, get your butt to Bean Point at sunset. Yes, Mr. President, you too. While there: Imagine the day, maybe soon, when you won't be able to walk barefoot on our beach; The day the gulls and terns and pelicans and sandpipers are only a memory; The day the sea oats are memorialised at the Mote Marine Laboratory; The day the toxic fumes reduced our bit of paradise to a ghost town; The day you wished the tourist traffic was bumper to bumper once again!
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Thing About Irony Is It Ain’t Always Funny
By Bill Yanger
Another in a continuing series of imagined conversations over coffee at the Rod & Reel Pier. Any resemblance to persons or personalities, real or imagined, is entirely coincidental and mostly unintended.
Good morning.
Mornin’ buddy.
Hey hand me that sports page, the Rays won again. What’re you reading?
Oh, you know, all this oily crap about those folks who keep trying to mess up what makes this little part of the world so special.
I know exactly what you mean. Everything seems rosy when slick Big Money pats us on the back and tells us how good they are at protecting our golden goose. We’ve heard it all, you know, like, “Trust us. We are different. We got specialists.”
Right, and “It’ll never happen here.” That’s a good one.
Or, I love the “We are making life better for everyone” angle. That one always nets a few napping politicians to pose with ‘em for a photo op or two.
…and a vote or two to get things done.
For sure. They cozy up to government and Very Important People, contribute to big splashy causes, get the newspapers to make ‘em look like Mother Teresa reincarnated. They buy pretty ads and websites with salty red sunsets over gin clear water. They build one here and then one there. Someone’ll complain but instead of listening, Big Money just calls ‘em bad guys and clips the lawyers off their leashes to go gnaw on some fresh meat for a while.
And then they just keep building the damn things anyway.
Exactly. All our brittle natural beauty and precious resources being bounced like rubber balls by the Big Money magicians at the Cash-It-In Circus who just give a crooked grin and say, “Trust us, it’ll be okay. We know what we’re doing.”
Then one of those rubber balls bursts and all they got to say is, “Well shoot, it was supposed to bounce.” And while the rest of us mop up the mess, they slither over to the next honey hole, tap it and suck it dry too.
Yep, I am madder ‘n hell at those damn oil companies ruining our Gulf! And just before tarpon season!
Huh? What the heck are you talking about?
The oil spill. You know, the rig explosion out in The Gulf of Mexico? Crude oil killing fish and birds and working its way across to our sacred Bean Point right over there any day now.
Ohhhhh, my lord…I thought you were talking about Pine Avenue. Pretty funny.
Hmmm, I see your point. But it ain’t funny, dude. It ain't funny at all.
Guess you’re right. See you tomorrow.
Yeah, tomorrow.
©-2010- William L. Yanger
Another in a continuing series of imagined conversations over coffee at the Rod & Reel Pier. Any resemblance to persons or personalities, real or imagined, is entirely coincidental and mostly unintended.
Good morning.
Mornin’ buddy.
Hey hand me that sports page, the Rays won again. What’re you reading?
Oh, you know, all this oily crap about those folks who keep trying to mess up what makes this little part of the world so special.
I know exactly what you mean. Everything seems rosy when slick Big Money pats us on the back and tells us how good they are at protecting our golden goose. We’ve heard it all, you know, like, “Trust us. We are different. We got specialists.”
Right, and “It’ll never happen here.” That’s a good one.
Or, I love the “We are making life better for everyone” angle. That one always nets a few napping politicians to pose with ‘em for a photo op or two.
…and a vote or two to get things done.
For sure. They cozy up to government and Very Important People, contribute to big splashy causes, get the newspapers to make ‘em look like Mother Teresa reincarnated. They buy pretty ads and websites with salty red sunsets over gin clear water. They build one here and then one there. Someone’ll complain but instead of listening, Big Money just calls ‘em bad guys and clips the lawyers off their leashes to go gnaw on some fresh meat for a while.
And then they just keep building the damn things anyway.
Exactly. All our brittle natural beauty and precious resources being bounced like rubber balls by the Big Money magicians at the Cash-It-In Circus who just give a crooked grin and say, “Trust us, it’ll be okay. We know what we’re doing.”
Then one of those rubber balls bursts and all they got to say is, “Well shoot, it was supposed to bounce.” And while the rest of us mop up the mess, they slither over to the next honey hole, tap it and suck it dry too.
Yep, I am madder ‘n hell at those damn oil companies ruining our Gulf! And just before tarpon season!
Huh? What the heck are you talking about?
The oil spill. You know, the rig explosion out in The Gulf of Mexico? Crude oil killing fish and birds and working its way across to our sacred Bean Point right over there any day now.
Ohhhhh, my lord…I thought you were talking about Pine Avenue. Pretty funny.
Hmmm, I see your point. But it ain’t funny, dude. It ain't funny at all.
Guess you’re right. See you tomorrow.
Yeah, tomorrow.
©-2010- William L. Yanger
Parking on Spring, Magnolia, Tarpon, . . .
Chairman Quam, et al.
I'm not sure what your week has been like, but I've gotten a fair share
of phone calls regarding the parallel parking proposal. I've yet to
speak with anyone who supports it.
Here's one of the concerns raised yesterday.
Our LDR's require a ten foot visibility triangle on each side of a
driveway. They also require a 20 ft. visibility triangle at
intersections. Those numbers were adopted before we considered the
parallel parking option.
I'm not sure what your week has been like, but I've gotten a fair share
of phone calls regarding the parallel parking proposal. I've yet to
speak with anyone who supports it.
Here's one of the concerns raised yesterday.
Our LDR's require a ten foot visibility triangle on each side of a
driveway. They also require a 20 ft. visibility triangle at
intersections. Those numbers were adopted before we considered the
parallel parking option.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Parallel Parking vs. our Comp Plan
Chairman Quam,
In my net loss of parking calculation regarding Pine Avenue, I neglected to calculate the frontage unavailable for parking at the intersections of Pine and any side street. Adding the requisite visibility triangles to those intersections results in the loss of 16 additional parking spaces. Net loss if we adopt parallel parking on Pine would be 107 spaces, not 91.
At a recent meeting you suggested there was nothing in the Comp Plan that required on-site parking. You may be right, but I'm not certain that's true. If you go to the Future Land Use Element of the Comp Plan, Policy 1.1.2, you'll find this near the end of the list of bulleted items: "Provide requirements for the provision of open space, and safe and convenient on-site traffic flow and parking requirements." To me, "on-site" means on the subject property.
There's also this language to contend with: "Policy 1.3.7 All commercial uses shall be located and designed so as to enhance safety by providing adequate off-street parking and loading areas and by separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic." Obviously the key words are "off-street parking and loading areas." What exactly is meant by that?
If the Comp Plan said "on-street" would we interpret that to mean "in the middle of the street?" No. We'd say that meant parallel to the street or directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" precludes parallel parking or parking directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" means "on-site." Your interpretation may differ.
There's also the language in Policy 1.3.8 to deal with. Curbs, where they exist, are alway situated at the edge of a road to create a barrier between the roadway and the sidewalk. The language in this policy is about minimizing direct access onto major roads. Parallel parking or any form of adjacent to the street parking maximizes direct access. The only way to minimize direct access is to require driveways and on-site parking.
Recent assertions that situating parking on-site encourages strip development don't hold up in light of our Comp Plan's parking policies. Sun Plaza exactly conforms to those policies. On-site parking with room to maneuver on the subject property, side street access via a driveway, which minimizes direct access to the main road. The end result is not strip development; it's safe traffic circulation.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
Anna Maria City Commissioner
In my net loss of parking calculation regarding Pine Avenue, I neglected to calculate the frontage unavailable for parking at the intersections of Pine and any side street. Adding the requisite visibility triangles to those intersections results in the loss of 16 additional parking spaces. Net loss if we adopt parallel parking on Pine would be 107 spaces, not 91.
At a recent meeting you suggested there was nothing in the Comp Plan that required on-site parking. You may be right, but I'm not certain that's true. If you go to the Future Land Use Element of the Comp Plan, Policy 1.1.2, you'll find this near the end of the list of bulleted items: "Provide requirements for the provision of open space, and safe and convenient on-site traffic flow and parking requirements." To me, "on-site" means on the subject property.
There's also this language to contend with: "Policy 1.3.7 All commercial uses shall be located and designed so as to enhance safety by providing adequate off-street parking and loading areas and by separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic." Obviously the key words are "off-street parking and loading areas." What exactly is meant by that?
If the Comp Plan said "on-street" would we interpret that to mean "in the middle of the street?" No. We'd say that meant parallel to the street or directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" precludes parallel parking or parking directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" means "on-site." Your interpretation may differ.
There's also the language in Policy 1.3.8 to deal with. Curbs, where they exist, are alway situated at the edge of a road to create a barrier between the roadway and the sidewalk. The language in this policy is about minimizing direct access onto major roads. Parallel parking or any form of adjacent to the street parking maximizes direct access. The only way to minimize direct access is to require driveways and on-site parking.
Recent assertions that situating parking on-site encourages strip development don't hold up in light of our Comp Plan's parking policies. Sun Plaza exactly conforms to those policies. On-site parking with room to maneuver on the subject property, side street access via a driveway, which minimizes direct access to the main road. The end result is not strip development; it's safe traffic circulation.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
Anna Maria City Commissioner
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
JIM CONOLY RESIGNS FROM P & Z EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
This, I am sure, will not come as a surprise to all of us who have witnessed PAR and their lawyers treatment of Mr Conoly over the last six weeks. The intimidation was not even subtle and it was sad and painful to watch. His resignation is a great loss to the City but it speaks highly to his integrity. So who does Mayor Barford put in next - Michael Coleman?
Parallel Parking on Pine
Chairman Quam,
I’ve spend some time studying the “parallel parking” option put forth by you with drawings by Gene Aubry at the most recent P&Z and Commission work session.
I expressed my concerns at that meeting regarding the “net effect” of that plan. To restate, how many parallel parking spaces presently exist on Pine and how many will we lose or gain if we institute this plan?
I’m told we have just over 100 parallel parking spaces presently on Pine. I was also told instituting the new plan would provide a total of 198 spaces, or a net gain of approximately 100 spaces.
I beg to differ. Start with driveways. They are not shown on Aubry's drawing. Not even on existing residences.
I’ve spend some time studying the “parallel parking” option put forth by you with drawings by Gene Aubry at the most recent P&Z and Commission work session.
I expressed my concerns at that meeting regarding the “net effect” of that plan. To restate, how many parallel parking spaces presently exist on Pine and how many will we lose or gain if we institute this plan?
I’m told we have just over 100 parallel parking spaces presently on Pine. I was also told instituting the new plan would provide a total of 198 spaces, or a net gain of approximately 100 spaces.
I beg to differ. Start with driveways. They are not shown on Aubry's drawing. Not even on existing residences.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Preliminary Legislative Wrap Up for Florida from 1000 Friends of Florida
Preliminary Legislative Wrap Up
As is often the case, the just completed session proved to be a mixed bag for Florida's growth management advocates. The legislature failed to reauthorize the Florida Department of Community Affairs, leaving it in a state of "limbo" for another year. In the final hours of the session, legislation failed that would have removed the artificial cap from the allocation of affordable housing dollars in the state. And 1000 Friends could not find sponsors for its "citizen bill of rights" amendments.
There were a few positive notes. In these challenging economic times, the final budget included $15 million for Florida Forever and at least another $10 million for Everglades restoration. The budget also included the same funding for DCA as in 2009 which, given the current economy, is a positive note. 1000 Friends, DCA and others successfully held off a number of damaging bills and amendments that among other things would have promoted inappropriate exemptions from transportation concurrency and weakened urban service boundaries.
As always, your calls made a difference, helping to secure funding for Florida Forever and halting numerous damaging planning amendments. We sincerely appreciate your support and will provide a more detailed update on the 2010 session shortly.
DCA Reauthorization and Funding--Despite many calls, letters and editorials calling for it, the Florida Department of Community Affairs was not reauthorized this session, leaving it in a state of "limbo" for another year and making it more vulnerable to elimination, dismantlement, funding cutbacks and/or excessive political pressure over the coming year. While the Senate passed SB 282 reauthorizing the agency, the House refused to take this bill up. However, the agency's budget was kept at the same level as last year.
Concurrency Exemptions--This damaging legislation failed to pass. Intended to address some problems associated with 2009's SB 360, SB 1742 would have created an exemption from concurrency for "transit oriented development," even when the development had no provisions for transit. 1000 Friends opposed these provisions and we also worked with DCA to make sure they were not added to a permitting bill, SB 1126, in the final hours of the session.
Callery Judge--1000 Friends helped block a number of damaging amendments that were proposed in the final days of the session. These included amendments to HB 7099 to weaken Palm Beach County's urban service boundary and require local governments to create "transportation backlog authorities" to exempt development from transportation concurrency with the intent of benefitting the Callery Judge property in Palm Beach County.
Citizen Planning Bill of Rights--1000 Friends offered amendment language but were unable to secure a sponsor. The Florida League of Cities did have a bill that included the mandatory neighborhood planning meeting requirement, but HB 733 never got out of its first committee meeting.
Florida Forever--The Florida Forever Coalition's hard work resulted in the approved budget including $15 million for Florida Forever, and another $10 million for Everglades restoration. An additional $40 million is possible for Everglades restoration if Congress awards Florida some additional Medicaid dollars which would allow for a budget shift of other monies.
Affordable Housing-- HB 665 did not pass, at least in part because of an attempt to put the damaging Callery Judge amendments there as well. HB 665 included provisions to end the artificial cap on distributions of the fund. This was a major setback, as the legislation seemed likely to pass until the final hours of the session.
As is often the case, the just completed session proved to be a mixed bag for Florida's growth management advocates. The legislature failed to reauthorize the Florida Department of Community Affairs, leaving it in a state of "limbo" for another year. In the final hours of the session, legislation failed that would have removed the artificial cap from the allocation of affordable housing dollars in the state. And 1000 Friends could not find sponsors for its "citizen bill of rights" amendments.
There were a few positive notes. In these challenging economic times, the final budget included $15 million for Florida Forever and at least another $10 million for Everglades restoration. The budget also included the same funding for DCA as in 2009 which, given the current economy, is a positive note. 1000 Friends, DCA and others successfully held off a number of damaging bills and amendments that among other things would have promoted inappropriate exemptions from transportation concurrency and weakened urban service boundaries.
As always, your calls made a difference, helping to secure funding for Florida Forever and halting numerous damaging planning amendments. We sincerely appreciate your support and will provide a more detailed update on the 2010 session shortly.
DCA Reauthorization and Funding--Despite many calls, letters and editorials calling for it, the Florida Department of Community Affairs was not reauthorized this session, leaving it in a state of "limbo" for another year and making it more vulnerable to elimination, dismantlement, funding cutbacks and/or excessive political pressure over the coming year. While the Senate passed SB 282 reauthorizing the agency, the House refused to take this bill up. However, the agency's budget was kept at the same level as last year.
Concurrency Exemptions--This damaging legislation failed to pass. Intended to address some problems associated with 2009's SB 360, SB 1742 would have created an exemption from concurrency for "transit oriented development," even when the development had no provisions for transit. 1000 Friends opposed these provisions and we also worked with DCA to make sure they were not added to a permitting bill, SB 1126, in the final hours of the session.
Callery Judge--1000 Friends helped block a number of damaging amendments that were proposed in the final days of the session. These included amendments to HB 7099 to weaken Palm Beach County's urban service boundary and require local governments to create "transportation backlog authorities" to exempt development from transportation concurrency with the intent of benefitting the Callery Judge property in Palm Beach County.
Citizen Planning Bill of Rights--1000 Friends offered amendment language but were unable to secure a sponsor. The Florida League of Cities did have a bill that included the mandatory neighborhood planning meeting requirement, but HB 733 never got out of its first committee meeting.
Florida Forever--The Florida Forever Coalition's hard work resulted in the approved budget including $15 million for Florida Forever, and another $10 million for Everglades restoration. An additional $40 million is possible for Everglades restoration if Congress awards Florida some additional Medicaid dollars which would allow for a budget shift of other monies.
Affordable Housing-- HB 665 did not pass, at least in part because of an attempt to put the damaging Callery Judge amendments there as well. HB 665 included provisions to end the artificial cap on distributions of the fund. This was a major setback, as the legislation seemed likely to pass until the final hours of the session.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Oil Spill
Mote Marine is taking registration for those who would like to help in the event the oil reaches our shores.
The address is www.mote.org
The address is www.mote.org
Friday, April 30, 2010
.....LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE
Janet Aubrey’s email of 12th February 2010 was posted on the blog earlier this week. Close examination of this email is revealing to say the least and the correspondence raises many questions. What is particularly disturbing is that it is Ms Aubrey who has spearheaded the group against Commissioner Stoltzfus. In fact it was her husband who was the very first person to stand up and demand an investigation into the breaking of Sunshine Laws and it is Ms Aubrey who is working with Mr Carter who has stated ’This is also about the Sunshine laws and being transparent in government.’ Mr Stoltzfus emails have been out in the open for all to see for many weeks now. Aside from an enthusiasm to do his job properly and ensure that codes are followed he has been found guilty of nothing despite a public lynching by our local press. In a twist of fate this one email alone by Ms Aubrey implies that she is doing the very things she has accused Commissioner Stoltzfus of ie acting as a conduit and particpating in a shadow government. If the Islander newspaper whose ‘staff includes three, college-educated, degreed journalists who know how to report a fair and balanced story‘ (see a previous post on the blog) are true to their word then this email better get front page coverage next week. It is alarming that they have chosen to ignore something they have had knowledge of for many weeks, instead choosing to print Ms Aubrey's attacks on Commissioner Stoltzfus and the Sun newspaper even giving her a guest editorial!
Nothing in any of the emails suggests that Commissioner Woodland asked Ms Aubrey to convey information to Commissioner Stoltzfus. Ms Aubrey on the other hand should not be sharing the results of her meetings with Commissioner Woodland nor conveying details of her conversations with him regarding policy and planning. The quotations below taken from the email and shown in red show that she is doing just that and therefore acting as a conduit which is a violation of the Sunshine Laws. She has also accused Commissioner Stoltzfus of running a shadow government. The quotations below appear to demonstrate that the Aubrey’s themselves are involved in a ‘shadow government’ but more worrying is how deep that shadow government runs within our City and how many have a vested financial interest in the outcome. For context it should be noted that both Janet and Gene Aubrey work for PAR and the Thrashers.
'I have spent a great deal of time with Dale Woodland lately'
'He and I have been at work for a while now with the Thrashers (who own a significant amount of land on Pine) and other various pertinent parties like Danny Gagne and Sissy Quinn to make this a reality'
'Additionally, Dale and I have discussed and hope to ultimately propose a plan that offers incentives to owners'
'Gene and I are always in conversations with PAR'
'Dale and I think an initiative to invest'
'You have to literally get in the boat and row with the rest of us'
'being inside the tent offers an opportunity to effect positive change rather quickly without cumbersome public meetings and additional legislation '
' a lot goes on at our house because Gene and I are very actively involved in a lot of the work being done in the City '
'I would really like it if you would come by the house on a regular basis'
'coming up with good solutions. It's just the process at City Hall isn't condusive to it '
Nothing in any of the emails suggests that Commissioner Woodland asked Ms Aubrey to convey information to Commissioner Stoltzfus. Ms Aubrey on the other hand should not be sharing the results of her meetings with Commissioner Woodland nor conveying details of her conversations with him regarding policy and planning. The quotations below taken from the email and shown in red show that she is doing just that and therefore acting as a conduit which is a violation of the Sunshine Laws. She has also accused Commissioner Stoltzfus of running a shadow government. The quotations below appear to demonstrate that the Aubrey’s themselves are involved in a ‘shadow government’ but more worrying is how deep that shadow government runs within our City and how many have a vested financial interest in the outcome. For context it should be noted that both Janet and Gene Aubrey work for PAR and the Thrashers.
'I have spent a great deal of time with Dale Woodland lately'
'He and I have been at work for a while now with the Thrashers (who own a significant amount of land on Pine) and other various pertinent parties like Danny Gagne and Sissy Quinn to make this a reality'
'Additionally, Dale and I have discussed and hope to ultimately propose a plan that offers incentives to owners'
'Gene and I are always in conversations with PAR'
'Dale and I think an initiative to invest'
'You have to literally get in the boat and row with the rest of us'
'being inside the tent offers an opportunity to effect positive change rather quickly without cumbersome public meetings and additional legislation '
' a lot goes on at our house because Gene and I are very actively involved in a lot of the work being done in the City '
'I would really like it if you would come by the house on a regular basis'
'coming up with good solutions. It's just the process at City Hall isn't condusive to it '
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
AN UPDATE ON THE HOSPITALS' LETTER TO THE EDITOR
The Hospitals' letter was posted on the blog on Saturday 24th April. The editor of the Islander, Bonner Joy, has responded to their letter. a copy of which is printed below. Richard Harrison, Commissioner Stoltzfus attorney, has in turn responded to Ms Joy.
First Bonner Joy's response to the Hospitals:
We have reported the news to the best of our ability, however, that ability is limited when one side refuses to discuss matters, be interviewed, provide their documentation or access to attorneys. We have not received so much as a statement. The only replies to our inquiries have been "NO."
With all due respect, we have made every attempt to report the "other" side without success. It is regrettable that our readers do not have the opportunity to hear from Stoltzfus, but that's his choice to make. It does no harm to me personally, but I would expect him to want to reach the people he represents in whatever avenue is made available to him. We have never denied him that privilege.
This staff includes three, college-educated, degreed journalists who know how to report a fair and balanced story. They are only inhibited by the lack of information available to them. We have reported all the news resulting from ALL city meetings, and we have never been absent or remiss in that regard. And we also have reported the client relationship of PAR to Barfield as soon as it was made public, and we certainly put some pressure on the people involved to make that information public. Maybe you're not current on the news in The Islander, but it is all the news and the records .... we have posted all available records, including the legal complaint "as filed" at the courthouse.
Bonner Joy
The Islander newspaper
Attorney Richard Harrison's response to Ms Joy:
Bonner Joy and The Islander Staff:
As you all know, I represent Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus. I recently learned of your response to a reader in which you claim that the Commissioner has not responded to your inquiries or provided access to his attorney, i.e., me. Specifically, you wrote as follows:
We have reported the news to the best of our ability, however, that ability is limited when one side refuses to discuss matters, be interviewed, provide their documentation or access to attorneys. We have not received so much as a statement. The only replies to our inquiries have been "NO."
With all due respect, we have made every attempt to report the "other" side without success. It is regrettable that our readers do not have the opportunity to hear from Stoltzfus, but that's his choice to make. It does no harm to me personally, but I would expect him to want to reach the people he represents in whatever avenue is made available to him. We have never denied him that privilege.
This staff includes three, college-educated, degreed journalists who know how to report a fair and balanced story. They are only inhibited by the lack of information available to them. We have reported all the news resulting from ALL city meetings, and we have never been absent or remiss in that regard. And we also have reported the client relationship of PAR to Barfield as soon as it was made public, and we certainly put some pressure on the people involved to make that information public. Maybe you're not current on the news in The Islander, but it is all the news and the records .... we have posted all available records, including the legal complaint "as filed" at the courthouse.
Perhaps your standard of reporting is different than that employed by the journalistic organizations with which I am familiar. Your reporter, Rick Catlin, wrote at least two articles in which he claimed that his “efforts” to reach me for comment were unsuccessful. As far as I am aware, those “efforts” did not include more than one phone message left for me. They certainly did not include, until after the hearing held on April 21, any attempt to reach me via email (you’ve heard of email, right?). They did not include any follow up telephone calls. So your “efforts” were, frankly, not much of an effort.
Your claim is particularly ridiculous in light of the fact that, well, I am not exactly difficult to reach. In something less than 30 seconds on Google (you’ve heard of that, too, right?), anybody looking to reach me could find my firm’s website with all pertinent contact information. If that isn’t sufficient, a similarly brief effort would turn up the Florida Bar’s website and its “Lawyer Locator” feature which would, again, lead you to me rather readily. And if you expended, say, five or ten minutes on that Google thingy you would quickly realize that I make myself freely available to the media to discuss any matters in which I am involved.
Oh yeah . . . speaking of your “efforts” . . . if you wanted some comment from me or Commissioner Stoltzfus it might have occurred to you to actually come talk to me at the hearing in Bradenton last week. I was there outside the courtroom for at least 30 minutes before the hearing started and for several minutes after it was over. There were also several breaks in the proceedings during which anybody seeking information or comment could have asked for it. So apparently The Islander’s “efforts” to reach people for comment do not include the extreme tactic of, well, actually asking them any questions during the relevant events.
As it happens, Mr. Catlin did finally take the extraordinary step of emailing me last week (but not until after the hearing) and I have responded to every email from him since then and also spoken to him via telephone. I will continue to make myself available to all media to address the matters involving Commissioner Stoltzfus, as I have from the moment I became involved on his behalf.
So if your readers feel, as some of them apparently do, that The Islander’s reporting has been anything less than unbiased let’s be clear – that is not because we have rebuffed or thwarted your “efforts” to obtain information about the pending proceedings. Stop lying to your readers and start doing some actual reporting.
First Bonner Joy's response to the Hospitals:
We have reported the news to the best of our ability, however, that ability is limited when one side refuses to discuss matters, be interviewed, provide their documentation or access to attorneys. We have not received so much as a statement. The only replies to our inquiries have been "NO."
With all due respect, we have made every attempt to report the "other" side without success. It is regrettable that our readers do not have the opportunity to hear from Stoltzfus, but that's his choice to make. It does no harm to me personally, but I would expect him to want to reach the people he represents in whatever avenue is made available to him. We have never denied him that privilege.
This staff includes three, college-educated, degreed journalists who know how to report a fair and balanced story. They are only inhibited by the lack of information available to them. We have reported all the news resulting from ALL city meetings, and we have never been absent or remiss in that regard. And we also have reported the client relationship of PAR to Barfield as soon as it was made public, and we certainly put some pressure on the people involved to make that information public. Maybe you're not current on the news in The Islander, but it is all the news and the records .... we have posted all available records, including the legal complaint "as filed" at the courthouse.
Bonner Joy
The Islander newspaper
Attorney Richard Harrison's response to Ms Joy:
Bonner Joy and The Islander Staff:
As you all know, I represent Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus. I recently learned of your response to a reader in which you claim that the Commissioner has not responded to your inquiries or provided access to his attorney, i.e., me. Specifically, you wrote as follows:
We have reported the news to the best of our ability, however, that ability is limited when one side refuses to discuss matters, be interviewed, provide their documentation or access to attorneys. We have not received so much as a statement. The only replies to our inquiries have been "NO."
With all due respect, we have made every attempt to report the "other" side without success. It is regrettable that our readers do not have the opportunity to hear from Stoltzfus, but that's his choice to make. It does no harm to me personally, but I would expect him to want to reach the people he represents in whatever avenue is made available to him. We have never denied him that privilege.
This staff includes three, college-educated, degreed journalists who know how to report a fair and balanced story. They are only inhibited by the lack of information available to them. We have reported all the news resulting from ALL city meetings, and we have never been absent or remiss in that regard. And we also have reported the client relationship of PAR to Barfield as soon as it was made public, and we certainly put some pressure on the people involved to make that information public. Maybe you're not current on the news in The Islander, but it is all the news and the records .... we have posted all available records, including the legal complaint "as filed" at the courthouse.
Perhaps your standard of reporting is different than that employed by the journalistic organizations with which I am familiar. Your reporter, Rick Catlin, wrote at least two articles in which he claimed that his “efforts” to reach me for comment were unsuccessful. As far as I am aware, those “efforts” did not include more than one phone message left for me. They certainly did not include, until after the hearing held on April 21, any attempt to reach me via email (you’ve heard of email, right?). They did not include any follow up telephone calls. So your “efforts” were, frankly, not much of an effort.
Your claim is particularly ridiculous in light of the fact that, well, I am not exactly difficult to reach. In something less than 30 seconds on Google (you’ve heard of that, too, right?), anybody looking to reach me could find my firm’s website with all pertinent contact information. If that isn’t sufficient, a similarly brief effort would turn up the Florida Bar’s website and its “Lawyer Locator” feature which would, again, lead you to me rather readily. And if you expended, say, five or ten minutes on that Google thingy you would quickly realize that I make myself freely available to the media to discuss any matters in which I am involved.
Oh yeah . . . speaking of your “efforts” . . . if you wanted some comment from me or Commissioner Stoltzfus it might have occurred to you to actually come talk to me at the hearing in Bradenton last week. I was there outside the courtroom for at least 30 minutes before the hearing started and for several minutes after it was over. There were also several breaks in the proceedings during which anybody seeking information or comment could have asked for it. So apparently The Islander’s “efforts” to reach people for comment do not include the extreme tactic of, well, actually asking them any questions during the relevant events.
As it happens, Mr. Catlin did finally take the extraordinary step of emailing me last week (but not until after the hearing) and I have responded to every email from him since then and also spoken to him via telephone. I will continue to make myself available to all media to address the matters involving Commissioner Stoltzfus, as I have from the moment I became involved on his behalf.
So if your readers feel, as some of them apparently do, that The Islander’s reporting has been anything less than unbiased let’s be clear – that is not because we have rebuffed or thwarted your “efforts” to obtain information about the pending proceedings. Stop lying to your readers and start doing some actual reporting.
Monday, April 26, 2010
10,000 and Counting...
I am not sure how many of our readers noticed but this little blog thingy reached quite a milestone this afternoon.
Yes, in just 92 days since we've been counting, you readers have taken the opportunity to surf over and take a look at what your fellow citizens have to say about events of the day over 10,000 times.
That's in a town with less than 1400 registered voters. Not bad, huh?
Thank you to all posters, commentors, readers and lurkers. Give yourselves a round of applause and, of course, come back often.
Now, on to the next 10,000...
Yes, in just 92 days since we've been counting, you readers have taken the opportunity to surf over and take a look at what your fellow citizens have to say about events of the day over 10,000 times.
That's in a town with less than 1400 registered voters. Not bad, huh?
Thank you to all posters, commentors, readers and lurkers. Give yourselves a round of applause and, of course, come back often.
Now, on to the next 10,000...
JANET AUBREY/STOLTZFUS EMAILS
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Stoltzfus
To: catpeople@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 11, 2010 2:54 pm
Subject: Comp Plan Language
Janet,
Under the Land Use Element in the Comp Plan, Policy 1.2.1.
To preserve the unique, historic cottage type housing and the existing single family residential character of the City, within one year after adoption of the EAR amendments, the City of Anna Maria shall conduct a review of existing development processes and building requirements to develop a listing of actions that the City can implement to encourage property owners to build less than the maximum size buildings on existing small 5000 sq. ft. lots.
Seems clear to me the City needn’t apologize for constricting a building’s size through regulation. It’s apparently a desired outcome. Gagne seems to have gotten the message. He’s actually putting up stuff that still looks like cottages. Seen anything else like that recently?
From: catpeople@aol.com [mailto:catpeople@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:40 AM
To: harry@harconcorp.com
Subject: Re: Comp Plan Language
Dear Harry,
Thanks for sending this. I agree with it - although probably not to the extent it might have a negative economic impact on property owners - especially those who have already purchased property for millions of dollars having been told by the city they can develop it in ROR in a economically feasible way. As I mentioned to you the other day, I am extremely anti-lawsuit especially so when we force people into a corner where they have no option but to sue us and where there is already strong precedent for us to lose as we have in the past on the same issue.
In Anna Maria, an appeal to property owners through personal persuasian and an opportunity to participate in doing a good thing for the City usually works better (and a lot faster) than trying to try to take their existing rights away via additional/new/reinterpreted legislation. And honestly, Harry, as an admitted idealist - I can look around at what has occurred here over the years and feel good about what a wonderful place it is. There have been mistakes and everything isn't to my own taste, certainly there is room for improvement (eg landscaping which is a cheap solution to a lot of evils) but all in all I think we have a very good balance between what people have a right to do and what we as a community have a right to expect.
By way of illustrating my commitment to many of things you obviously care about too and mention here, I have spent a great deal of time with Dale Woodland lately trying to come up with a way to save local cottages and create an historic village on Pine Avenue. He and I have been at work for a while now with the Thrashers (who own a significant amount of land on Pine) and other various pertinent parties like Danny Gagne and Sissy Quinn to make this a reality. We have already begun work with "the architect" to create the village while addressing the economic requirements unique to the Thrashers based upon their financial investment and expectations for a return on it. And we don't draw a line without first talking to the City Building Dept. As you probably know, the Thrashers are not longer part of PAR however, upon Gene's and my request, Ed gave Lizzie and Mike the old Sears Cottage PAR owns to help us kick off our village. We now have 3 historic cottages and are looking for a couple more if you know of anyone who has one to donate to the cause. We have a building mover who has evaluated the moving of the Sears cottage and given us a price. We might even take the Angler's Inn if it was offered and we could make that work. The mover says "anything" can be moved. But of course it's all about the dollars.
Additionally, Dale and I have discussed and hope to ultimately propose a plan that offers incentives to owners of the cottages within the City to maintain them as they are today. That is still in the research phase however we are committed to following through on it.
Gene and I are always in conversations with PAR to find new and better ways to achieve/preserve a more historic look for Pine while being mindful of the economic parameters. We all wish we didn't have to deal with economics but we do. I don't know how well you know Ed Chiles but I think he has already demonstrated - in keeping with the comp plan language you sent me which I didn't even know about - his desire "to do less from a building size" standpoint on his first projects on Pine by building far lower than the allowable square footage via his design criteria which is to build a full floor below the height allowed by code. By doing so he is sacrificing a lot of square footage and taking an economic hit for the greater good that he didn't have to. I doubt you would find many developers who would do that.
I think the Thrashers, who feel similarly to Ed, will likely want to do the same thing. In my mind, we are fortunate we don't have developers working here who "take it to the max" in terms of both allowable buildable square footage and maximized rate of return on investment. I don't look at what is and say its bad, I look at what could be and I have two visions. One is really good and one scares the you know what out of me. I think you see the same thing but we may differ slightly on how we want to go forth to ensure we get the really good vision. We need to continue to work with the business community to keep on finding new and better ways to improve how we are doing things in ROR and throughout the City.
Nobody wishes more than all of us who get involved in these things that property values were low enough to be able to build all cottages here. But unless the city or private citizens want to invest in that desire with low to no return on their investment it won't happen. I am not being sarcastic by the way. Dale and I think an initiative to invest in the historic district and offering incentives to allow more cottages to be saved would be a great idea and a way more constructive use of city money than more studies, fighting and lawsuits.
Harry, I think you are one of the good guys and I can both see and share your frustrations. We have much more in common than not. The way people work and think around here just isn't "normal". I know it isn't funny but I had to laugh at the meeting last night when everyone agreed that driving over sidewalks should stay on the table?!? That is quintessential Anna Maria politics....and our history is littered with people who thought talking til they are blue in the face would change it. It won't. You have to literally get in the boat and row with the rest of us - and you won't get it all your way - but you will get somewhere better than where we are now. You will need your patience (yes I'm short on it too obviously), your charm, your brains and - most of all - your sense of humor.
We could achieve a lot working together Harry and I think you would find, as I have, that being inside the tent offers an opportunity to effect positive change rather quickly without cumbersome public meetings and additional legislation which will always be subject to a new interpretation every time we get a new commissioner, a new property owner, a new developer, or a new attorney in the mix.
As you know, a lot goes on at our house because Gene and I are very actively involved in a lot of the work being done in the City - some with clients and a lot of it volunteer. We really don't line up with any particular group unless they have something constructive to offer. We like viable, creative solutions way more than rancor and criticism. We hate pavement and strip centers. We like smart people with good taste. We like landscaping of all kinds and lots of it. And we don't believe in driving over sidewalks. Most of all we have a passion for Anna Maria and, in my case, the love affair started when I first came here in 1960.
I would really like it if you would come by the house on a regular basis to see what projects we're working on and give us the benefit of your participation and ideas. While you hang out with some people I don't necessarily have much in common with, I know I do the same. We both have our reasons. I get you Harry. And I think you get me too. We should be working more closely because together we could accomplish a lot of good for the City and have fun doing it. What do you think?
Best,
Janet
PS Gene said he saw you at Slim's last night and he felt your pain over how frustrated you are by trying to have any type of reasonable exchange at these meetings. Oddly enough, Ed made the same comment to me during the meeting. I don't think any of us are that far apart on coming up with good solutions. It's just the process at City Hall isn't condusive to it which is why I have never run for office.
Hi Janet,
I’m also opposed to taking away people’s property rights, but I suspect we disagree on exactly what that means. In my opinion, the economic feasibility of a project depends more on the developer than it does on the City. When I review the changes adopted in our land development regulations over the past five years, I can’t find a single one that didn’t loosen the regulations for developers and make their lots more buildable and more profitable. I think the City has been very pro-active, even accommodating, in encouraging development.
I applaud anyone who can build a successful business. I know how tough a job that is. And I’m the last one to suggest arbitrary impediments for those individuals.
The issues here in Anna Maria are extremely simple in one sense, and very complex in another. I sympathize with those who’ve purchased property here when the market still had underpinnings. I’m no real estate expert and I’m not much of an economics expert either, but I’m guessing we haven’t seen the bottom of this market. I know the value of my house has nearly halved, and I would not be shocked it dropped another 50% from where it is today. I’m totally doomsday regarding the effects of the debt load Obama has placed on us.
I digress. But I make those observations in light of the economic pressure on anyone trying to develop here, or anywhere else for that matter. It’s a tough market right now. In Harcon, my business, we’re reducing debt, not accumulating it. I wouldn’t build a commercial building right now for love nor money.
I applaud the Thrasher’s attempts to save cottages. I wish some of the other builders would consider the same approach.
I don’t have much time to devote to a response to your letter today. Friends of ours lost their house to a fire last night, and I’m trying to help them get through their personal tragedy. And I’m drafting some stuff for the next Commissioner’s meeting as well.
I look forward to continued discussions regarding the future of Anna Maria.
Cordially,
Harry
You can form you own opinion to Ms. Aubrey's emails.
From: Harry Stoltzfus
To: catpeople@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Feb 11, 2010 2:54 pm
Subject: Comp Plan Language
Janet,
Under the Land Use Element in the Comp Plan, Policy 1.2.1.
To preserve the unique, historic cottage type housing and the existing single family residential character of the City, within one year after adoption of the EAR amendments, the City of Anna Maria shall conduct a review of existing development processes and building requirements to develop a listing of actions that the City can implement to encourage property owners to build less than the maximum size buildings on existing small 5000 sq. ft. lots.
Seems clear to me the City needn’t apologize for constricting a building’s size through regulation. It’s apparently a desired outcome. Gagne seems to have gotten the message. He’s actually putting up stuff that still looks like cottages. Seen anything else like that recently?
From: catpeople@aol.com [mailto:catpeople@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:40 AM
To: harry@harconcorp.com
Subject: Re: Comp Plan Language
Dear Harry,
Thanks for sending this. I agree with it - although probably not to the extent it might have a negative economic impact on property owners - especially those who have already purchased property for millions of dollars having been told by the city they can develop it in ROR in a economically feasible way. As I mentioned to you the other day, I am extremely anti-lawsuit especially so when we force people into a corner where they have no option but to sue us and where there is already strong precedent for us to lose as we have in the past on the same issue.
In Anna Maria, an appeal to property owners through personal persuasian and an opportunity to participate in doing a good thing for the City usually works better (and a lot faster) than trying to try to take their existing rights away via additional/new/reinterpreted legislation. And honestly, Harry, as an admitted idealist - I can look around at what has occurred here over the years and feel good about what a wonderful place it is. There have been mistakes and everything isn't to my own taste, certainly there is room for improvement (eg landscaping which is a cheap solution to a lot of evils) but all in all I think we have a very good balance between what people have a right to do and what we as a community have a right to expect.
By way of illustrating my commitment to many of things you obviously care about too and mention here, I have spent a great deal of time with Dale Woodland lately trying to come up with a way to save local cottages and create an historic village on Pine Avenue. He and I have been at work for a while now with the Thrashers (who own a significant amount of land on Pine) and other various pertinent parties like Danny Gagne and Sissy Quinn to make this a reality. We have already begun work with "the architect" to create the village while addressing the economic requirements unique to the Thrashers based upon their financial investment and expectations for a return on it. And we don't draw a line without first talking to the City Building Dept. As you probably know, the Thrashers are not longer part of PAR however, upon Gene's and my request, Ed gave Lizzie and Mike the old Sears Cottage PAR owns to help us kick off our village. We now have 3 historic cottages and are looking for a couple more if you know of anyone who has one to donate to the cause. We have a building mover who has evaluated the moving of the Sears cottage and given us a price. We might even take the Angler's Inn if it was offered and we could make that work. The mover says "anything" can be moved. But of course it's all about the dollars.
Additionally, Dale and I have discussed and hope to ultimately propose a plan that offers incentives to owners of the cottages within the City to maintain them as they are today. That is still in the research phase however we are committed to following through on it.
Gene and I are always in conversations with PAR to find new and better ways to achieve/preserve a more historic look for Pine while being mindful of the economic parameters. We all wish we didn't have to deal with economics but we do. I don't know how well you know Ed Chiles but I think he has already demonstrated - in keeping with the comp plan language you sent me which I didn't even know about - his desire "to do less from a building size" standpoint on his first projects on Pine by building far lower than the allowable square footage via his design criteria which is to build a full floor below the height allowed by code. By doing so he is sacrificing a lot of square footage and taking an economic hit for the greater good that he didn't have to. I doubt you would find many developers who would do that.
I think the Thrashers, who feel similarly to Ed, will likely want to do the same thing. In my mind, we are fortunate we don't have developers working here who "take it to the max" in terms of both allowable buildable square footage and maximized rate of return on investment. I don't look at what is and say its bad, I look at what could be and I have two visions. One is really good and one scares the you know what out of me. I think you see the same thing but we may differ slightly on how we want to go forth to ensure we get the really good vision. We need to continue to work with the business community to keep on finding new and better ways to improve how we are doing things in ROR and throughout the City.
Nobody wishes more than all of us who get involved in these things that property values were low enough to be able to build all cottages here. But unless the city or private citizens want to invest in that desire with low to no return on their investment it won't happen. I am not being sarcastic by the way. Dale and I think an initiative to invest in the historic district and offering incentives to allow more cottages to be saved would be a great idea and a way more constructive use of city money than more studies, fighting and lawsuits.
Harry, I think you are one of the good guys and I can both see and share your frustrations. We have much more in common than not. The way people work and think around here just isn't "normal". I know it isn't funny but I had to laugh at the meeting last night when everyone agreed that driving over sidewalks should stay on the table?!? That is quintessential Anna Maria politics....and our history is littered with people who thought talking til they are blue in the face would change it. It won't. You have to literally get in the boat and row with the rest of us - and you won't get it all your way - but you will get somewhere better than where we are now. You will need your patience (yes I'm short on it too obviously), your charm, your brains and - most of all - your sense of humor.
We could achieve a lot working together Harry and I think you would find, as I have, that being inside the tent offers an opportunity to effect positive change rather quickly without cumbersome public meetings and additional legislation which will always be subject to a new interpretation every time we get a new commissioner, a new property owner, a new developer, or a new attorney in the mix.
As you know, a lot goes on at our house because Gene and I are very actively involved in a lot of the work being done in the City - some with clients and a lot of it volunteer. We really don't line up with any particular group unless they have something constructive to offer. We like viable, creative solutions way more than rancor and criticism. We hate pavement and strip centers. We like smart people with good taste. We like landscaping of all kinds and lots of it. And we don't believe in driving over sidewalks. Most of all we have a passion for Anna Maria and, in my case, the love affair started when I first came here in 1960.
I would really like it if you would come by the house on a regular basis to see what projects we're working on and give us the benefit of your participation and ideas. While you hang out with some people I don't necessarily have much in common with, I know I do the same. We both have our reasons. I get you Harry. And I think you get me too. We should be working more closely because together we could accomplish a lot of good for the City and have fun doing it. What do you think?
Best,
Janet
PS Gene said he saw you at Slim's last night and he felt your pain over how frustrated you are by trying to have any type of reasonable exchange at these meetings. Oddly enough, Ed made the same comment to me during the meeting. I don't think any of us are that far apart on coming up with good solutions. It's just the process at City Hall isn't condusive to it which is why I have never run for office.
Hi Janet,
I’m also opposed to taking away people’s property rights, but I suspect we disagree on exactly what that means. In my opinion, the economic feasibility of a project depends more on the developer than it does on the City. When I review the changes adopted in our land development regulations over the past five years, I can’t find a single one that didn’t loosen the regulations for developers and make their lots more buildable and more profitable. I think the City has been very pro-active, even accommodating, in encouraging development.
I applaud anyone who can build a successful business. I know how tough a job that is. And I’m the last one to suggest arbitrary impediments for those individuals.
The issues here in Anna Maria are extremely simple in one sense, and very complex in another. I sympathize with those who’ve purchased property here when the market still had underpinnings. I’m no real estate expert and I’m not much of an economics expert either, but I’m guessing we haven’t seen the bottom of this market. I know the value of my house has nearly halved, and I would not be shocked it dropped another 50% from where it is today. I’m totally doomsday regarding the effects of the debt load Obama has placed on us.
I digress. But I make those observations in light of the economic pressure on anyone trying to develop here, or anywhere else for that matter. It’s a tough market right now. In Harcon, my business, we’re reducing debt, not accumulating it. I wouldn’t build a commercial building right now for love nor money.
I applaud the Thrasher’s attempts to save cottages. I wish some of the other builders would consider the same approach.
I don’t have much time to devote to a response to your letter today. Friends of ours lost their house to a fire last night, and I’m trying to help them get through their personal tragedy. And I’m drafting some stuff for the next Commissioner’s meeting as well.
I look forward to continued discussions regarding the future of Anna Maria.
Cordially,
Harry
You can form you own opinion to Ms. Aubrey's emails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
