The following was sent to the city administration by Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus on November 30, 2009.
Our City has a problem. In fact, we’ve got a bunch of them.
We’ve reached a new level of pathetic when a developer can stand in front of a meeting convened to address safety issues and, with a straight face, call raising concerns about safety and pedestrians a “monkey wrench” issue or “a made up problem”. Or when a Commissioner can suggest because we’ve gone four or five months at 315/317 Pine Avenue and we’ve had no accidents, there’s no safety issue. Or that someone can suggest, because we’ve never had a pedestrian struck on a sidewalk on Pine Avenue, it’s acceptable to approve an off-street parking design that clearly increases the probability of that happening. Or when a developer can threaten our City with a lawsuit if we dare apply the language in our Land Development Regulations as it was clearly intended to be applied.
We’ve got a developer who’s trying to beat the system by submitting site plans quickly before the Commissioners refine the land development regulations. I’ve seen one of the next trio of site plans. It has ten more of the same back-out parking arrangements most of the Commissioners consider unsafe. It also has a loading zone placed squarely in the visibility triangle-- that 20 ft in both directions from an intersection area that’s supposed to remain clear of permanent structures for safety reasons. Allowing a 13’-6” high truck to park there, even temporarily, is also clearly unsafe.
Fortunately, there’s adequate language within our LDR to reject those site plans, even before the Commissioners clarify the language.
Unfortunately, the City has already accepted similar plans.
What to do?
I think the City needs to acknowledge they’ve mistakenly accepted site plans that are non-compliant with this language and other safety criteria presently contained in the LDR: Sec. 90-3. Off-street parking requirements. (m) General design standards. All off-street parking areas, including all areas for maneuvering, shall be located solely on the subject property, shall not use public rights-of-way, shall have vehicular access to a public street, and shall be designed to provide safe and convenient circulation in accordance with commonly accepted traffic engineering practices.
In a phone conversation with Mayor Barford on Saturday [11/28/09], I quoted a portion of this standard to her. Her response was “I’m not sure that’s what it says.”
That’s a problem. The Mayor needs to read these requirements carefully. She needs to understand their intent. She needs to know what they say. And she needs to apply them.
Obviously, the back-out parking arrangement approved on the newly developed lots on Pine Avenue requires maneuvering within the right-of-way. It should be equally obvious that requiring pedestrians to be on high alert because they risk being struck by a vehicle backing over them while they’re on the City sidewalk is absurd. It’s neither safe nor convenient. Furthermore, regulations regarding curb cuts or driveway openings have been ignored. There’s been no attempt to limit access openings or restrict the interaction of vehicles and pedestrians. That arrangement is unsafe and noncompliant at many levels.
The City should inform this developer and all future developers, all pending and future site plans must be compliant with the above noted general design standards for off-street parking.
This latest batch of site plans must be rejected. Because the City has mistakenly approved this parking arrangement in the past does not mean it’s required to repeat those mistakes in the future. I’m aware P&Z approved these back-out parking arrangements as well. But I suggest if this Administration had done its job, if our experts had stood up and rejected the parking arrangements and educated the rest of us on why they were unacceptable, citing safety and convenience concerns, we would have seen a different outcome.
This Administration needs to provide leadership on this hugely important issue. Mayor Barford needs to assure us she and her experts are going to get it right this time. It’s critical this language is applied. It’s critical these plans are rejected at the Administrative review level. If the Administration passes the buck on these parking arrangements, and forces the P&Z or the Commissioners to do the heavy lifting, the Administration once again will have given a non-compliant, inherently unsafe site plan its stamp of approval.
Our Mayor needs to sit down with our Building Official and our Town Planner, review the language within the Comp Plan and the LDR, and deny these present site plan applications based on that language. Not approval. Not approval with conditions. Denial. They can easily justify their basis for denial with this language in the LDR: Chapter 74-354 Site plan application process. (d) (7) Once the application is deemed complete, the application shall be reviewed to determine compliance with city codes and regulations in accordance with the standards for review provided below. (h) Standards for review: (6) Whether the off-street parking and off-street loading facilities are located to avoid hazardous automotive and pedestrian traffic patterns and to ensure access by emergency vehicles;
If the Administration gets it wrong and accepts these site plans without requiring the back-out parking design be eliminated, they’ve greatly weakened the City’s hand if the developer litigates. And if an accident should occur, and someone’s seriously injured or killed by a vehicle backing out of one of these parking spaces , the Administration has left the City with a serious liability issue in the event of a lawsuit, especially considering how much attention has been focused on the obvious safety issues.
If the Administration gets it right, and rejects these site plans, the developer may choose to appeal. I doubt either P&Z or the Commissioners will reverse the Administration’s decision. If the developer sues the City, I doubt any judge will fault our City for following its Comp Plan and its Land Development Regulations. It’s required to do so, by law. Then the developer can do the right thing and put together some site plans that actually provide for the safety and convenience of our drivers and our pedestrians.
And we’ll wind up with a walking business district on Pine Avenue that makes sense.
Isn’t that, after all, the goal here?
Harry Stoltzfus
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Mayberry by The Sea
Received this item in an email the other day, written by Commissioner Dale Woodland's son. Enjoy.
Mayberry By The Sea
An amazing thing happened on November 3, 2009, and it happened right here in Anna Maria, FL. By all rights, it was what should have happened, but nonetheless, it was impressive and would have made even Andy Griffith proud. It was an election, and America decided to show up. While neighboring areas struggled with turn out, most under 20%, Anna Maria City boasts a 60% voter turnout and an election result that all of America can learn from and be proud of.
I refer to Anna Maria City as Mayberry By The Sea. It is filled with neighbors who know each other, wave at each other and passers-by, and enjoy their community together. It has sheriff deputies that know their residents and share a friendly wave. Like I said, things that would put a smile on Andy Griffith's face. This is the community to where people are drawn for beauty, beaches, and a relaxed lifestyle. But it is the close-knit permanent community that fends off the troubled outside world--a drive through Anna Maria City refreshes the soul and reminds you how things should be.
In the recent election, and campaigning leading up to the election, some division was in the air. Five candidates chasing 3 seats. Three of the candidates, we will call them John, Dale, and Harry, were clear preservationists, in love with the city the way it was. The other two, Christine and the Kid, had a view of an improved city, with more business and industry; we will call them the expansionists. So with the idea of expansion comes the money, and it backs the play of the expansionists. I will leave the details to the technical writers, but suffice it to say, a few have a major stake in the city, and they brought their money for the expansionists. The expansionists also bode well with a newspaper, or what I like to call a mullet wrapper. So the duo are set, they have the money and they have the press. But the preservationists wouldn't go down, so they scraped their pennies, shook a lot of hands, and stood by their principles. So the division is set, change what we have or preserve what we have. What happens next is the most heated campaign to date, interest soaring to new levels, the ugly head of politics rearing up, an exciting time to be remembered. This leads to what did happen, what should have happened, a clear vote by a strong majority that said "Leave our Mayberry alone!" It was the right thing that happened. A victory for the trio, a defeat for the duo. A mandate for preservation of a great city, an approval for those with the courage to protect it. Anna Maria City, you make us proud!
A lesson for America was in the making that day. Our founders would be pleased that they could see their idea come alive in a small city where the people had spoken. The courage of a few supported by the passion of the community, led to the preservation of what was already there. The rest of America fights for change, searches for hope. But how many things do we need to fix that are not broken? Maybe all of America could benefit from a little more "Mayberry.” Change could be found in knowing our neighbors, shaking the hand of those around us, a polite wave to let someone know we care. Hope could be found in that America is the best place on earth, already. Americans are the strongest, smartest, and most caring people on earth; let's just remember that. Wake up America, we need not look too far to find the answers. Maybe we could start at our little Mayberry by the Sea!!
JW
Mayberry By The Sea
An amazing thing happened on November 3, 2009, and it happened right here in Anna Maria, FL. By all rights, it was what should have happened, but nonetheless, it was impressive and would have made even Andy Griffith proud. It was an election, and America decided to show up. While neighboring areas struggled with turn out, most under 20%, Anna Maria City boasts a 60% voter turnout and an election result that all of America can learn from and be proud of.
I refer to Anna Maria City as Mayberry By The Sea. It is filled with neighbors who know each other, wave at each other and passers-by, and enjoy their community together. It has sheriff deputies that know their residents and share a friendly wave. Like I said, things that would put a smile on Andy Griffith's face. This is the community to where people are drawn for beauty, beaches, and a relaxed lifestyle. But it is the close-knit permanent community that fends off the troubled outside world--a drive through Anna Maria City refreshes the soul and reminds you how things should be.
In the recent election, and campaigning leading up to the election, some division was in the air. Five candidates chasing 3 seats. Three of the candidates, we will call them John, Dale, and Harry, were clear preservationists, in love with the city the way it was. The other two, Christine and the Kid, had a view of an improved city, with more business and industry; we will call them the expansionists. So with the idea of expansion comes the money, and it backs the play of the expansionists. I will leave the details to the technical writers, but suffice it to say, a few have a major stake in the city, and they brought their money for the expansionists. The expansionists also bode well with a newspaper, or what I like to call a mullet wrapper. So the duo are set, they have the money and they have the press. But the preservationists wouldn't go down, so they scraped their pennies, shook a lot of hands, and stood by their principles. So the division is set, change what we have or preserve what we have. What happens next is the most heated campaign to date, interest soaring to new levels, the ugly head of politics rearing up, an exciting time to be remembered. This leads to what did happen, what should have happened, a clear vote by a strong majority that said "Leave our Mayberry alone!" It was the right thing that happened. A victory for the trio, a defeat for the duo. A mandate for preservation of a great city, an approval for those with the courage to protect it. Anna Maria City, you make us proud!
A lesson for America was in the making that day. Our founders would be pleased that they could see their idea come alive in a small city where the people had spoken. The courage of a few supported by the passion of the community, led to the preservation of what was already there. The rest of America fights for change, searches for hope. But how many things do we need to fix that are not broken? Maybe all of America could benefit from a little more "Mayberry.” Change could be found in knowing our neighbors, shaking the hand of those around us, a polite wave to let someone know we care. Hope could be found in that America is the best place on earth, already. Americans are the strongest, smartest, and most caring people on earth; let's just remember that. Wake up America, we need not look too far to find the answers. Maybe we could start at our little Mayberry by the Sea!!
JW
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Our Anna Maria IS NOT For Sale!
What greater tribute to a dedicated, grass-roots effort can there ever be than to learn that not only was last week's election a landslide victory for the residents, but also that the donations were inversely proportional to the outcome.
Let's not forget, though, while it is fitting testimony to much hard work by a lot of people, it says so much more about the caliber of the candidates.
How sweet it is.
Let's not forget, though, while it is fitting testimony to much hard work by a lot of people, it says so much more about the caliber of the candidates.
How sweet it is.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Do Unto Others
By Bill Yanger
So, it is done.
The votes are in, the people have spoken and life in paradise rolls along. And, as uncomfortable as the blogged rhetoric and published opinion may have become in the weeks leading up to the election, the inevitability of the current debate over this little city’s future should have come as a surprise to no one. These issues were fought and decided in beach communities all over Florida years ago and the results are self-evident (i.e. St. George Island v. Treasure Island; Fernandina Beach v. Clearwater Beach) as each community reaped what it had sown. Since the zoning and land use brawls of the early 1970’s Anna Maria City has historically escaped developer madness. A combination of that enviable foresight by leaders years ago, unaggressive and, frankly, disinterested developers and an overall lassez fairre attitude by all of us who felt our secret would remain just that, allowed us to go blissfully about our island lives without much consternation or divisiveness. But that could not last forever and the recent election has become a sharply focused and inevitable referendum on development versus status quo; the din and congestion of the new and the spiffier versus the calm and solace of the known and the comfier; those maneuvering to accelerate and benefit from an influx they say is inescapable versus those who fear having the influx and its debris parked in their front yard while the wedding singer warbles through “You Light Up My Life” at his third reception of the day from Wedding World down the beach.
Like the shrill bark of a yippy dog in a tiny room, the small-town press characteristically chose to focus its op-ed on personalities and not issues, spewing lazy derision but little true analysis or thoughtful criticism. And that derision became contagious as honest disparity of opinion between neighbors was often mistaken for a personal affront. Though it was often unwarranted or unfair, such criticism and its ensuing ugliness became a part of the public discourse, staining the community fabric - perhaps indelibly. Let’s hope not.
Regardless of how one perceives this election (Victory or defeat? Ratification or nullification?) and the opportunities it affords (Rapprochement or rearmament?), the elephant is still in the room and it may be instructive to look at why the lines in this debate have been so deeply drawn. After all, the PAR principals are your neighbors and friends. They are good people with just as much love for this community as the next guy. Few can boast of the contributions, both commercial and altruistic, that the Chiles family has historically provided and continues to provide Anna Maria Island. The Colemans have, it appears, genuinely fallen in love with this village and have become visible and vocal cheerleaders for its charms and way of life. The Thrashers too have caught the Anna Maria bug and do not appear to be going anywhere anytime soon. PAR’s presence and influence in Anna Maria’s future is a reality. Get used to it. Here’s why:
To say these folks have a vested interest in this town is understatement of epic proportions. Take a look. From the base of the City Pier down Pine Avenue to the high tide mark (literally) on the Gulf, Manatee County Property Appraiser records confirm that fifteen properties are owned either by PAR itself, by one or more of its principals themselves, by various trusts and family entities of one or more of the principals or by whimsically named LLCs like Nut Fish, Gingerfish and Pineapple Fish (not to be confused with Pineapple Corner LLC owned by the Hunts and the subject of recent speculation related to PAR and a felled Poinciana tree) owned and/or controlled by one or more of the principals. At least two of the Pine Avenue properties are owned by LLCs which are owned by another LLC which is owned or controlled by one or more of the principals of PAR (yes, its complicated but maybe that’s the point). In addition to direct ownership, PAR’s website touts plans that include an additional six parcels contiguous to or along Pine Avenue and therefore one may assume PAR’s control of these parcels through any number of legal devises. Remember, this is only the properties on or contiguous to Pine Avenue and does not include a number of other properties located elsewhere on the island.
To place the scope of this control in perspective, take a drive, a bike ride or a stroll down Pine Avenue from the City Pier to the Gulf (just be mindful of parked cars backing into the street…). Heading west, eliminate the Roser Church property and its parking lot across Pine, the condos behind Roser, the Post Office plaza, the City-owned historical society and its adjacent parcel and the City Hall property. That’s a good one-third of Pine Avenue that is essentially unavailable for current development. Then realize that as many as twenty-one parcels of the remaining two-thirds of Pine have some link to PAR and/or its principals. They control the vacant North Bay lots north of Pine to the hump-back bridge, every available corner lot on Pine save a few, have all but one available lot in the 500 block, half of the 200 and 300 blocks, bookend the south side of the 400 block and own the sand on the beach-end of Pine down to the waterline. That, folks, is a whole lotta land.
And that “whole lotta land” translates into a whole lotta dough. According to Property Appraiser records the aggregate appraised value of the twenty-one properties is $8,115,140. The parcels, again according to Property Appraiser records, reportedly generate $138,903.61 in ad valorem tax revenue each year. Keep in mind that $138,903.61 is more than 11% of Anna Maria City’s ad valorem revenue according to its published 2008-2009 budget. Yes, eleven percent. No wonder PAR wants a seat at the table. Wouldn’t you? Is it any wonder they push so hard?
Fortunately, while many of the electorate live by the First Golden Rule (“Do Unto Others….”) this election has eliminated any immediate hope PAR may have of instituting the Second Golden Rule…“He with the Gold Makes the Rule.” But they are not going away. Why should they? Such a significant stake in the game requires a vigilant persistence. It also requires patience, patience few would have while shelling out $140,000 each year to provide the City with 11% of its tax revenue; a City, mind you, that just slammed the door in their face. But they’ve made their bed.
So am I anti-PAR? Of course not. I admire PAR as I admire all entities or individuals with the resources and gumption to pursue the American Dream of prosperity and self-reliance. They just need to accept the rules of the road, stay in their lane and do good things. Do I think they are in serious need of some public relations defibrillation? Absolutely. As I have expressed to Mr. Coleman, I am not sure that playing hide-n-seek with layers of LLCs is the best way to allay the fears of those who are certain PAR is bent on the destruction of the way of life as we know it. Responding to thoughtful criticism tit-for-tat ad nauseum in blogs and publications just focuses attention on the division instead of seeking a solution with the positive. Banging one’s head against the wall achieves just two things: a dented wall and a bloody head. Neither solves anything. And I think PAR now realizes that. At least they should.
What then does one say to those staunch PAR detractors, the wounded and unconvinced? Well, after the sweet buzz of victory comes the nagging hangover of reality. As I said, the elephant is still in the room and with apologies to the mannered and proper amongst us, President Lyndon Johnson’s infamous reference to J. Edgar Hoover seems apropos, paraphrased of course: “...I’d rather have ‘em in the tent peeing out than outside the tent peeing in.” You get the gist. Learn to co-exist because they pay their way and they are here to stay. They’re good folks with valuable resources, enviable talent and a shared love of our town.
They just need a little more guidance and a little less hubris.
And reading the rule book would be nice too.
© 2009 William L. Yanger
So, it is done.
The votes are in, the people have spoken and life in paradise rolls along. And, as uncomfortable as the blogged rhetoric and published opinion may have become in the weeks leading up to the election, the inevitability of the current debate over this little city’s future should have come as a surprise to no one. These issues were fought and decided in beach communities all over Florida years ago and the results are self-evident (i.e. St. George Island v. Treasure Island; Fernandina Beach v. Clearwater Beach) as each community reaped what it had sown. Since the zoning and land use brawls of the early 1970’s Anna Maria City has historically escaped developer madness. A combination of that enviable foresight by leaders years ago, unaggressive and, frankly, disinterested developers and an overall lassez fairre attitude by all of us who felt our secret would remain just that, allowed us to go blissfully about our island lives without much consternation or divisiveness. But that could not last forever and the recent election has become a sharply focused and inevitable referendum on development versus status quo; the din and congestion of the new and the spiffier versus the calm and solace of the known and the comfier; those maneuvering to accelerate and benefit from an influx they say is inescapable versus those who fear having the influx and its debris parked in their front yard while the wedding singer warbles through “You Light Up My Life” at his third reception of the day from Wedding World down the beach.
Like the shrill bark of a yippy dog in a tiny room, the small-town press characteristically chose to focus its op-ed on personalities and not issues, spewing lazy derision but little true analysis or thoughtful criticism. And that derision became contagious as honest disparity of opinion between neighbors was often mistaken for a personal affront. Though it was often unwarranted or unfair, such criticism and its ensuing ugliness became a part of the public discourse, staining the community fabric - perhaps indelibly. Let’s hope not.
Regardless of how one perceives this election (Victory or defeat? Ratification or nullification?) and the opportunities it affords (Rapprochement or rearmament?), the elephant is still in the room and it may be instructive to look at why the lines in this debate have been so deeply drawn. After all, the PAR principals are your neighbors and friends. They are good people with just as much love for this community as the next guy. Few can boast of the contributions, both commercial and altruistic, that the Chiles family has historically provided and continues to provide Anna Maria Island. The Colemans have, it appears, genuinely fallen in love with this village and have become visible and vocal cheerleaders for its charms and way of life. The Thrashers too have caught the Anna Maria bug and do not appear to be going anywhere anytime soon. PAR’s presence and influence in Anna Maria’s future is a reality. Get used to it. Here’s why:
To say these folks have a vested interest in this town is understatement of epic proportions. Take a look. From the base of the City Pier down Pine Avenue to the high tide mark (literally) on the Gulf, Manatee County Property Appraiser records confirm that fifteen properties are owned either by PAR itself, by one or more of its principals themselves, by various trusts and family entities of one or more of the principals or by whimsically named LLCs like Nut Fish, Gingerfish and Pineapple Fish (not to be confused with Pineapple Corner LLC owned by the Hunts and the subject of recent speculation related to PAR and a felled Poinciana tree) owned and/or controlled by one or more of the principals. At least two of the Pine Avenue properties are owned by LLCs which are owned by another LLC which is owned or controlled by one or more of the principals of PAR (yes, its complicated but maybe that’s the point). In addition to direct ownership, PAR’s website touts plans that include an additional six parcels contiguous to or along Pine Avenue and therefore one may assume PAR’s control of these parcels through any number of legal devises. Remember, this is only the properties on or contiguous to Pine Avenue and does not include a number of other properties located elsewhere on the island.
To place the scope of this control in perspective, take a drive, a bike ride or a stroll down Pine Avenue from the City Pier to the Gulf (just be mindful of parked cars backing into the street…). Heading west, eliminate the Roser Church property and its parking lot across Pine, the condos behind Roser, the Post Office plaza, the City-owned historical society and its adjacent parcel and the City Hall property. That’s a good one-third of Pine Avenue that is essentially unavailable for current development. Then realize that as many as twenty-one parcels of the remaining two-thirds of Pine have some link to PAR and/or its principals. They control the vacant North Bay lots north of Pine to the hump-back bridge, every available corner lot on Pine save a few, have all but one available lot in the 500 block, half of the 200 and 300 blocks, bookend the south side of the 400 block and own the sand on the beach-end of Pine down to the waterline. That, folks, is a whole lotta land.
And that “whole lotta land” translates into a whole lotta dough. According to Property Appraiser records the aggregate appraised value of the twenty-one properties is $8,115,140. The parcels, again according to Property Appraiser records, reportedly generate $138,903.61 in ad valorem tax revenue each year. Keep in mind that $138,903.61 is more than 11% of Anna Maria City’s ad valorem revenue according to its published 2008-2009 budget. Yes, eleven percent. No wonder PAR wants a seat at the table. Wouldn’t you? Is it any wonder they push so hard?
Fortunately, while many of the electorate live by the First Golden Rule (“Do Unto Others….”) this election has eliminated any immediate hope PAR may have of instituting the Second Golden Rule…“He with the Gold Makes the Rule.” But they are not going away. Why should they? Such a significant stake in the game requires a vigilant persistence. It also requires patience, patience few would have while shelling out $140,000 each year to provide the City with 11% of its tax revenue; a City, mind you, that just slammed the door in their face. But they’ve made their bed.
So am I anti-PAR? Of course not. I admire PAR as I admire all entities or individuals with the resources and gumption to pursue the American Dream of prosperity and self-reliance. They just need to accept the rules of the road, stay in their lane and do good things. Do I think they are in serious need of some public relations defibrillation? Absolutely. As I have expressed to Mr. Coleman, I am not sure that playing hide-n-seek with layers of LLCs is the best way to allay the fears of those who are certain PAR is bent on the destruction of the way of life as we know it. Responding to thoughtful criticism tit-for-tat ad nauseum in blogs and publications just focuses attention on the division instead of seeking a solution with the positive. Banging one’s head against the wall achieves just two things: a dented wall and a bloody head. Neither solves anything. And I think PAR now realizes that. At least they should.
What then does one say to those staunch PAR detractors, the wounded and unconvinced? Well, after the sweet buzz of victory comes the nagging hangover of reality. As I said, the elephant is still in the room and with apologies to the mannered and proper amongst us, President Lyndon Johnson’s infamous reference to J. Edgar Hoover seems apropos, paraphrased of course: “...I’d rather have ‘em in the tent peeing out than outside the tent peeing in.” You get the gist. Learn to co-exist because they pay their way and they are here to stay. They’re good folks with valuable resources, enviable talent and a shared love of our town.
They just need a little more guidance and a little less hubris.
And reading the rule book would be nice too.
© 2009 William L. Yanger
Thursday, November 5, 2009
From Harry Stoltzfus
Harry asked that I post this to the blog:
To the good people of Anna Maria: thank you for giving me the honor of representing you on the Commission. I’ll try to serve you well.
Harry Stoltzfus
To the good people of Anna Maria: thank you for giving me the honor of representing you on the Commission. I’ll try to serve you well.
Harry Stoltzfus
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Congrats to John, Dale and Harry; thanks to others
We rejoice that John Quam, Dale Woodland and Harry Stolfus we elected/re-elected commissioners. They are fine individuals who will look out for the rights of residents.
But others deserve thanks as well in this victory, for keeping residents informed on island politics, both in emails and this blog.
While there are many who worked to keep the lines of communication open, Duke Miller and Robyn Wall get a special thanks from me, in particular, for pointing out who was funded by the businesses, and who was not.
Robin’s research on commissioner statements at past meetings gave a remarkable picture their alliances, and of our choices.
Thanks for the communication, Duke and Robin. It and, you are greatly appreciated.
But others deserve thanks as well in this victory, for keeping residents informed on island politics, both in emails and this blog.
While there are many who worked to keep the lines of communication open, Duke Miller and Robyn Wall get a special thanks from me, in particular, for pointing out who was funded by the businesses, and who was not.
Robin’s research on commissioner statements at past meetings gave a remarkable picture their alliances, and of our choices.
Thanks for the communication, Duke and Robin. It and, you are greatly appreciated.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Thanks to all the great citizens of Anna Maria
The citizens of Anna Maria have spoken. Winners in top votes were Woodland, Quam and Stoltzfus, for City Commissioner.
I can only thank all the voters who went to the poles and showed that they want to keep Anna Maria as the same quaint town that they moved to and love.
You are a fantastic group of citizens.
I can only thank all the voters who went to the poles and showed that they want to keep Anna Maria as the same quaint town that they moved to and love.
You are a fantastic group of citizens.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
The Rest of The Story, Campaign Contributions
An article appeared in The Islander this week about campaign finances. It doesn’t say much. If you do some math, you’ll find David Gryboski and Chris Tollette are outspending Quam, Stoltzfus, and Woodland, on average, by a greater than 2 – 1 margin.
Finances take on more significance when you look at the actual sources of the contributions. The Islander vaguely alludes to sources, while dividing the candidates into two groups. Regarding Gryboski and Tollette the story states the contributions to them are from “individual and business contributors combined.” However, for Quam, Stoltzfus, and Woodland, the only designation is “contributors.” County records show there are no business contributors funding Quam, Stoltzfus, nor Woodland campaigns, but substantial ones to the former two candidates.
Additional contributor data reveals a curious amount of interest outside Anna Maria in this election. About 40% of Tollette and Gryboski contributions are from individuals listing addresses other than Anna Maria. Less than 8% of contributors for Quam Stoltzfus and Woodland are outside the city.
You can examine the actual financial records at www.votemanatee.com. On the left side, select “Candidate Information,” then select, “Search Financial Records.” You can view the Islander article on line at http://www.islander.org/10-28-09/Am-election-spend-10-28.php.
Finances take on more significance when you look at the actual sources of the contributions. The Islander vaguely alludes to sources, while dividing the candidates into two groups. Regarding Gryboski and Tollette the story states the contributions to them are from “individual and business contributors combined.” However, for Quam, Stoltzfus, and Woodland, the only designation is “contributors.” County records show there are no business contributors funding Quam, Stoltzfus, nor Woodland campaigns, but substantial ones to the former two candidates.
Additional contributor data reveals a curious amount of interest outside Anna Maria in this election. About 40% of Tollette and Gryboski contributions are from individuals listing addresses other than Anna Maria. Less than 8% of contributors for Quam Stoltzfus and Woodland are outside the city.
You can examine the actual financial records at www.votemanatee.com. On the left side, select “Candidate Information,” then select, “Search Financial Records.” You can view the Islander article on line at http://www.islander.org/10-28-09/Am-election-spend-10-28.php.
Setting the record straight
From Cathy Stoltzfus;
For the record: about three years ago, we contacted Nancy Brown the owner of the vacant lot in the 400 block of Pine Avenue and asked permission to park our commercial boat on the lot from time to time. Prior to the Brown's ownership the lot had been used by the Island Marina as spillover parking for boats and trailers. She said absolutely we could, thanked us for asking and declined our offer of compensation. We parked on the lot over the next three plus years. Each year a little longer as work in the area increased. Brenda and Milt Boyd, who own the adjoining property, kindly offered the use of their water to rinse the boat as needed. Each year we sent the Browns a note and a gift certificate to The Bonefish Grill. We also sent the Boyds a gift Certificate which she returned to us explaining "we can't take a gift for being a good neighbor". Ask Brenda about it.. The Browns live in Tampa and have a rental property in the 100 block of Pine.
Recently a "no parking" sign was placed on the property. We contacted Mrs. Brown and she informed us the city of Anna Maria had sent her and her husband a letter saying the lot could not be used as a parking lot. We thanked her for allowing us the use of her lot and found another spot. This evening it came to my attention some in the community thought we had parked on the Pine Avenue lot illegally and were forced off the lot. It was further claimed that we knew it was illegal. They had heard this at a forum and of course took it as gospel. Well folks, it is not gospel. For almost 3 and one half years we used that lot, no problem, no fuss, no complaints, ever! I even asked the Sheriff's department to peek in the lot occasionally. They knew the boat was ours. On occasion we parked the boat in front of our home, to charge the batteries, no complaints from neighbors, ever! Ask code enforcement. So, why is this coming out now...? Oh yeah, Harry is running for a seat on The City Commission of Anna Maria. But, I'm not so, I take this twisted tale especially personally, like an elephant. Next?
Cathy Stoltzfus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
