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 '
Friday, April 30, 2010
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.
A LETTER FROM AN ISLAND RESIDENT
To the Editor:
It appears we're at a tipping point as to whether our town of Anna Maria remains as it is or enters an era of more shops, more businesses, increased traffic, etc. The permanent population of our town is small. Many are retired while others are still working, some deriving their income from stores, motels, restaurants or service businesses within the town and others working off island Some residents may want to see our town grow and their viewpoints are valid and should be heard. But what is facing us today is not a conflict among the residents of Anna Maria. The issue involves all the citizens of our town against a "machine" with the sole goal of profiting from growth, better said "profiting from indiscriminate growth". I don't want to call that machine PAR . It's more than that so I'll call it the "Profiteers".
Mr. Barfield didn't show up in town by chance nor did he come with a noble agenda. His goal is money and he came to serve the Profiteers. One of our island newspapers is a willing participant. With headlines like "conspire" and "shadow government", and zero to back it up, they've already convicted our newest commissioner. Should they run true to form then Tuesday's edition will probably claim Harry Stoltzfus was seen buying a bulldozer. They're very predictable.
Harry is a good man. He did not become a commissioner to make money and certainly not to destroy any buildings. It was recently announced that a Mr. Carter had sponsored a recall petition against Harry. I understand he is intelligent and financially successful. No intelligent person could make the decision that Harry should be recalled based on the comments that have been offered in the local paper, Mr. Barfield's accusations and actually little more. That tells me that Mr. Carter is another ally of the Profiteers.
A question for residents. The "R" in PAR, a segment of the Profiteers, stands for restoration;. When you drive along Pine Avenue and see those buildings do they speak "Restoration" of old Anna Maria to you? What you are looking at is a combination of retail complexes and motel rooms, hardly "restoration".
I'm frustrated as we as residents can't do much to stop it. We can do our best to keep Harry. He deserves nothing less. As individuals we can refuse to trade with any businesses that are housed in PAR buildings. We can stay out of the Sandbar Restaurant. I walk every day and drivers often stop and ask directions. One stopped a few days ago and asked if I knew where the Sandbar Restaurant was located. I said I really didn't know, somewhere along the water as I recollected. I went on to say that "locals" never go there. The car turned and headed out of town. It made me inordinately happy. However little, we do have power.
William Chable
It appears we're at a tipping point as to whether our town of Anna Maria remains as it is or enters an era of more shops, more businesses, increased traffic, etc. The permanent population of our town is small. Many are retired while others are still working, some deriving their income from stores, motels, restaurants or service businesses within the town and others working off island Some residents may want to see our town grow and their viewpoints are valid and should be heard. But what is facing us today is not a conflict among the residents of Anna Maria. The issue involves all the citizens of our town against a "machine" with the sole goal of profiting from growth, better said "profiting from indiscriminate growth". I don't want to call that machine PAR . It's more than that so I'll call it the "Profiteers".
Mr. Barfield didn't show up in town by chance nor did he come with a noble agenda. His goal is money and he came to serve the Profiteers. One of our island newspapers is a willing participant. With headlines like "conspire" and "shadow government", and zero to back it up, they've already convicted our newest commissioner. Should they run true to form then Tuesday's edition will probably claim Harry Stoltzfus was seen buying a bulldozer. They're very predictable.
Harry is a good man. He did not become a commissioner to make money and certainly not to destroy any buildings. It was recently announced that a Mr. Carter had sponsored a recall petition against Harry. I understand he is intelligent and financially successful. No intelligent person could make the decision that Harry should be recalled based on the comments that have been offered in the local paper, Mr. Barfield's accusations and actually little more. That tells me that Mr. Carter is another ally of the Profiteers.
A question for residents. The "R" in PAR, a segment of the Profiteers, stands for restoration;. When you drive along Pine Avenue and see those buildings do they speak "Restoration" of old Anna Maria to you? What you are looking at is a combination of retail complexes and motel rooms, hardly "restoration".
I'm frustrated as we as residents can't do much to stop it. We can do our best to keep Harry. He deserves nothing less. As individuals we can refuse to trade with any businesses that are housed in PAR buildings. We can stay out of the Sandbar Restaurant. I walk every day and drivers often stop and ask directions. One stopped a few days ago and asked if I knew where the Sandbar Restaurant was located. I said I really didn't know, somewhere along the water as I recollected. I went on to say that "locals" never go there. The car turned and headed out of town. It made me inordinately happy. However little, we do have power.
William Chable
Sun Op Ed
The effort to recall me as City of Anna Maria Commissioner has nothing to do with Sunshine Laws, which I have not broken, or public records disclosure laws, with which I’ve fully complied. This is about intimidation. It seems I’ve stepped on the tail of a very large dog.
Our City is divided. To oversimplify, on one side are those who approve of the recent developments on Pine Avenue; on the other side, those who disapprove.
I am among those who disapprove.
What is it we find objectionable? The answer is simple. The rules are being ignored.
It’s supposed to work like this: you’re a developer with a vision, financing, and a business plan. You find a location that accommodates your vision and you build that vision. If your assumptions are correct, your enterprise succeeds. If not, it fails. It’s the American way.
It’s a little different here in Anna Maria. Here a group of developers who has stated publicly this is the biggest project they’ve ever attempted, has a vision. Their vision doesn’t quite fit with our regulations. Rather than taking their vision to somewhere more compatible, they have chosen to stay here and make it fit. Instead of adjusting their vision to fit the regulations, they’ve expended considerable effort getting the regulations changed. Until recently, the City has mostly accommodated them. The City struck the owner/occupancy language in the ROR, allowed swimming pools in the ROR, made a few setback mistakes, but most importantly, approved non-compliant parking configurations.
Since I was elected, a majority of Commissioners has agreed the parking configurations on recently approved site plans are unsafe. P&Z and the Commission have begun making language changes to ensure those “back-out across the sidewalk into pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic” parking configurations are prohibited in future development.
Why all the fuss about a parking regulation? Because forcing developers to design safe, compliant parking shrinks the space available for their buildings. They’re crying foul and claiming we’ve devalued their properties. Our City Attorney disagrees. He has stated unequivocally the City is within its rights to make the changes in regulation it deems necessary for public safety or other appropriate reasons.
The developers have lost one battle, but instead of adjusting their vision, they’ve simply changed their strategy. Now it’s: if we can’t win on message, we’ll attack the messenger. The same cast of characters who opposed my election is now asking for my recall.
Why? Because I make policy decisions based on principle, not profit. Unlike many of them, I have no conflicts of interest and absolutely nothing to gain monetarily from the decisions I make as a Commissioner. I’m a businessman who has built a career working within the considerable restrictions of federal, state, and municipal regulations. I expect those who wish to do business within our City to work within the same type of restrictions.
I’ve learned much as a Commissioner. Certainly I could have been more restrained in some of my word choices. But I call things like I see them. The worst I can be accused of is indiscreet commentary. I’ve broken no laws.
If you believe the issues at stake here are Sunshine Laws or public records or indiscreet language, you’ve been deceived. This is about the losers of a recent election boldly attempting to negate the will of the majority. This is about discouraging good people from getting too involved. This is about accomplishing through lawyers what my opponents were unable to achieve at the ballot box.
Anna Maria is once again at a watershed moment in its history. If the residents of this town want to see a hundred more conflict points between vehicles and pedestrians added to our main street, more over-sized “old Florida cottages on steroids” crammed into lots, or meandering sidewalks and empty storefronts, they can recall me and they may get their wish.
But if the residents of Anna Maria want the vision of our Comprehensive Plan put forth as their vision, with “the single-family residential character of the City of Anna Maria . . . maintained and protected,” and if they want a Commissioner willing to hold the line on accommodating ill-conceived development, they can refuse to support this recall petition and I’ll continue to serve the City and the residents to the best of my ability.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
City of Anna Maria Commissioner
Our City is divided. To oversimplify, on one side are those who approve of the recent developments on Pine Avenue; on the other side, those who disapprove.
I am among those who disapprove.
What is it we find objectionable? The answer is simple. The rules are being ignored.
It’s supposed to work like this: you’re a developer with a vision, financing, and a business plan. You find a location that accommodates your vision and you build that vision. If your assumptions are correct, your enterprise succeeds. If not, it fails. It’s the American way.
It’s a little different here in Anna Maria. Here a group of developers who has stated publicly this is the biggest project they’ve ever attempted, has a vision. Their vision doesn’t quite fit with our regulations. Rather than taking their vision to somewhere more compatible, they have chosen to stay here and make it fit. Instead of adjusting their vision to fit the regulations, they’ve expended considerable effort getting the regulations changed. Until recently, the City has mostly accommodated them. The City struck the owner/occupancy language in the ROR, allowed swimming pools in the ROR, made a few setback mistakes, but most importantly, approved non-compliant parking configurations.
Since I was elected, a majority of Commissioners has agreed the parking configurations on recently approved site plans are unsafe. P&Z and the Commission have begun making language changes to ensure those “back-out across the sidewalk into pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic” parking configurations are prohibited in future development.
Why all the fuss about a parking regulation? Because forcing developers to design safe, compliant parking shrinks the space available for their buildings. They’re crying foul and claiming we’ve devalued their properties. Our City Attorney disagrees. He has stated unequivocally the City is within its rights to make the changes in regulation it deems necessary for public safety or other appropriate reasons.
The developers have lost one battle, but instead of adjusting their vision, they’ve simply changed their strategy. Now it’s: if we can’t win on message, we’ll attack the messenger. The same cast of characters who opposed my election is now asking for my recall.
Why? Because I make policy decisions based on principle, not profit. Unlike many of them, I have no conflicts of interest and absolutely nothing to gain monetarily from the decisions I make as a Commissioner. I’m a businessman who has built a career working within the considerable restrictions of federal, state, and municipal regulations. I expect those who wish to do business within our City to work within the same type of restrictions.
I’ve learned much as a Commissioner. Certainly I could have been more restrained in some of my word choices. But I call things like I see them. The worst I can be accused of is indiscreet commentary. I’ve broken no laws.
If you believe the issues at stake here are Sunshine Laws or public records or indiscreet language, you’ve been deceived. This is about the losers of a recent election boldly attempting to negate the will of the majority. This is about discouraging good people from getting too involved. This is about accomplishing through lawyers what my opponents were unable to achieve at the ballot box.
Anna Maria is once again at a watershed moment in its history. If the residents of this town want to see a hundred more conflict points between vehicles and pedestrians added to our main street, more over-sized “old Florida cottages on steroids” crammed into lots, or meandering sidewalks and empty storefronts, they can recall me and they may get their wish.
But if the residents of Anna Maria want the vision of our Comprehensive Plan put forth as their vision, with “the single-family residential character of the City of Anna Maria . . . maintained and protected,” and if they want a Commissioner willing to hold the line on accommodating ill-conceived development, they can refuse to support this recall petition and I’ll continue to serve the City and the residents to the best of my ability.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
City of Anna Maria Commissioner
Recall Consequences
After several days of tooling around in golf carts and, I suppose, a few dozen signatures, the Recall effort may or may not still be chugging along. But, in case a Recaller happens to stop by, perhaps you will want to print the following text of a letter forwarded to the Mayor and Commissioners this morning and give them a copy as you ask them to kindly move along. The letter is from Mr. Stoltzfus' lawyer Richard Harrison and it details yet another reason why the recall process is simply a bad idea for a little city like ours:
April 26, 2010
VIA EMAIL TO:
Fran Barford, Mayor
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
ammayor@cityofannamaria.com
Jim Dye, City Attorney
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amattorney@cityofannamaria.com and
jdye@dyefirm.com
John Quam, Commission Chairperson
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amcommquam@cityofannamaria.com
Charles “Chuck” H. Webb, Commissioner
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amcommwebb@cityofannamaria.com
Jo Ann Mattick, Commissioner
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amcommmattick@cityofannamaria.com
Dale Woodland, Commissioner
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amcommwoodland@cityofannamaria.com
Alice Baird, CMC
City Clerk
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amclerk@cityofannamaria.com
Re: Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus and Reimbursement of Legal Fees Incurred
in Defense of Recall Effort
Dear Commissioners Quam, Webb, Mattick and Woodland, Mayor Barford, Ms. Baird and Mr. Dye:
As you may already know, I have the honor of representing Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus.
As you also know, Commissioner Stoltzfus is presently the subject of an effort to recall the
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
cc: Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus via email to amcommstoltzfus@cityofannamaria.com
April 26, 2010
VIA EMAIL TO:
Fran Barford, Mayor
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
ammayor@cityofannamaria.com
Jim Dye, City Attorney
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amattorney@cityofannamaria.com and
jdye@dyefirm.com
John Quam, Commission Chairperson
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amcommquam@cityofannamaria.com
Charles “Chuck” H. Webb, Commissioner
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amcommwebb@cityofannamaria.com
Jo Ann Mattick, Commissioner
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amcommmattick@cityofannamaria.com
Dale Woodland, Commissioner
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amcommwoodland@cityofannamaria.com
Alice Baird, CMC
City Clerk
City of Anna Maria, Florida
P.O. Box 779
Anna Maria, FL 34216
amclerk@cityofannamaria.com
Re: Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus and Reimbursement of Legal Fees Incurred
in Defense of Recall Effort
Dear Commissioners Quam, Webb, Mattick and Woodland, Mayor Barford, Ms. Baird and Mr. Dye:
As you may already know, I have the honor of representing Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus.
As you also know, Commissioner Stoltzfus is presently the subject of an effort to recall the
Commissioner pursuant to the municipal recall provisions of Fla. Stat. §100.361. The recall action, ostensibly initiated by Mr. Bob Carter, was announced publicly on April 15, 2010.
This correspondence is to advise the City of Anna Maria (hereinafter, the “City”) that
Commissioner Stoltzfus will seek reimbursement from the City of all attorneys fees, costs and legal expenses incurred by him in defense of this recall effort. Commissioner Stoltzfus is entitled to such reimbursement as a matter of right under the law of Florida. Accordingly, the City should begin planning immediately for what may be a potentially significant financial liability.
Commissioner Stoltzfus will seek reimbursement from the City of all attorneys fees, costs and legal expenses incurred by him in defense of this recall effort. Commissioner Stoltzfus is entitled to such reimbursement as a matter of right under the law of Florida. Accordingly, the City should begin planning immediately for what may be a potentially significant financial liability.
As Mr. Dye will no doubt confirm for you, the Commissioner’s legal entitlement to
reimbursement of his attorneys fees and costs incurred in the defense of a recall effort is
established under the common law of Florida, as discussed in detail by the Supreme Court of
Florida in the case of Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1990). As
acknowledged in Thornber, Florida courts have long recognized that public officials are entitled to legal representation at public expense to defend themselves against litigation arising from the
performance of their official duties while serving a public purpose. The purpose of this common law rule is to avoid the chilling effect that a denial of representation might have on public officials in performing their duties properly and diligently. This entitlement to attorneys fees arises
independently of any statute, ordinance or municipal charter.
reimbursement of his attorneys fees and costs incurred in the defense of a recall effort is
established under the common law of Florida, as discussed in detail by the Supreme Court of
Florida in the case of Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1990). As
acknowledged in Thornber, Florida courts have long recognized that public officials are entitled to legal representation at public expense to defend themselves against litigation arising from the
performance of their official duties while serving a public purpose. The purpose of this common law rule is to avoid the chilling effect that a denial of representation might have on public officials in performing their duties properly and diligently. This entitlement to attorneys fees arises
independently of any statute, ordinance or municipal charter.
As also noted in Thornber, Commissioner Stoltzfus’ defense against this recall effort serves
a public purpose. While the City does not have any interest in the outcome of a recall petition
because any individual, not any specific person, can be the officeholder at issue, the City does have a decided interest in protecting its officers from untimely and illegal recall petitions. In short, the Cityhas an overriding interest in ensuring the effective and efficient functioning of its governing body. The public has an interest and the City has the responsibility to ensure that the recall committee follows proper procedures and that, among other things, the recall petition is legally sufficient. In short, Florida law recognizes that an elected official should not have to incur personal expenses to ensure that a recall committee follows the proper procedures.
a public purpose. While the City does not have any interest in the outcome of a recall petition
because any individual, not any specific person, can be the officeholder at issue, the City does have a decided interest in protecting its officers from untimely and illegal recall petitions. In short, the Cityhas an overriding interest in ensuring the effective and efficient functioning of its governing body. The public has an interest and the City has the responsibility to ensure that the recall committee follows proper procedures and that, among other things, the recall petition is legally sufficient. In short, Florida law recognizes that an elected official should not have to incur personal expenses to ensure that a recall committee follows the proper procedures.
For these reasons, Commissioner Stoltzfus will, at the conclusion of the current recall effort,
be submitting a demand for reimbursement of all attorneys fees, costs and legal expenses incurred by him in connection therewith. We are providing this notice to the City as a courtesy now, so that you may take such actions as may be necessary or prudent with respect to this matter.
be submitting a demand for reimbursement of all attorneys fees, costs and legal expenses incurred by him in connection therewith. We are providing this notice to the City as a courtesy now, so that you may take such actions as may be necessary or prudent with respect to this matter.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
ALLEN DELL, P.A.
Richard A. Harrison
Board Certified in City, County &
Local Government Law
Richard A. Harrison
Board Certified in City, County &
Local Government Law
cc: Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus via email to amcommstoltzfus@cityofannamaria.com
Cumbersome public meetings
MANATEE COUNTY (Bay News 9) -- Some Anna Maria Island residents are petitioning to have commissioner Harry Stoltzfus removed.
"We need to step up and do something," said Janet Aubrey.
"We believe that he has been operating illegally by going beyond and behind the sunshine laws and not keeping city business out in the public and open to all," said Carol Carter.
Cf: excerpt from an email sent by Janet Aubry to Harry Stoltzfus
"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 . . ."
"We need to step up and do something," said Janet Aubrey.
"We believe that he has been operating illegally by going beyond and behind the sunshine laws and not keeping city business out in the public and open to all," said Carol Carter.
Cf: excerpt from an email sent by Janet Aubry to Harry Stoltzfus
"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 . . ."
Saturday, April 24, 2010
RECALL EFFORT - A KANGAROO COURT
Terry Schaefer asked that this be posted:
I am appalled by the gaul of the unidentified "Recall Committee" and their activity and arrogance in pursuit of the recall of a duly elected public official.
This action, which has never occurred in Manatee County, is an attempt to usurp the judicial process which protects our society from renegade, vigilante
justice, without due process and the protection of our inalienable right of being considered innocent until proven guilty. See Kangaroo Court definition.
I suggest Mr. Carter and his committee reveal themselves and explain to the community how they possess the ability to serve as accuser, judge and jury
without a shred of evidence other than their cursory review of carefully excerpted e-mails, interpreted, released and published by convicted felon, Michael
Barfield. I would doubt the judgement and reasoning of anyone who would come to such a quick conclusion, before weighing of evidence, in particular
data released by an individual whose character and reputation has been thoroughly defined by the FBI and Federal Court.
The result of the November 2009 election was a demonstration of democracy. Voters, not petitioners, sensing concern with City Hall, voted accordingly.
Commissioner Stoltzfus was honored with 472 approving votes by his fellow neighbors. Mr. Carter et. al., your effort to secure 136 signatures on this ill-conceived
recall petition is your right to pursue but, it will never negate the significance of Commissioner Stoltzfus' election. Perhaps you prefer an attempt at swift justice
without debate, for me, I prefer to review all of the facts before making a decision, much less making accusations. I hope our fellow neighbors feel the same
way and think for themselves. And by the way, I trust that you and your committee members have disclosed to anyone signing this petition, that they are
automatically on the committee and thus, subject to the same rules of conduct that elected and appointed officials must obey regarding the Sunshine Law and
public records scrutiny.
This effort is further dividing our City at a time when we should be taking a deep breath, sorting out all of the facts, enforcing our codes and moving forward.
This recall effort has set that process back and has further fanned the fire. There was a valid reason Commissioner Stoltzfus was elected, nothing the
"Committee" can imply or Michael Barfield can manipulate will change the facts. If you are interested in Michael Barfield's criminal record or his legal
consultant activity since being released following eight years in the Federal Prison, google him and then remember who retained and brought him to our City.
If you are interested in the complete definition of KANGAROO COURT, go to Wikipedia and then decide for yourself.
Terry W. Schaefer
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
The residents of Anna Maria who support Commissioner Stoltzfus are having great difficulty getting their letters published by our local papers. Fortunately they can still be heard on the blog. Bev Hospital asked for the following letter to be distributed:
Letter to the Editor:
I have been following the articles in The Islander regarding our commissioner, Harry Stoltzfus, with close interest since I’m an Anna Maria Island property owner and a friend of the Stoltzfus’. It seems to me that even the unbalanced reporting of Commissioner Stotlzfus’s actions fails to present any evidence that he did anything other than direct that the laws on the books be followed. He was elected to do just that. His actions as commissioner have all been centered on enforcement of existing regulations.
The Islander and Barfield apparently see his actions within the committee meetings as less newsworthy than how he has expressed his personal opinions through his personal emails. He is entitled to have personal opinions, but they can’t supersede his duties as commissioner. There is no evidence that he has voted to place his personal opinion over the regulations. Instead, because Commissioner Stoltzfus has been determined to hold construction to the law, he has been personally attacked. I guess when you can’t get someone on performance, then you attack them personally. By the way, who invited Barfield to the party? And why hasn’t The Islander balanced their reporting by exploring that?
The Florida “Sunshine Law” is intended to expose improper use of an elected office for personal gain. Where’s the personal gain for Commissioner Stoltzfus? He has dedicated countless hours towards holding developers accountable and he is now spending substantial hours and dollars defending himself. Instead, shine the light on Barfield and how he stands to gain. That’s the real story.
Joe Hospital
522 Pine Avenue
Anna Maria, FL
Letter to the Editor:
I have been following the articles in The Islander regarding our commissioner, Harry Stoltzfus, with close interest since I’m an Anna Maria Island property owner and a friend of the Stoltzfus’. It seems to me that even the unbalanced reporting of Commissioner Stotlzfus’s actions fails to present any evidence that he did anything other than direct that the laws on the books be followed. He was elected to do just that. His actions as commissioner have all been centered on enforcement of existing regulations.
The Islander and Barfield apparently see his actions within the committee meetings as less newsworthy than how he has expressed his personal opinions through his personal emails. He is entitled to have personal opinions, but they can’t supersede his duties as commissioner. There is no evidence that he has voted to place his personal opinion over the regulations. Instead, because Commissioner Stoltzfus has been determined to hold construction to the law, he has been personally attacked. I guess when you can’t get someone on performance, then you attack them personally. By the way, who invited Barfield to the party? And why hasn’t The Islander balanced their reporting by exploring that?
The Florida “Sunshine Law” is intended to expose improper use of an elected office for personal gain. Where’s the personal gain for Commissioner Stoltzfus? He has dedicated countless hours towards holding developers accountable and he is now spending substantial hours and dollars defending himself. Instead, shine the light on Barfield and how he stands to gain. That’s the real story.
Joe Hospital
522 Pine Avenue
Anna Maria, FL
PURSUE ALL THE FACTS &.... DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER
TERRY SCHAEFER ASKED THAT THIS BE POSTED:
I disclose that I have no financial interest or partnership with any party related
to this issue, nor do I receive any remuneration from the City of Anna Maria, it's
representatives or any developers involved in any past or present projects within
our City.
I have read the e-mails disclosed by Commissioner Stoltzfus, artfully excerpted and released by Michael Barfield and published in local papers pertaining to issues germane to our City's business. It is indeed a sad day when a developer, choosing to do business within our City, selects a consultant who is a well known convicted felon whose character and reputation have been thoroughly determined by the F.B.I. and the Federal Court. It makes me wonder to what end an individual will go, to attempt to discredit a public official who has questioned the process of granting building permits that include conspicuous deviations from the codes and Comprehensive Plan which were adopted to safeguard the standards to which all builders/developers must comply. Commissioner Stoltzfus' positions on the building permit issuance procedure, along with safety issues pertinent to the continued build up and traffic in our R.O.R. district, are in keeping with the majority of those who were instrumental in his election this past November, (472 residents). I believe that Mr. Stoltzfus and Commissioners Woodland and Quam, represent the interests of a significant number of our fellow residents who are NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, but are focused on the assurance that developers toe the line, regarding compliance with all existing codes and the Comprehensive Plan. It is incumbent on our administration, city planner and elected and appointed officials to assure their constituency that strict adherence to code has been required. Early last Fall, an aware and silent majority, began to recognize that strict adherence was not occurring and took an active interest in endeavoring to acknowledge so by attending meetings, communicating to commissioners via e-mail and public remarks in order to reverse a trend of ineffective policing of our codes, prior to granting project approvals. Realizing what several commissioner perspectives were on this subject, the community began to search for a candidate who would be objective and supportive in enforcing our codes or suggest change, if believed to be too restrictive. That candidate was identified and endorsed by many and the campaign began with a platform statement which made his position clear. Many of those positions were obviously rebuked by a developer who perhaps believed their plans may have to be modified and help was sought to defeat the new candidate. I found it incredibly inappropriate and biased for Mayor Barford and Commissioner Mattick, to take a public position by favoring specific candidates over others but, they did by writing letters to the community and campaigning for select candidates in order to help defeat Stoltzfus and others who they believed would perhaps be agents of change and reform. Mr. Stoltzfus defeated an incumbent and another new candidate because, We the People, believed he would compliment the composition of the remaining Commission and begin to affect improved governance. Now that change is beginning to occur, by more strict adherence to codes, some are uncomfortable and looking for any means to discredit Mr. Stoltzfus and other like minded individuals.
The term "Shadow Government" coined by convicted felon Barfield who's client is the law firm retained by P.A.R., the City's primary developer, is a shallow attempt to label, liked minded citizens and an elected official who have been agents of change in our City, resulting from the frustration of observing numerous concessions to P.A.R. that are believed to be violations to our building codes and Comprehensive Plan. The November 2009 election was an expression of democracy, citizens recognizing concerns and speaking, both at public meetings and where it is most important, in the ballot box. The election resulted in a change of representation that a majority of residents believed would further safeguard the determination of future development and improve governance. The process of reviewing site and building plans more objectively to determine compliance without "administration interpretation" has been occurring since November, 2009. Numerous citizens who may never have attended meetings before are doing so and asking questions as they realize permits have apparently been issued which were non-compliant and did not meet the spirit and purpose of the respective codes. The developer, for reasons of his own, has applied for permits on all remaining sites and I question his motivation to do so.
No violations of the Sunshine Law by Commissioner Stoltzfus have been identified or proven. To launch a full scale investigation and rely on the interpretation by Barfield and print all of his findings as truth is ludicrous. The real issue launched by this group is to discredit Mr. Stoltzfus and others and we now realize, is a means to pursue a recall vote in hopes of reversing decisions made in which he participated and to remove him from office. This process is costing our City a significant sum in terms of staff time and financial resources and could lead to a judgement which our City and it's citizens may have to pay. Research the tactics used by Barfield and his associates which were devastating to the City of Venice, Fl. and remember who retained and brought them to our City. In addition, it is also my opinion that this effort, is an attempt to intimidate others, not to be as involved in their city government for fear of becoming a target themselves. For months, the developer hired a court reporter and most recently a videographer, at Commission, P&Z and Parking & Safety Committee meetings. This private process is in addition to the City's thorough transcription capabilities, including tape recordings of all meetings which are available to the public for all committee and Commission meetings. If you have an interest in the actual occurrences of any Commission or committee meeting, ask for a copy of the minutes or listen to the tapes.
I believe the haze we see over Anna Maria at the present time is a smoke screen, my fellow neighbors. Open your eyes and ask, "who stands to gain or lose"? If you "follow the money," you will find the truth. Don't shoot the messenger; he is pursuing principles, not principal.
I disclose that I have no financial interest or partnership with any party related
to this issue, nor do I receive any remuneration from the City of Anna Maria, it's
representatives or any developers involved in any past or present projects within
our City.
I have read the e-mails disclosed by Commissioner Stoltzfus, artfully excerpted and released by Michael Barfield and published in local papers pertaining to issues germane to our City's business. It is indeed a sad day when a developer, choosing to do business within our City, selects a consultant who is a well known convicted felon whose character and reputation have been thoroughly determined by the F.B.I. and the Federal Court. It makes me wonder to what end an individual will go, to attempt to discredit a public official who has questioned the process of granting building permits that include conspicuous deviations from the codes and Comprehensive Plan which were adopted to safeguard the standards to which all builders/developers must comply. Commissioner Stoltzfus' positions on the building permit issuance procedure, along with safety issues pertinent to the continued build up and traffic in our R.O.R. district, are in keeping with the majority of those who were instrumental in his election this past November, (472 residents). I believe that Mr. Stoltzfus and Commissioners Woodland and Quam, represent the interests of a significant number of our fellow residents who are NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, but are focused on the assurance that developers toe the line, regarding compliance with all existing codes and the Comprehensive Plan. It is incumbent on our administration, city planner and elected and appointed officials to assure their constituency that strict adherence to code has been required. Early last Fall, an aware and silent majority, began to recognize that strict adherence was not occurring and took an active interest in endeavoring to acknowledge so by attending meetings, communicating to commissioners via e-mail and public remarks in order to reverse a trend of ineffective policing of our codes, prior to granting project approvals. Realizing what several commissioner perspectives were on this subject, the community began to search for a candidate who would be objective and supportive in enforcing our codes or suggest change, if believed to be too restrictive. That candidate was identified and endorsed by many and the campaign began with a platform statement which made his position clear. Many of those positions were obviously rebuked by a developer who perhaps believed their plans may have to be modified and help was sought to defeat the new candidate. I found it incredibly inappropriate and biased for Mayor Barford and Commissioner Mattick, to take a public position by favoring specific candidates over others but, they did by writing letters to the community and campaigning for select candidates in order to help defeat Stoltzfus and others who they believed would perhaps be agents of change and reform. Mr. Stoltzfus defeated an incumbent and another new candidate because, We the People, believed he would compliment the composition of the remaining Commission and begin to affect improved governance. Now that change is beginning to occur, by more strict adherence to codes, some are uncomfortable and looking for any means to discredit Mr. Stoltzfus and other like minded individuals.
The term "Shadow Government" coined by convicted felon Barfield who's client is the law firm retained by P.A.R., the City's primary developer, is a shallow attempt to label, liked minded citizens and an elected official who have been agents of change in our City, resulting from the frustration of observing numerous concessions to P.A.R. that are believed to be violations to our building codes and Comprehensive Plan. The November 2009 election was an expression of democracy, citizens recognizing concerns and speaking, both at public meetings and where it is most important, in the ballot box. The election resulted in a change of representation that a majority of residents believed would further safeguard the determination of future development and improve governance. The process of reviewing site and building plans more objectively to determine compliance without "administration interpretation" has been occurring since November, 2009. Numerous citizens who may never have attended meetings before are doing so and asking questions as they realize permits have apparently been issued which were non-compliant and did not meet the spirit and purpose of the respective codes. The developer, for reasons of his own, has applied for permits on all remaining sites and I question his motivation to do so.
No violations of the Sunshine Law by Commissioner Stoltzfus have been identified or proven. To launch a full scale investigation and rely on the interpretation by Barfield and print all of his findings as truth is ludicrous. The real issue launched by this group is to discredit Mr. Stoltzfus and others and we now realize, is a means to pursue a recall vote in hopes of reversing decisions made in which he participated and to remove him from office. This process is costing our City a significant sum in terms of staff time and financial resources and could lead to a judgement which our City and it's citizens may have to pay. Research the tactics used by Barfield and his associates which were devastating to the City of Venice, Fl. and remember who retained and brought them to our City. In addition, it is also my opinion that this effort, is an attempt to intimidate others, not to be as involved in their city government for fear of becoming a target themselves. For months, the developer hired a court reporter and most recently a videographer, at Commission, P&Z and Parking & Safety Committee meetings. This private process is in addition to the City's thorough transcription capabilities, including tape recordings of all meetings which are available to the public for all committee and Commission meetings. If you have an interest in the actual occurrences of any Commission or committee meeting, ask for a copy of the minutes or listen to the tapes.
I believe the haze we see over Anna Maria at the present time is a smoke screen, my fellow neighbors. Open your eyes and ask, "who stands to gain or lose"? If you "follow the money," you will find the truth. Don't shoot the messenger; he is pursuing principles, not principal.
Friday, April 23, 2010
I Am Now Worried For Our City, Part 2
By Bill Yanger
I ended Part 1 with a few of the questions many of us have been asking. I do not pretend to know the answers and frankly I am more concerned with finding resolution than pointing fingers. But I think in order to resolve a conflict one must understand the motivations of those responsible for creating the conflict. Ultimately, it appears to revolve around money and cash flow, PAR’s ability to generate enough of either and the lengths they will go to make sure that happens.
You will recall that at the end of last year, public records reflect that PAR’s bank took significant steps to protect the $3.5+ million dollars it had loaned PAR thus far. Cross-collateralizing loans, cross-defaulting should any one of the loans fail, assignments of rent and lease income, etc., etc., all creating an apparently precarious line of dominoes. Well, on March 16th, just days after Inmate #15549-075 sent his first public records demand to the City, PAR went back to the well for more money. The bank revisited PAR’s predicament and again reconfigured PAR’s financial straight jacket, retaining the cross-collateralization and cross-default provisions, consolidating other instruments and then, of course, assigning the bank all lease and rent money and any other income streams associated with the PAR properties. And like the cute blonde boy in the 60’s musical Oliver (starring “The Artful Dodger” - how fittingly ironic is that?), apparently all PAR could do was hold out its bowl of gruel and beg “Please sir, can I have some…more?” The bank drizzled a mere $150,000 into PAR’s bowl, a pittance really, considering the magnitude of PAR’s “vision” and the fact that they have, what, six site plans in the pipeline? Pucker time, if you know what I mean.
Yes, pucker time. And with financial pressure apparently mounting, Mr. Coleman did what he apparently had to do. On March 25th, his bank recorded a mortgage for a home equity line of credit on his home at 311 Pine Avenue in the amount of $225,000. Believe me, I am no stranger to borrowing against equity. I did a little too much of it in the 90’s and paid the price. Frankly the how’s and the why’s of Coleman’s decision don’t interest me. I do believe though that it is another indication of the win-at-all-costs mind set of PAR and of Mr. Coleman in particular. For over a year, he and I had an open, friendly dialogue. We agreed on little but we had what I consider to be pleasantly contentious debates on issues of the day. He rarely bent and never admitted failure but the dialogue was open and it was continuous. But that has changed. Micheal has changed.
Different folks handle the weight of pressure differently and financial pressure is possibly the heaviest. So how is PAR dealing with it? Well, Mr. Chiles understandably has a thriving business to run and with three restaurants that’s a lot of plates to keep spinning on their respective sticks. It appears he is engaged and active in PAR related city meetings but it also seems apparent that Mr. Coleman is the front man, the spokesman, the spinner, what have you. Unfortunately, Mr. Coleman has also become the enforcer. Putting his vigilante public records act aside, on one recent occasion he felt it appropriate to verbally berate a respected long-time female owner of a Pine Avenue business in front of another Pine Avenue shop owner. On two other occasions he verbally berated and physically intimated local residents in the City Hall building, the second time to such an extent that the Sheriff was called to investigate the matter. He had a shouting match with another citizen outside of a recent commission meeting and, particularly troubling, he very recently badgered at least one elderly lady, a very active citizen in the community, over her unwillingness to sign the Recall petition. The exchange was upsetting to her, to say the least. Can you say bully? Mr. Coleman, I will say this to you one time only: “No” means “no.” Don’t push it. And Ed, come on, really? Forgive me for invoking the memory of one of Florida’s greatest gentlemen and one of the first politicians I remember planting campaign signs for, but what would Lawton do? I’m worried about all of this, maybe you should be too.
So the dominoes remain precariously in place and one can assume the recent $150,000 infusion helped keep them from toppling. But, as with any business, one assumes the pressure remains to produce cash flow. Builders build but in the end builders have got to sell. And there hasn’t been much selling going on since the election. That could be attributed to PAR’s feel-good kum-bah-yah public philosophy of “develop[ing] an occupancy mix consistent with a true, mixed use, village center” espoused by Coleman back on October 26, 2009, just before he said “Plainly…we won’t sell to any real estate companies” because “frankly, that’s been done.” Right. Great puffery when you’re trying persuade a community to buy into your “walking village” concept. But what a difference six months makes, huh? On March 19th, PAR sold its 317C Unit to Beach to Bay Investments, Inc. Yep, you guessed it: A real estate company. But not just any real estate company. Beach to Bay is owned by Shawn Kaleta. Ask most any real estate agent in Holmes Beach or Bradenton Beach what they think of this Kaleta character and you will likely get an earful. His only known project to date in the City of Anna Maria, two lots on Maple, has been red-flagged and has remained in violation of building regulations for months. Ask Bob Welch. Kaleta hacked down at least five huge old palm trees on the site and has used it as a dumping ground for his other projects on the island. He is disrespectful to nearby residents and believes speed limits are a nuisance even when asked to slow down. What a guy, huh? Granted, next to Inmate #15549-075 Kaleta looks like Billy Graham (with apologies to Mr. Graham) but PAR is beginning to acquire a nice little cabal of sketchy pals.
I need to end this but not without mentioning the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. As many of you know, I spend a great deal of time in Tampa and St. Pete when I am not able to be on the island. I stay attuned to issues and news through various on-line sources, including the Bradenton Herald. On Monday of this week I pulled up Sunday’s editorial dealing with the on-going public records debate here in our city. I read through it and went on to the comments below. I was surprised to find that someone had used my g-mail user name “roraza” (which happens to be the first two letters of my three children’s names) to make a comment. A few comments later my user name “by_by” from this very blog was used to post another comment. The comments were clearly anti-Stoltzfus but more alarming was that at least two of them contained “hate” language referring to “immigrants” and deportation. I reported the improper comments to the Herald staff and they were timely removed. I have no trademark on the use of either pseudonym and I suppose it is first come first served when nabbing a user name on any given website. Without serving a subpoena on the Herald I cannot prove what coward posted the childish desperate gibberish contained in the comments. But read them for yourselves, at least the ones that have not been removed, and I think you can form your own opinion. I am confident I know who the comment author is and I am confident the author knows that I know. And all I can say to him is: I am no longer worried sir, because the truth will win out. But I am sad. Sad for you and for what you are willing to do get what you want. How far will you go and how far will you then fall?
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18
© 2010 – William L. Yanger
(Part 2 of a two part series)
Welcome back.
Micheal Coleman’s email address is “prov1813@xxx.com” (I used x’s instead of the actual ISP simply because it is not my intention to crash his server with emails from the masses and most anyone who has been around Anna Maria has or can get his email if they choose to contact him. And I suspect it will soon be infamous through one records request or another). I don’t think it is a stretch to assume it is a reference to Proverbs 18:13 which tellingly teaches us: “He who answers before listening, that is his folly and his shame.” Now, I’m no biblical scholar but Proverbs is pretty cool, like little fortune cookie phrases with God’s stamp on them. The engraved Great Book my grandma gave me gathers too much dust on the shelf but I must say: Oh thank you Lord! As a commentator, I could not ask for better material, right? Robert Carter, may I suggest this passage to you? Mayor Barford, you? What about the rest of the village mob waving torches and jumping to conclusions about this mess based on nothing more than the words of a multiple felon on the one hand and a reporter who shows up late, leaves early and simply refuses to ask the questions that need to be asked on the other. Yes, there is a reason to be worried.
I ended Part 1 with a few of the questions many of us have been asking. I do not pretend to know the answers and frankly I am more concerned with finding resolution than pointing fingers. But I think in order to resolve a conflict one must understand the motivations of those responsible for creating the conflict. Ultimately, it appears to revolve around money and cash flow, PAR’s ability to generate enough of either and the lengths they will go to make sure that happens.
You will recall that at the end of last year, public records reflect that PAR’s bank took significant steps to protect the $3.5+ million dollars it had loaned PAR thus far. Cross-collateralizing loans, cross-defaulting should any one of the loans fail, assignments of rent and lease income, etc., etc., all creating an apparently precarious line of dominoes. Well, on March 16th, just days after Inmate #15549-075 sent his first public records demand to the City, PAR went back to the well for more money. The bank revisited PAR’s predicament and again reconfigured PAR’s financial straight jacket, retaining the cross-collateralization and cross-default provisions, consolidating other instruments and then, of course, assigning the bank all lease and rent money and any other income streams associated with the PAR properties. And like the cute blonde boy in the 60’s musical Oliver (starring “The Artful Dodger” - how fittingly ironic is that?), apparently all PAR could do was hold out its bowl of gruel and beg “Please sir, can I have some…more?” The bank drizzled a mere $150,000 into PAR’s bowl, a pittance really, considering the magnitude of PAR’s “vision” and the fact that they have, what, six site plans in the pipeline? Pucker time, if you know what I mean.
Yes, pucker time. And with financial pressure apparently mounting, Mr. Coleman did what he apparently had to do. On March 25th, his bank recorded a mortgage for a home equity line of credit on his home at 311 Pine Avenue in the amount of $225,000. Believe me, I am no stranger to borrowing against equity. I did a little too much of it in the 90’s and paid the price. Frankly the how’s and the why’s of Coleman’s decision don’t interest me. I do believe though that it is another indication of the win-at-all-costs mind set of PAR and of Mr. Coleman in particular. For over a year, he and I had an open, friendly dialogue. We agreed on little but we had what I consider to be pleasantly contentious debates on issues of the day. He rarely bent and never admitted failure but the dialogue was open and it was continuous. But that has changed. Micheal has changed.
Different folks handle the weight of pressure differently and financial pressure is possibly the heaviest. So how is PAR dealing with it? Well, Mr. Chiles understandably has a thriving business to run and with three restaurants that’s a lot of plates to keep spinning on their respective sticks. It appears he is engaged and active in PAR related city meetings but it also seems apparent that Mr. Coleman is the front man, the spokesman, the spinner, what have you. Unfortunately, Mr. Coleman has also become the enforcer. Putting his vigilante public records act aside, on one recent occasion he felt it appropriate to verbally berate a respected long-time female owner of a Pine Avenue business in front of another Pine Avenue shop owner. On two other occasions he verbally berated and physically intimated local residents in the City Hall building, the second time to such an extent that the Sheriff was called to investigate the matter. He had a shouting match with another citizen outside of a recent commission meeting and, particularly troubling, he very recently badgered at least one elderly lady, a very active citizen in the community, over her unwillingness to sign the Recall petition. The exchange was upsetting to her, to say the least. Can you say bully? Mr. Coleman, I will say this to you one time only: “No” means “no.” Don’t push it. And Ed, come on, really? Forgive me for invoking the memory of one of Florida’s greatest gentlemen and one of the first politicians I remember planting campaign signs for, but what would Lawton do? I’m worried about all of this, maybe you should be too.
So the dominoes remain precariously in place and one can assume the recent $150,000 infusion helped keep them from toppling. But, as with any business, one assumes the pressure remains to produce cash flow. Builders build but in the end builders have got to sell. And there hasn’t been much selling going on since the election. That could be attributed to PAR’s feel-good kum-bah-yah public philosophy of “develop[ing] an occupancy mix consistent with a true, mixed use, village center” espoused by Coleman back on October 26, 2009, just before he said “Plainly…we won’t sell to any real estate companies” because “frankly, that’s been done.” Right. Great puffery when you’re trying persuade a community to buy into your “walking village” concept. But what a difference six months makes, huh? On March 19th, PAR sold its 317C Unit to Beach to Bay Investments, Inc. Yep, you guessed it: A real estate company. But not just any real estate company. Beach to Bay is owned by Shawn Kaleta. Ask most any real estate agent in Holmes Beach or Bradenton Beach what they think of this Kaleta character and you will likely get an earful. His only known project to date in the City of Anna Maria, two lots on Maple, has been red-flagged and has remained in violation of building regulations for months. Ask Bob Welch. Kaleta hacked down at least five huge old palm trees on the site and has used it as a dumping ground for his other projects on the island. He is disrespectful to nearby residents and believes speed limits are a nuisance even when asked to slow down. What a guy, huh? Granted, next to Inmate #15549-075 Kaleta looks like Billy Graham (with apologies to Mr. Graham) but PAR is beginning to acquire a nice little cabal of sketchy pals.
I need to end this but not without mentioning the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. As many of you know, I spend a great deal of time in Tampa and St. Pete when I am not able to be on the island. I stay attuned to issues and news through various on-line sources, including the Bradenton Herald. On Monday of this week I pulled up Sunday’s editorial dealing with the on-going public records debate here in our city. I read through it and went on to the comments below. I was surprised to find that someone had used my g-mail user name “roraza” (which happens to be the first two letters of my three children’s names) to make a comment. A few comments later my user name “by_by” from this very blog was used to post another comment. The comments were clearly anti-Stoltzfus but more alarming was that at least two of them contained “hate” language referring to “immigrants” and deportation. I reported the improper comments to the Herald staff and they were timely removed. I have no trademark on the use of either pseudonym and I suppose it is first come first served when nabbing a user name on any given website. Without serving a subpoena on the Herald I cannot prove what coward posted the childish desperate gibberish contained in the comments. But read them for yourselves, at least the ones that have not been removed, and I think you can form your own opinion. I am confident I know who the comment author is and I am confident the author knows that I know. And all I can say to him is: I am no longer worried sir, because the truth will win out. But I am sad. Sad for you and for what you are willing to do get what you want. How far will you go and how far will you then fall?
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18
© 2010 – William L. Yanger
Thursday, April 22, 2010
I Am Now Worried For Our City, Part 1
By Bill Yanger
Okay, now I’m worried.
Way back when, the pre-election rhetoric and the bright line division between those supporting unchecked development and those urging thoughtful lawful development was tense and at times personal. But it wasn’t a particularly unusual debate in Florida’s history, nor Anna Maria’s for that matter, and there did not appear to be any fences that could not be mended. So I was not concerned.
A couple blogs cranked up and for the most part provided an avenue for the few to reach the many. Some folks, including Micheal Coleman (he spells Micheal with the “e” first by the way), were miffed at the use of pseudonyms (user names) on blog posts instead of owning up to one’s words by using one’s real name (Coleman on October 30, 2010: “Just an aside, why so many aliases? Can we not stand behind our own words?”). In other words, if you say it you should own it. Fair enough but some are more comfortable with that premise than others. Anonymity tends to breed dialogue and dialogue, honest productive dialogue, is a good thing. Nothing to be concerned about, right?
Then there was Bonner Joy’s sweaty love affair with all things PAR. I gagged a bit but then realized that, hey, it’s her rag and her ethics not mine. If assumedly intelligent people with functioning mental faculties want to drink her kool-aid instead of taking the time to become informed (Mr. Carter, can you hear me?), well, c’est la vie. A lot of folks think Fox News is gospel and Sean Hannity is Abraham so whom am I to burst their bubble. At least The Sun tried to uphold some reasonable journalistic standards and that was comforting. And so I still was not really concerned.
Next came the parking wars. Mayor Barford stacked the Parking Safety Committee with starry-eyed PAR groupies but, still, that’s politics and her prerogative, right? As Micheal Coleman himself once said to me while licking his post November 3rd wounds, “Elections have consequences” meaning we have to live with what the people have wrought. If only he had meant what he said... anyway, so these parking guys met a few times, compared testosterone levels, scratched out some parking plans and, due of the lock-step adherence to the PAR doctrine by several unapologetic stepford-like members on the committee, they essentially agreed on nothing. But still it was just political jockeying and nothing to cause real concern.
Near the end of the year, rumors swirled regarding a split by the Thrasher’s from PAR. When the Thrashers, through their Topazfish LLC, purchased PAR’s lots at Tarpon and Pine just before Christmas one could infer that the rumors were confirmed and, considering PAR’s banking relationship at the time, who could blame the Thrashers? PAR netted a tidy $200,000 on the $1.33 million sale after holding the property for just 2 years , but the heralded PAR vision for Pine Avenue seemed to be shriveling if not unraveling altogether. Just days before the sale to the Thrashers, PAR’s bank recorded what amounts to a legal straight jacket on PAR’s finances – an “agreement” requiring PAR to “cross-collateralize” and “cross-default” nine of its properties totaling $3,395,302. The “agreement” (I use quotes because it is doubtful PAR had much choice in the matter) effectively turned PAR’s holdings into a line of dominoes – should one go down they all go down. Sobering, to say the least. But considering the vagaries of development financing in this economy nothing seemed particularly onerous about it and PAR was able to continue operations. I was still not concerned and, hey, Lizzie Thrasher's vision for that parcel seems far more island-friendly than PAR's previous plans.
Perhaps in recognition of his company’s newly minted financial high wire act, sans net, early this year Mr. Coleman stood before the City Commission and P&Z Board and applauded them for their efforts at clarifying code language. Was this a sign of conciliation? Humility in the face of potential failure? A few weeks later, again in front of the City Commission, P&Z Board and dozens of gathered citizens, he admitted that the LDR’s (Land Development Regulations) needed to be amended. He also told them that PAR would willingly reconfigure its 216 Pine site plan to conform to certain new parking regulations should they be enacted. Was this a Micheal Coleman we could believe? Was he equivocating? Becoming flexible? Maybe. I was reminded of what Mr. Coleman had said back in October before the election: “I moved around a lot as a kid. Lot’s of experience with bullies and cowards.” Was there a realization on his part that he and PAR were perceived by many as those very bullies that haunted him and that it was essential that PAR change that perception? Maybe so. I was not only not concerned, I was hopeful, but it didn't last long.
Then came the Sunshine Law fiasco. On March 10th, Federal Inmate #15549-075, one Michael Barfield, repeatedly hailed by the Islander’s Rick Catlin (who carries the title “Reporter” but one has to wonder: why?) as a “government watchdog” and deified by Mayor Barford as if he were the second coming of Bobby Kennedy, here to save us all from the evils of conspiracy and corruption, slid from under the slimy rock he shares with PAR’s lawyer long enough to write a letter to Alice Baird requesting emails from Harry Stoltzfus and Jim Conoly. I then became concerned. Okay, I’ll give you Stolzfus. He willingly stepped into the breach and invited criticism and opposition. But Jim Conoly? A man whose only sin was to spend some of his precious time in retirement selflessly serving his community? Shameful, really. Things were getting ugly. I thought this email thing could easily snowball into uncontrolled chaos for the City and Alice in particular. But like I told a PAR principal at the time, “This isn’t Gaza” and so long as there was the hope of open and honest good-faith dialogue, I was not worried, at least not yet.
On March 12th, when told PAR was rumored to be behind the hiring of Inmate #15549-075 to do its dirty work, Mr. Coleman point blank told me, “You are misinformed.” I was skeptical but chose to take the man at his word. After all, though I have been a consistent and vocal opponent of unlawful development on Pine, I have been an equally consistent and vocal proponent of PAR and its principals. Read my posts. I dare say there is no one out there who has more often insisted that PAR and its resources, when channeled legitimately, are a blessing to this community. Of course, we all now know that Mr. Coleman was lying to me. He has since admitted in a “statement” to the press that PAR, through its lawyer, “hired” Inmate #15549-075 (I place hired in quotes because it’s a stretch to say Valerie Fernandez hired a guy with whom she has repeatedly teamed to bully cities into public records submission and fat paydays at the expense of taxpayers). Mr. Coleman tried to somehow justify PAR’s sleaziness by touting the convict as “the recognized expert in that field” notwithstanding that Barfield tried to flee the country, has spent time behind federal bars in three consecutive decades for serious crimes of moral turpitude like trying to set up a respected federal judge, and on top of that attempted but ultimately failed to escape. As the saying goes, when you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas and Mr. Coleman was scratching a lot of itches. At this point I was still just concerned. But dark clouds were drifting low over our end of the island.
As the content of the Stoltzfus emails were revealed through the last half of March, some the revelations, as we've all seen, were surprising. Ironically, by some cyber quirk, many of my blog “Conversations” between the two old guys at the pier made an appearance and I must say I was grateful for the added exposure to a new and engaged audience. But seriously, back in February when P&Z Board member Sandy Mattick suggested PAR’s 216 Pine site plan be approved, she hedged her vote by commenting that, based upon her understanding of the law, if 216 Pine were later found to be non-compliant or in violation of LDR's, the City could simply force PAR to knock it down. Mr. Dye, the City’s lawyer, concurred and gave the concept legal heft and legitimacy by citing an actual case example. Mr. Coleman was there and heard it all. Mr. Chiles was there as well. PAR’s lawyer was there, dog-eared note cards and all. Yet each of them sat in mute assent of Ms. Mattick’s suggestion and Dye’s confirmation. There was none of the lame histrionics or faux outrage we have come to expect from Valerie Fernandez. Simply put, no one cared. Why then the sustained rumble and roar of outrage over Mr. Stoltzfus’s suggestion that the same thing occur should the projects be approved and be found to be illegal? Was it the graphic image of a dusty yellow bulldozer rumbling down Pine Avenue, diesel smoke spewing and front-end bucket chewing into the latest in “green” construction? The reality is that there is no difference in the message, only the messenger. And we all know that worn out cliché. Like the scruffy villagers with torches, axes and clubs swarming Dr. Frankenstein’s manor seeking revenge on a man and a creation they knew little about and made little effort to understand, this lynch mob mentality was getting scary and I finally began to worry.
Then, in keeping with his modus operandi, Barfield, at PAR’s behest, stretched his definition of “public record” to the absurd and his definition of “public official” into fantasyland by seeking private records from private citizens. And why not? The law invokes no penalty for asking for too much from too many too often. As a result anyone who has had the audacity to look at Mr. Coleman sideways has found a letter (complete with poor grammar and misspellings) from Inmate #15549-075 in their in-box. Bullying circa 2010. The Sunshine Laws do not provide for sanctions for harassing public officials or even private individuals with baseless records requests, so when and where this will end is anyone’s guess. For instance, and most importantly, do the citizens who are considering signing the Stoltzfus recall petition realize that upon signing they immediately become a member of the Recall Committee and as a member of that committee their emails would thereafter be subject to public records scrutiny? Is Mr. Carter providing informed consent to potential signees of this significant fact? I doubt it but even if you sincerely believe you have nothing to hide, do you really want that hassle? Think about it. It’s terribly worrisome.
It is ironic, is it not, that on the very first day the Recallers (are they connected to the "Birthers"? Just asking) are hitting the streets, a circuit court judge has slapped down PAR’s initial attempt at judicial intervention. On Thursday April 22nd, the judge cautioned Inmate #15549-075 and his lawyers that they were overreaching the bounds of what they are entitled to receive and slammed the door on their demand that computer hard drives be produced. And on the streets and in the shops of our little town folks like you and I are saying “No” to signing the recall petition, as it should be. But worries linger because we know it’s not over.
One has to ask why this thing has devolved so quickly and with such nastiness. What motivates individuals to lie and debase themselves so publicly and with no sense of remorse? What persuades respected and successful members of this community to associate enthusiastically with admitted felons and others of questionable integrity and purpose? What drives intelligent, articulate and industrious people to physically, profanely and repeatedly threaten fellow citizens with whom they happen to disagree? What justification does anyone have for trying to badger the elderly into doing something they have made clear they do not want to do? And after championing transparent dialogue and criticizing those who use pseudonyms and user names, why would one then seek to fool the reading public by posting childish and hateful comments under someone else’s user name in the Bradenton Herald, especially when that someone has been supportive? Desperation? Most probably. Has the bullied become the bully? It appears so. Are we watching a meltdown before our eyes? Anecdotal tidbits seem to say yes. But why? Public records seem to indicate other reasons.
Stay tuned and check back often. Anecdotes, public records and comments on these questions and more in my next post coming soon. Until then, all the best.
© 2010 – William L. Yanger
Okay, now I’m worried.
Way back when, the pre-election rhetoric and the bright line division between those supporting unchecked development and those urging thoughtful lawful development was tense and at times personal. But it wasn’t a particularly unusual debate in Florida’s history, nor Anna Maria’s for that matter, and there did not appear to be any fences that could not be mended. So I was not concerned.
A couple blogs cranked up and for the most part provided an avenue for the few to reach the many. Some folks, including Micheal Coleman (he spells Micheal with the “e” first by the way), were miffed at the use of pseudonyms (user names) on blog posts instead of owning up to one’s words by using one’s real name (Coleman on October 30, 2010: “Just an aside, why so many aliases? Can we not stand behind our own words?”). In other words, if you say it you should own it. Fair enough but some are more comfortable with that premise than others. Anonymity tends to breed dialogue and dialogue, honest productive dialogue, is a good thing. Nothing to be concerned about, right?
Then there was Bonner Joy’s sweaty love affair with all things PAR. I gagged a bit but then realized that, hey, it’s her rag and her ethics not mine. If assumedly intelligent people with functioning mental faculties want to drink her kool-aid instead of taking the time to become informed (Mr. Carter, can you hear me?), well, c’est la vie. A lot of folks think Fox News is gospel and Sean Hannity is Abraham so whom am I to burst their bubble. At least The Sun tried to uphold some reasonable journalistic standards and that was comforting. And so I still was not really concerned.
Next came the parking wars. Mayor Barford stacked the Parking Safety Committee with starry-eyed PAR groupies but, still, that’s politics and her prerogative, right? As Micheal Coleman himself once said to me while licking his post November 3rd wounds, “Elections have consequences” meaning we have to live with what the people have wrought. If only he had meant what he said... anyway, so these parking guys met a few times, compared testosterone levels, scratched out some parking plans and, due of the lock-step adherence to the PAR doctrine by several unapologetic stepford-like members on the committee, they essentially agreed on nothing. But still it was just political jockeying and nothing to cause real concern.
Near the end of the year, rumors swirled regarding a split by the Thrasher’s from PAR. When the Thrashers, through their Topazfish LLC, purchased PAR’s lots at Tarpon and Pine just before Christmas one could infer that the rumors were confirmed and, considering PAR’s banking relationship at the time, who could blame the Thrashers? PAR netted a tidy $200,000 on the $1.33 million sale after holding the property for just 2 years , but the heralded PAR vision for Pine Avenue seemed to be shriveling if not unraveling altogether. Just days before the sale to the Thrashers, PAR’s bank recorded what amounts to a legal straight jacket on PAR’s finances – an “agreement” requiring PAR to “cross-collateralize” and “cross-default” nine of its properties totaling $3,395,302. The “agreement” (I use quotes because it is doubtful PAR had much choice in the matter) effectively turned PAR’s holdings into a line of dominoes – should one go down they all go down. Sobering, to say the least. But considering the vagaries of development financing in this economy nothing seemed particularly onerous about it and PAR was able to continue operations. I was still not concerned and, hey, Lizzie Thrasher's vision for that parcel seems far more island-friendly than PAR's previous plans.
Perhaps in recognition of his company’s newly minted financial high wire act, sans net, early this year Mr. Coleman stood before the City Commission and P&Z Board and applauded them for their efforts at clarifying code language. Was this a sign of conciliation? Humility in the face of potential failure? A few weeks later, again in front of the City Commission, P&Z Board and dozens of gathered citizens, he admitted that the LDR’s (Land Development Regulations) needed to be amended. He also told them that PAR would willingly reconfigure its 216 Pine site plan to conform to certain new parking regulations should they be enacted. Was this a Micheal Coleman we could believe? Was he equivocating? Becoming flexible? Maybe. I was reminded of what Mr. Coleman had said back in October before the election: “I moved around a lot as a kid. Lot’s of experience with bullies and cowards.” Was there a realization on his part that he and PAR were perceived by many as those very bullies that haunted him and that it was essential that PAR change that perception? Maybe so. I was not only not concerned, I was hopeful, but it didn't last long.
Then came the Sunshine Law fiasco. On March 10th, Federal Inmate #15549-075, one Michael Barfield, repeatedly hailed by the Islander’s Rick Catlin (who carries the title “Reporter” but one has to wonder: why?) as a “government watchdog” and deified by Mayor Barford as if he were the second coming of Bobby Kennedy, here to save us all from the evils of conspiracy and corruption, slid from under the slimy rock he shares with PAR’s lawyer long enough to write a letter to Alice Baird requesting emails from Harry Stoltzfus and Jim Conoly. I then became concerned. Okay, I’ll give you Stolzfus. He willingly stepped into the breach and invited criticism and opposition. But Jim Conoly? A man whose only sin was to spend some of his precious time in retirement selflessly serving his community? Shameful, really. Things were getting ugly. I thought this email thing could easily snowball into uncontrolled chaos for the City and Alice in particular. But like I told a PAR principal at the time, “This isn’t Gaza” and so long as there was the hope of open and honest good-faith dialogue, I was not worried, at least not yet.
On March 12th, when told PAR was rumored to be behind the hiring of Inmate #15549-075 to do its dirty work, Mr. Coleman point blank told me, “You are misinformed.” I was skeptical but chose to take the man at his word. After all, though I have been a consistent and vocal opponent of unlawful development on Pine, I have been an equally consistent and vocal proponent of PAR and its principals. Read my posts. I dare say there is no one out there who has more often insisted that PAR and its resources, when channeled legitimately, are a blessing to this community. Of course, we all now know that Mr. Coleman was lying to me. He has since admitted in a “statement” to the press that PAR, through its lawyer, “hired” Inmate #15549-075 (I place hired in quotes because it’s a stretch to say Valerie Fernandez hired a guy with whom she has repeatedly teamed to bully cities into public records submission and fat paydays at the expense of taxpayers). Mr. Coleman tried to somehow justify PAR’s sleaziness by touting the convict as “the recognized expert in that field” notwithstanding that Barfield tried to flee the country, has spent time behind federal bars in three consecutive decades for serious crimes of moral turpitude like trying to set up a respected federal judge, and on top of that attempted but ultimately failed to escape. As the saying goes, when you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas and Mr. Coleman was scratching a lot of itches. At this point I was still just concerned. But dark clouds were drifting low over our end of the island.
As the content of the Stoltzfus emails were revealed through the last half of March, some the revelations, as we've all seen, were surprising. Ironically, by some cyber quirk, many of my blog “Conversations” between the two old guys at the pier made an appearance and I must say I was grateful for the added exposure to a new and engaged audience. But seriously, back in February when P&Z Board member Sandy Mattick suggested PAR’s 216 Pine site plan be approved, she hedged her vote by commenting that, based upon her understanding of the law, if 216 Pine were later found to be non-compliant or in violation of LDR's, the City could simply force PAR to knock it down. Mr. Dye, the City’s lawyer, concurred and gave the concept legal heft and legitimacy by citing an actual case example. Mr. Coleman was there and heard it all. Mr. Chiles was there as well. PAR’s lawyer was there, dog-eared note cards and all. Yet each of them sat in mute assent of Ms. Mattick’s suggestion and Dye’s confirmation. There was none of the lame histrionics or faux outrage we have come to expect from Valerie Fernandez. Simply put, no one cared. Why then the sustained rumble and roar of outrage over Mr. Stoltzfus’s suggestion that the same thing occur should the projects be approved and be found to be illegal? Was it the graphic image of a dusty yellow bulldozer rumbling down Pine Avenue, diesel smoke spewing and front-end bucket chewing into the latest in “green” construction? The reality is that there is no difference in the message, only the messenger. And we all know that worn out cliché. Like the scruffy villagers with torches, axes and clubs swarming Dr. Frankenstein’s manor seeking revenge on a man and a creation they knew little about and made little effort to understand, this lynch mob mentality was getting scary and I finally began to worry.
Then, in keeping with his modus operandi, Barfield, at PAR’s behest, stretched his definition of “public record” to the absurd and his definition of “public official” into fantasyland by seeking private records from private citizens. And why not? The law invokes no penalty for asking for too much from too many too often. As a result anyone who has had the audacity to look at Mr. Coleman sideways has found a letter (complete with poor grammar and misspellings) from Inmate #15549-075 in their in-box. Bullying circa 2010. The Sunshine Laws do not provide for sanctions for harassing public officials or even private individuals with baseless records requests, so when and where this will end is anyone’s guess. For instance, and most importantly, do the citizens who are considering signing the Stoltzfus recall petition realize that upon signing they immediately become a member of the Recall Committee and as a member of that committee their emails would thereafter be subject to public records scrutiny? Is Mr. Carter providing informed consent to potential signees of this significant fact? I doubt it but even if you sincerely believe you have nothing to hide, do you really want that hassle? Think about it. It’s terribly worrisome.
It is ironic, is it not, that on the very first day the Recallers (are they connected to the "Birthers"? Just asking) are hitting the streets, a circuit court judge has slapped down PAR’s initial attempt at judicial intervention. On Thursday April 22nd, the judge cautioned Inmate #15549-075 and his lawyers that they were overreaching the bounds of what they are entitled to receive and slammed the door on their demand that computer hard drives be produced. And on the streets and in the shops of our little town folks like you and I are saying “No” to signing the recall petition, as it should be. But worries linger because we know it’s not over.
One has to ask why this thing has devolved so quickly and with such nastiness. What motivates individuals to lie and debase themselves so publicly and with no sense of remorse? What persuades respected and successful members of this community to associate enthusiastically with admitted felons and others of questionable integrity and purpose? What drives intelligent, articulate and industrious people to physically, profanely and repeatedly threaten fellow citizens with whom they happen to disagree? What justification does anyone have for trying to badger the elderly into doing something they have made clear they do not want to do? And after championing transparent dialogue and criticizing those who use pseudonyms and user names, why would one then seek to fool the reading public by posting childish and hateful comments under someone else’s user name in the Bradenton Herald, especially when that someone has been supportive? Desperation? Most probably. Has the bullied become the bully? It appears so. Are we watching a meltdown before our eyes? Anecdotal tidbits seem to say yes. But why? Public records seem to indicate other reasons.
Stay tuned and check back often. Anecdotes, public records and comments on these questions and more in my next post coming soon. Until then, all the best.
© 2010 – William L. Yanger
Thursday, April 8, 2010
SARASOTA HERALD TRIBUNE THURSDAY 8TH APRIL - MICHAEL BARFIELD - AGAIN!
Sunshine law used as weapon
LAWSUITS: Groups seeking to overturn votes have taken their fights to court
By Todd Ruger
Published: Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 9:46 p.m.
SARASOTA COUNTY - A new strategy has emerged for civic groups on the losing end of government votes: Use the state's open records laws to sue the agency and try to block or overturn the decisions.
And if a violation is found, taxpayers can be forced to pick up the legal fees.
At the center of the strategy is a small Sarasota law firm led by attorney Andrea Mogensen, who was hired to use Florida's Sunshine Law to challenge positions on two of Sarasota County's biggest ongoing issues -- a $31 million project to return spring training baseball to Sarasota, and a referendum to help fund the Sarasota County schools.
After winning an open government case against city officials in Venice last year, and winning $750,000 in legal fees, Mogensen's firm has been enlisted to help opponents of the spring training project and the school referendum.
But the civic groups here are pushing for more than access to government meetings and records. The suits seek instead to undo the actions of elected officials, and have been filed in a way that aims to disrupt those actions.
Legal experts say the latest lawsuit from the Venice Taxpayers League is unlikely to accomplish that group's goal of having a judge throw out the results of the school tax referendum, which passed by a large margin on March 16.
Richard A. Harrison, a Tampa attorney who specializes in government law, called the legal theory behind the lawsuit -- that unnoticed meetings from an advisory committee could negate the results of a referendum -- "an enormous legal stretch."
( page 2 of 4 )
LAWSUITS: Groups seeking to overturn votes have taken their fights to court
By Todd Ruger
Published: Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 9:46 p.m.
SARASOTA COUNTY - A new strategy has emerged for civic groups on the losing end of government votes: Use the state's open records laws to sue the agency and try to block or overturn the decisions.
And if a violation is found, taxpayers can be forced to pick up the legal fees.
At the center of the strategy is a small Sarasota law firm led by attorney Andrea Mogensen, who was hired to use Florida's Sunshine Law to challenge positions on two of Sarasota County's biggest ongoing issues -- a $31 million project to return spring training baseball to Sarasota, and a referendum to help fund the Sarasota County schools.
After winning an open government case against city officials in Venice last year, and winning $750,000 in legal fees, Mogensen's firm has been enlisted to help opponents of the spring training project and the school referendum.
But the civic groups here are pushing for more than access to government meetings and records. The suits seek instead to undo the actions of elected officials, and have been filed in a way that aims to disrupt those actions.
Legal experts say the latest lawsuit from the Venice Taxpayers League is unlikely to accomplish that group's goal of having a judge throw out the results of the school tax referendum, which passed by a large margin on March 16.
Richard A. Harrison, a Tampa attorney who specializes in government law, called the legal theory behind the lawsuit -- that unnoticed meetings from an advisory committee could negate the results of a referendum -- "an enormous legal stretch."
( page 2 of 4 )
GUILTY OF WHAT?
There seems to be a pattern emerging. Anyone who asks the City to follow the rules laid out in its Comprehensive Plan is now being hounded as if they are a criminal. If the Sun newspaper this week is to be believed any 'thing' which prints the facts is also now in danger of being shut down.
According to the Islander it was Valerie Fernandez, PAR's lawyer, who instructed Michael Barfield. Coincidental? Maybe. On the other hand who has the most to lose by the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development codes being adhered to?
Respectable citizens who have worked tirelessly for years are being defamed by our local papers and accused of running a shadow government. Yes there does appear to be a shadow government but it isn't these people!
Nobody has asked what any of those being accused have to gain out of all this. Financially? Nothing. Collectively they all have the same aspirations - to retain the quality of life everyone has come to enjoy in the City.
Does anyone really think Robin Wall wants to spend hours pouring over codes and ordinances prior to meetings double checking the City's work and then giving up her time to actually attend all the meetings? And yes if you attend these meetings you will know that she frequently points out errors being made. The residents of this City owe her a huge debt for helping to keep the status quo for as long as she has. Duke Miller, a City Commissioner for many years and highly respected by the community for very good reason. He started the blog as a voice for the citizens. I took a moment to look back at the blog over the last few months and was actually very impressed at the quality of the comments - highly informative information on many different issues substantiated by facts. What grounds does Mr Barfield have to shut down something that is reporting the facts?
Ultimately if it is a criminal offence to try to ensure that our Comprehensive Plan is followed then yes we are guilty.
According to the Islander it was Valerie Fernandez, PAR's lawyer, who instructed Michael Barfield. Coincidental? Maybe. On the other hand who has the most to lose by the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development codes being adhered to?
Respectable citizens who have worked tirelessly for years are being defamed by our local papers and accused of running a shadow government. Yes there does appear to be a shadow government but it isn't these people!
Nobody has asked what any of those being accused have to gain out of all this. Financially? Nothing. Collectively they all have the same aspirations - to retain the quality of life everyone has come to enjoy in the City.
Does anyone really think Robin Wall wants to spend hours pouring over codes and ordinances prior to meetings double checking the City's work and then giving up her time to actually attend all the meetings? And yes if you attend these meetings you will know that she frequently points out errors being made. The residents of this City owe her a huge debt for helping to keep the status quo for as long as she has. Duke Miller, a City Commissioner for many years and highly respected by the community for very good reason. He started the blog as a voice for the citizens. I took a moment to look back at the blog over the last few months and was actually very impressed at the quality of the comments - highly informative information on many different issues substantiated by facts. What grounds does Mr Barfield have to shut down something that is reporting the facts?
Ultimately if it is a criminal offence to try to ensure that our Comprehensive Plan is followed then yes we are guilty.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Our Mayor's Hero
Banishment Ends Tiffs With Police, Prosecutors
January 09, 1997|By SARAH RAGLAND Staff Writer
Michael Barfield's latest battle with Palm Beach County police and prosecutors ended on Wednesday with a peculiar twist: He was banished.
Barfield, a paralegal who made his name taking on police officers, agreed to steer clear of Palm Beach County as part of a plea agreement on a grand theft charge. Barfield can only return to the county with written court approval.
Barfield, who pleaded guilty to grand theft, also will serve two years of house arrest at his home in Sarasota, followed by three years' probation.
Ads by Google
January 09, 1997|By SARAH RAGLAND Staff Writer
Michael Barfield's latest battle with Palm Beach County police and prosecutors ended on Wednesday with a peculiar twist: He was banished.
Barfield, a paralegal who made his name taking on police officers, agreed to steer clear of Palm Beach County as part of a plea agreement on a grand theft charge. Barfield can only return to the county with written court approval.
Barfield, who pleaded guilty to grand theft, also will serve two years of house arrest at his home in Sarasota, followed by three years' probation.
Ads by Google
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
