To all Anna Maria residents and property owners:
Harry Stoltzfus is my brother. He introduced my wife and I, along with another brother, a niece, and another very good friend of ours, to Anna Maria over ten years ago. We all became property owners in Anna Maria.
On one of our first drives through Anna Maria, Harry riding with me, I did a drift through at a four way stop sign. Harry said, "John if you keep that up you will get a ticket and by the way be sure to always obey the speed limit, the sheriff will ticket you at 5 mph over the speed limit, this town is serious about taking care of pedestrians."
Ten years later who would have known that Harry would be in a fight for his political life, because of a concern that rules are not being followed and enforced in land planning and a deep concern for the safety of residents and guests of Anna Maria. Harry is also committed to preserve the character of Anna Maria by responsible development. We don’t need or want another St. Armand’s Circle in the City of Anna Maria.
In my opinion this whole recall process has nothing to do with purported sunshine law violations, trumped up ethics charges, and other vague accusations designed to destroy the messenger in an attempt to malign Harry’s character and attack his integrity, rather than deal with issues. There is a move afoot to circumvent what could not be won at the ballot box by people who appear to be more interested in interpretation of the land use laws in ways that fit their financial interests instead of following the rules outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
When anti-Harry forces are permitted to set up outside the post office, approaching every person coming and going into the post office, with some having no idea of what they are signing, there is something wrong with that picture. Guests of ours, while renting our home, visited the post office and were approached about signing the recall petition and were very upset by this process.
Harry is a man of integrity, and he will do what he says he will do. Is he perfect? No of course not. Will he work for what is right? Absolutely, you can count on it!
In closing, I appeal to all voters in Anna Maria to ask themselves, who will stand up and defend the process of responsible land planning and development if this is how elected officials with strong convictions are treated by those who have resources to file endless legal actions instead of winning at the Ballot Box? Think about it.
John M. Stoltzfus
419 Spring Avenue
Anna Maria, Fl
36 Pequea Manor Drive
Gordonville, Pa 17529
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Anna Maria, I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change...
Year 1: Couple visits Island, stays for a week. "This place is Paradise, this is where we want to spend our life, I wish we could live here, oh let's find a way to live here"
Year 2: Couple finagles, does what ever it takes to stay a month and then come back in the fall. "We have to find a way to buy here".
Years 3-9: Ditto
Year 10: "We have enough for a down payment, we're buying!"
Years 10-20: "This place is Paradise!! We love it our kids love it, our family and friends love it, we don't want to go anywhere else."
Retirement Years: Homesteaded finally! "Why don't these people fix up their property, I wish the city would change this! I wish the city would do something about that! We could make some money in a little business, if only the city would change these arcane rules and zoning. I can't stand how this area looks, it looks like a dump. I know!! let's change this place into a charming little Paradise!!"
The End
Year 2: Couple finagles, does what ever it takes to stay a month and then come back in the fall. "We have to find a way to buy here".
Years 3-9: Ditto
Year 10: "We have enough for a down payment, we're buying!"
Years 10-20: "This place is Paradise!! We love it our kids love it, our family and friends love it, we don't want to go anywhere else."
Retirement Years: Homesteaded finally! "Why don't these people fix up their property, I wish the city would change this! I wish the city would do something about that! We could make some money in a little business, if only the city would change these arcane rules and zoning. I can't stand how this area looks, it looks like a dump. I know!! let's change this place into a charming little Paradise!!"
The End
City Hall Update
In the wake of Jim Conoly's most unfortunate decision to resign from the P&Z Board, welcomed news comes out of City Hall today. Tom Turner was appointed by the City Commission last night to replace Mr. Conoly. Mr. Turner's extensive experience, insightful intellect and sense of fairness will undoubtedly serve Anna Maria well in the coming years.
Oh yes, and the City Commission denied PAR's application for approval of it's 308 Pine site plan.
Oh yes, and the City Commission denied PAR's application for approval of it's 308 Pine site plan.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Recall Reality and The Rule Of Law. Stay Informed Here...
Before you are beset by the inevitable barrage of local headlines screaming "Stoltzfus Stifled!" and Recallers dancing in the streets snorting "Nyah, nyah nah nyah nyah! Victory!" please, please, take a quiet moment in your busy day to actually read Judge Nicholas' Order HERE merely denying Mr. Sotltzfus' request for an emergency determination of the legitimacy of the Recall Petition. There is no nyah nyah victory here, only a delayed decision. And, perhaps, delayed justice.
Richard Harrison, Mr. Stoltzfus' lawyer, correctly points out HERE in a statement released today that this is a "matter of fundamental due process" and has understandably filed an expedited appeal to the 2nd District Court. One expects that the court will give the appeal speedy and due consideration. In the meantime, a thoughtful reading of the appealed order indicates that Judge Nicholas did not say Mr. Stoltzfus is not entitled to the result he seeks. Judge Nicholas merely says he is not prepared to render a decision as to that result NOW and that it is "appropriate for the court to determine the legal sufficiency of the grounds contained in the petition for recall once the recall process (is) completed, but prior to the election itself." In other words, once the next round of signatures (15% of registered voters this time) along with the Stoltzfus defense statement is certified. Of course, as Judge Nicholas significantly points out, that is only IF that next round of signatures is certified.
So, as you can see, Judge Nicholas only addresses the request for an expedited ruling on the merits of the case, not the merits themselves. It's a nuance but a very important nuance and one the local media will predictably ignore in favor of its tried and true tabloidian tunnel vision. The judge sums it up quite clearly in his last paragraph by essentially telling us "Hey, what's the hurry here? The law gives Mr. Stoltzfus plenty of opportunity to make his case once the recall folks have made theirs. I'll take a look at it then." And when he does, if he does, he will be bound by precedent to heed the words of former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead:
All the best.
Bill Yanger
Richard Harrison, Mr. Stoltzfus' lawyer, correctly points out HERE in a statement released today that this is a "matter of fundamental due process" and has understandably filed an expedited appeal to the 2nd District Court. One expects that the court will give the appeal speedy and due consideration. In the meantime, a thoughtful reading of the appealed order indicates that Judge Nicholas did not say Mr. Stoltzfus is not entitled to the result he seeks. Judge Nicholas merely says he is not prepared to render a decision as to that result NOW and that it is "appropriate for the court to determine the legal sufficiency of the grounds contained in the petition for recall once the recall process (is) completed, but prior to the election itself." In other words, once the next round of signatures (15% of registered voters this time) along with the Stoltzfus defense statement is certified. Of course, as Judge Nicholas significantly points out, that is only IF that next round of signatures is certified.
So, as you can see, Judge Nicholas only addresses the request for an expedited ruling on the merits of the case, not the merits themselves. It's a nuance but a very important nuance and one the local media will predictably ignore in favor of its tried and true tabloidian tunnel vision. The judge sums it up quite clearly in his last paragraph by essentially telling us "Hey, what's the hurry here? The law gives Mr. Stoltzfus plenty of opportunity to make his case once the recall folks have made theirs. I'll take a look at it then." And when he does, if he does, he will be bound by precedent to heed the words of former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead:
"We agree that the public policy underlying the [recall statute] does not mandate that officials who have been duly elected to their positions of responsibility should have to face an extraordinary recall election with every vote they cast or statement they make. As pointed out by Justice McFarland in Unger v. Horn, 240 Kan. 740, 732 P.2d 1275, 1285 (1987), “voters may be angry with an elected official over how he or she voted on a controversial issue, the firing of a public employee upon taking office, how the officer behaved at some function, or a hundred other reasons - none of which is a valid ground for recall under [the applicable recall statute].” (emphasis added) Garvin v. Jerome, 767 So. 2d. 1190 (Fla. 2000).
Yes, ultimately, the rule of law will determine whether a fractional but intrusive minority of citizens can cloak themselves in the robes of a judge and exert the powers of a jury on a fellow citizen neither accused nor convicted of the violation of any law. Justice delayed is not always justice denied. Sometimes it just takes a while to get there.
All the best.
Bill Yanger
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
In Our Continuing Effort To Keep You Informed...
As you may know, though the Manatee County Supervisor of Elections threw out dozens of dubious and questionable signatures, he certified the Recall Petition on May 20, 2010. Richard Harrison, Mr. Stoltzfus' attorney, has filed a legal challenge to the Petition with pertinent attachments including the signatures themselves. He has urged the judge to grant an emergency hearing on the matter in a separate motion. We will report any news on that front as it is received.
You can read Mr. Stoltzfus' Complaint seeking injunctive relief (a halt to the recall process) and the grounds supporting his position HERE. After digesting the Complaint's significant and revealing arguments, you can make your own determination as to the efficacy of the Recall Petition. For those who may be concerned that Alice Baird is named as a defendant in the action, please understand that she is named in her non-discretionary and ministerial capacity as the Clerk of the City of Anna Maria only, not for any personal actions or conduct. The same holds for the Supervisor of Elections.
By signing the Recall Petition, each participant became a member of the Recall Committee pursuant to Florida Statute 100.361(2)(c). You can see the Petition(s) and attached signatures of each Recall Committee member HERE.
Stay tuned.
You can read Mr. Stoltzfus' Complaint seeking injunctive relief (a halt to the recall process) and the grounds supporting his position HERE. After digesting the Complaint's significant and revealing arguments, you can make your own determination as to the efficacy of the Recall Petition. For those who may be concerned that Alice Baird is named as a defendant in the action, please understand that she is named in her non-discretionary and ministerial capacity as the Clerk of the City of Anna Maria only, not for any personal actions or conduct. The same holds for the Supervisor of Elections.
By signing the Recall Petition, each participant became a member of the Recall Committee pursuant to Florida Statute 100.361(2)(c). You can see the Petition(s) and attached signatures of each Recall Committee member HERE.
Stay tuned.
Monday, May 24, 2010
FROM RESIDENTIAL TO RESORT
A walk around the north end of Anna Maria early last Saturday night and you could have been forgiven for thinking you were in South Beach, Miami not on North Shore Drive, Anna Maria.
A Sarasota trolley bus running around the streets of Anna Maria full of people caught our eye. Apparently it was ferrying guests from a wedding on Bean Point to Siam Gardens.
We came to Fir Avenue and a rental duplex. 12 trucks parked up, a balcony heaving with young people and music blasting out. A cop car was on the scene.
Moving up North Shore we came to 717 North Shore. Cars parked everywhere, a catering van outside in the street, portable restrooms in the driveway. A large sign in the entrance way announcing the wedding. From way down the street heavy rock music could be heard originating from 717. Two cop cars on the scene trying to get people to move the cars that had parked in the street. (Many were wondering why the road markings had been changed outside 717 - please don’t tell me they were to accommodate the wedding parties?)
We returned a few hours later to see how things were progressing. The wedding was winding down, the catering truck still in the street (the next day revealed that a verizon infrastructure pole had been driven over and was completely destroyed), a large van advertising ‘tents’ by now on the scene obviously to remove a tent which had been erected for the wedding.
Moving down to Fir there were no such signs of anything winding down. In fact the party appeared to be just beginning with the music pulsating - what a nightmare for all around.
A search of the internet revealed that both of these properties are owned by Mike and Lizzie Thrasher who go under the name of www.Pineapplefish.com. A look at their website reveals some interesting reviews of 717 North Shore (Cherryfish):
"Myself and my now wife rented the property for our wedding and reception. Everything was beautiful. The views of the beach are amazing and we definitely recommend this place for a getaway/vacation/wedding". Jon & Stacey. Date of stay: 18th September 2009. Posted 12th October 2009
"We had our wedding and dinner here and it was absolutely perfect and gorgeous! Our family from out of town stayed at the house all week and thought it was amazing! I would definately recommend this house" Beth and Brett Kuehling. Date of stay 21st November 2010. Posted 12th February 2010.
Whilst there is a link to weddings on their web site there is no direct reference to actually being able to hold a wedding at one of their properties.
You have to look a little further for that….
I found Cherryfish on www.HomeAway.com (http://www.homeaway.com/vacation-rental/p457204) where it stated ‘Cherryfish is also very popular for weddings and honeymoons with Anna Maria Island regarded as the No.1 beach wedding destination in Florida.’ There was a photograph of an evening reception being held inside the house.
We read about the Thrashers, their properties and their plans for Pine Avenue practically every week in the papers. Is Saturday night their vision for our residential community in Anna Maria? By all accounts last Saturday night was not an isolated incident at either of these properties.
A Sarasota trolley bus running around the streets of Anna Maria full of people caught our eye. Apparently it was ferrying guests from a wedding on Bean Point to Siam Gardens.
We came to Fir Avenue and a rental duplex. 12 trucks parked up, a balcony heaving with young people and music blasting out. A cop car was on the scene.
Moving up North Shore we came to 717 North Shore. Cars parked everywhere, a catering van outside in the street, portable restrooms in the driveway. A large sign in the entrance way announcing the wedding. From way down the street heavy rock music could be heard originating from 717. Two cop cars on the scene trying to get people to move the cars that had parked in the street. (Many were wondering why the road markings had been changed outside 717 - please don’t tell me they were to accommodate the wedding parties?)
We returned a few hours later to see how things were progressing. The wedding was winding down, the catering truck still in the street (the next day revealed that a verizon infrastructure pole had been driven over and was completely destroyed), a large van advertising ‘tents’ by now on the scene obviously to remove a tent which had been erected for the wedding.
Moving down to Fir there were no such signs of anything winding down. In fact the party appeared to be just beginning with the music pulsating - what a nightmare for all around.
A search of the internet revealed that both of these properties are owned by Mike and Lizzie Thrasher who go under the name of www.Pineapplefish.com. A look at their website reveals some interesting reviews of 717 North Shore (Cherryfish):
"Myself and my now wife rented the property for our wedding and reception. Everything was beautiful. The views of the beach are amazing and we definitely recommend this place for a getaway/vacation/wedding". Jon & Stacey. Date of stay: 18th September 2009. Posted 12th October 2009
"We had our wedding and dinner here and it was absolutely perfect and gorgeous! Our family from out of town stayed at the house all week and thought it was amazing! I would definately recommend this house" Beth and Brett Kuehling. Date of stay 21st November 2010. Posted 12th February 2010.
Whilst there is a link to weddings on their web site there is no direct reference to actually being able to hold a wedding at one of their properties.
You have to look a little further for that….
I found Cherryfish on www.HomeAway.com (http://www.homeaway.com/vacation-rental/p457204) where it stated ‘Cherryfish is also very popular for weddings and honeymoons with Anna Maria Island regarded as the No.1 beach wedding destination in Florida.’ There was a photograph of an evening reception being held inside the house.
We read about the Thrashers, their properties and their plans for Pine Avenue practically every week in the papers. Is Saturday night their vision for our residential community in Anna Maria? By all accounts last Saturday night was not an isolated incident at either of these properties.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
WILL THE MAYOR ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS OR PAR?
When Doug Copeland resigned from P & Z in December 2009 Mayor Barford nominated Bob Barlow to fill the vacancy. Since the November 2009 elections the Mayor has been very transparent in her support for PAR and all things PAR. Her decision to nominate Mr Barlow therefore came as no surprise as his support for all things PAR had also been quite obvious. Several good candidates were passed over in what turned out to be a controversial nomination.
The Mayor’s condemnation of Commissioner Stoltzfus and defamatory accusations have been well publicized by our local newpapers. In the 24th March Islander she was quoted as saying that ‘He totally violated Sunshine Law and Barfield has proof.’
Her stance against Commissioner Stoltzfus and support for Bob Barlow is interesting in light of something that was recently bought to my attention.
In November 2000 when Bob Barlow was serving as a Commissioner he and then time Mayor, Gary Deffenbaugh, were accused of breaking the Sunshine Laws. The matter was let go but not before, I am told, Mr Barlow apparently stood at a Commission meeting and actually admitted he had broken the Sunshine Laws.
So we have a Mayor who nominates a candidate who has admitted to breaking the Sunshine Laws and at the same time condemns a Commissioner where it has yet to be proven that he has broken the Sunshine Laws??
So now she apparently is reviewing her current list of applicants as Mr Connolly has to be replaced.
What a surprise - Eugene Aubrey and Micheal Coleman have both applied.
The former and his wife openly admit to having been employed by PAR and are now employed by the Thrashers. Mrs Aubrey admits in open emails that 'being inside the tent offers an opportunity to effect positive change rather quickly without cumbersome public meetings and additional legislation '. (Presumably now why Ms Thrasher is helping head up the recall petition and asking everyone to sign otherwise she won’t be allowed to build her ‘village’ - as an aside - relax Ms Thrasher, if your plans are to code then nobody can stop you building).
As the Aubrey’s work so closely with the developers in the City it is very hard to see how Mr Aubrey would be a suitable choice for a member of P & Z.
And what of Micheal Coleman who, along with others, was passed over last time in favor of Bob Barlow. What can one say about the man who rode into town on his red bicycle full of promises to work with the residents and instead has torn the City apart with his posse of lawyers in an attempt to get what he wants no matter the cost to the City and its residents. How could he possibly be considered the right person to serve on the P & Z Board.
I guess we are about to find out how far the Mayor is prepared to go to have a City administration that is totally run by PAR and its supporters.
The Mayor’s condemnation of Commissioner Stoltzfus and defamatory accusations have been well publicized by our local newpapers. In the 24th March Islander she was quoted as saying that ‘He totally violated Sunshine Law and Barfield has proof.’
Her stance against Commissioner Stoltzfus and support for Bob Barlow is interesting in light of something that was recently bought to my attention.
In November 2000 when Bob Barlow was serving as a Commissioner he and then time Mayor, Gary Deffenbaugh, were accused of breaking the Sunshine Laws. The matter was let go but not before, I am told, Mr Barlow apparently stood at a Commission meeting and actually admitted he had broken the Sunshine Laws.
So we have a Mayor who nominates a candidate who has admitted to breaking the Sunshine Laws and at the same time condemns a Commissioner where it has yet to be proven that he has broken the Sunshine Laws??
So now she apparently is reviewing her current list of applicants as Mr Connolly has to be replaced.
What a surprise - Eugene Aubrey and Micheal Coleman have both applied.
The former and his wife openly admit to having been employed by PAR and are now employed by the Thrashers. Mrs Aubrey admits in open emails that 'being inside the tent offers an opportunity to effect positive change rather quickly without cumbersome public meetings and additional legislation '. (Presumably now why Ms Thrasher is helping head up the recall petition and asking everyone to sign otherwise she won’t be allowed to build her ‘village’ - as an aside - relax Ms Thrasher, if your plans are to code then nobody can stop you building).
As the Aubrey’s work so closely with the developers in the City it is very hard to see how Mr Aubrey would be a suitable choice for a member of P & Z.
And what of Micheal Coleman who, along with others, was passed over last time in favor of Bob Barlow. What can one say about the man who rode into town on his red bicycle full of promises to work with the residents and instead has torn the City apart with his posse of lawyers in an attempt to get what he wants no matter the cost to the City and its residents. How could he possibly be considered the right person to serve on the P & Z Board.
I guess we are about to find out how far the Mayor is prepared to go to have a City administration that is totally run by PAR and its supporters.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Letter to the Editor Printed in The Sun (Posted At Author's Request)
Dear Editor:
My husband and I have just returned home from our annual vacation to Anna Maria. We have been visiting for about 10 years now to soak in its relaxing and rejuvenating effects. What makes Anna Maria so unique is the simple pleasures found in all the natural beauty that abounds and the pleasant lifestyle of its generations of longtime residents.
The fact that there are no commercial conveniences or big resorts is exactly why we prefer to spend our hard-earned time and money there. It is Paradise to us.
We were so concerned about what was printed in your paper about the current development of Pine Avenue. I am afraid plans to build and commercialize this area will start there and spread, thereby taking away the exclusive residential flavor.
During this last visit we traveled to Key West. It made me think how overdevelopment of Anna Maria could destroy what is so precious and rare. I imagine back in the time of Ernest Hemingway, and others that were inspired by this tropical refuge that is Key West, it had more to offer in the way of natural beauty and laid back lifestyle. That character is now mostly lost on the overdevelopment of condos and hotels that line the coast like a fortress and the never-ending shopping mall called Duval Street.
Also as a resident of New York City, I am involved in the fight to keep West End Avenue protected against outside developers who want to destroy our historic residences and build cost-effective generic structures that will bring down the quality and value of everything around it.
There are very few places in this world that has the energy and beauty of Anna Maria. I implore you to preserve the character that has been nurtured and cared for by its proud residents.
Sincerely,
Diane Painter Villetri
My husband and I have just returned home from our annual vacation to Anna Maria. We have been visiting for about 10 years now to soak in its relaxing and rejuvenating effects. What makes Anna Maria so unique is the simple pleasures found in all the natural beauty that abounds and the pleasant lifestyle of its generations of longtime residents.
The fact that there are no commercial conveniences or big resorts is exactly why we prefer to spend our hard-earned time and money there. It is Paradise to us.
We were so concerned about what was printed in your paper about the current development of Pine Avenue. I am afraid plans to build and commercialize this area will start there and spread, thereby taking away the exclusive residential flavor.
During this last visit we traveled to Key West. It made me think how overdevelopment of Anna Maria could destroy what is so precious and rare. I imagine back in the time of Ernest Hemingway, and others that were inspired by this tropical refuge that is Key West, it had more to offer in the way of natural beauty and laid back lifestyle. That character is now mostly lost on the overdevelopment of condos and hotels that line the coast like a fortress and the never-ending shopping mall called Duval Street.
Also as a resident of New York City, I am involved in the fight to keep West End Avenue protected against outside developers who want to destroy our historic residences and build cost-effective generic structures that will bring down the quality and value of everything around it.
There are very few places in this world that has the energy and beauty of Anna Maria. I implore you to preserve the character that has been nurtured and cared for by its proud residents.
Sincerely,
Diane Painter Villetri
Friday, May 14, 2010
Will You Kindly Pass The Mullet Roe, My Good Man?
By Bill Yanger
Another in a continuing series of imagined conversations over coffee at the Rod & Reel Pier. Any resemblance to persons or personalities, real or imagined, is entirely coincidental and mostly unintended.
Good morning.
And a fine morning it ‘tis my good man!
What’s with the goofy accent?
Accent? Whatev-ah do you mean sir?
That stuff…that stupid way you’re talking to me.
Oh, just practicing my highbrow lingo.
I have a feeling something’s coming…okay…I’ll bite. What the hell are you talking about?
You know, just polishing my snobby sneer while gazing down my nose at all the troubling little people. Need to practice tut-tutting and tsk-tsking anyone who doesn’t happen to live here in this sacred little enclave of mine…and yours of course.
Still drawing a blank.
C’mon, you know. We live the City of Ahh-nah Mar-eye-ah, mah Lord! We are the chosen, the blessed. We are the… Elite!
The elite. Right. The elite don’t wear the same khaki shorts six days in a row, dude.
Nine actually, but I haven’t been fishing in ‘em yet either.
So tell me, Baron of Bean Point, why are we…uh…you, an elitist now?
Easy. Because that Beach Bistro restaurant guy says so, that’s why.
The Canadian in Holmes Beach with the curly gray hair? The guy with the $15 hamburger and that Foy Grass?
It’s F-o-i-e G-r-a-s…as in Fwah Grah. And yeah, that’s him.
It’s all goose liver to me pal. When did he say that?
Letter to the editor this week, two actually, one in each paper.
But why did he say it?
Another in a continuing series of imagined conversations over coffee at the Rod & Reel Pier. Any resemblance to persons or personalities, real or imagined, is entirely coincidental and mostly unintended.
Good morning.
And a fine morning it ‘tis my good man!
What’s with the goofy accent?
Accent? Whatev-ah do you mean sir?
That stuff…that stupid way you’re talking to me.
Oh, just practicing my highbrow lingo.
I have a feeling something’s coming…okay…I’ll bite. What the hell are you talking about?
You know, just polishing my snobby sneer while gazing down my nose at all the troubling little people. Need to practice tut-tutting and tsk-tsking anyone who doesn’t happen to live here in this sacred little enclave of mine…and yours of course.
Still drawing a blank.
C’mon, you know. We live the City of Ahh-nah Mar-eye-ah, mah Lord! We are the chosen, the blessed. We are the… Elite!
The elite. Right. The elite don’t wear the same khaki shorts six days in a row, dude.
Nine actually, but I haven’t been fishing in ‘em yet either.
So tell me, Baron of Bean Point, why are we…uh…you, an elitist now?
Easy. Because that Beach Bistro restaurant guy says so, that’s why.
The Canadian in Holmes Beach with the curly gray hair? The guy with the $15 hamburger and that Foy Grass?
It’s F-o-i-e G-r-a-s…as in Fwah Grah. And yeah, that’s him.
It’s all goose liver to me pal. When did he say that?
Letter to the editor this week, two actually, one in each paper.
But why did he say it?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
So Readers May Stay Informed...
In her continuing effort to throw, uh, "stuff" at the proverbial wall hoping something, anything, eventually sticks, PAR's lawyer recently sent a letter to attorney Richard Harrison claiming additional violations of the Sunshine law by his client. The following is the text of Mr. Harrison's response to PAR's lawyer regarding her assertions. As you can see the letter was copied to all concerned parties and it is herewith copied to you:
May 11, 1020
Valerie A. Fernandez, Esq.
1411 Mantua Ave.
Coral Gables, FL 33146
fernandezvalerie7@gmail.com
Re: Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
Thank you for your email dated May 7, 2010, and for your gratuitous lecture on the requirements of Florida’s Sunshine Law. You have amply demonstrated the inherent wisdom in that old adage about the value of free advice.
While nobody in the City of Anna Maria should at this point harbor any illusions about the lengths to which you and your client, PAR, will apparently go to achieve the end you desire without regard to the requirements of the law or the wishes of the community, your latest effort is, I’m afraid, somewhat less than compelling. In fact, let us consider the myriad ways in which your recent attempt at intimidation is fundamentally, patently and shockingly incorrect both legally and logically.
First, you will really need to decide whether you think Commissioner Stoltzfus’ letters of which you complain are “one way memos” or are, rather, “attempting to solicit a response from Commissioner Quam.” Simple logic would dictate that both propositions cannot simultaneous be true, at least not any more than a “One Way” traffic sign can be said to “solicit” drivers to travel in the contraindicated direction.
Second, the records of the City reflect that the City Attorney, Mr. Dye, as recently as the January 14, 2010, City Commission/Planning & Zoning Board Worksession addressed this issue specifically in response to a query from Commissioner Quam. According to the minutes of that worksession, “City Attorney Dye informed that one-way emails were legal under the Sunshine Law.” There is no meaningful distinction between an email communication and a letter or a posting on a blog. There is ample support for the proposition that such one way communications do not violate the Sunshine Law and there is no authority to indicate that such communications do violate the law. To be sure, Commissioner Stoltzfus is entitled to rely in good faith on the legal advice of the City Attorney notwithstanding your different view of matters.
With respect to a blog posting in particular, the very Attorney General Opinion you cite in your letter states categorically that “the mere posting of a position does not implicate the Sunshine Law.” Although that opinion goes on to opine that “subsequent postings by other commission members on the subject of the initial posting could be construed as a response which would be subject to the statute,” that does not in any way lead to the conclusion that the original post is or was in violation of the Sunshine Law. More to the point, none of the posts of which you complain had received any comments or responses online as of the date of your email; indeed, no such comments or responses appear as of the date of this letter.
Third, to the extent that you suggest that the Sunshine Law in any way impedes Commissioner Stoltzfus from communicating with members of the City’s Planning & Zoning Board, you are mistaken. The Sunshine Law applies only to meeting of two or more members of the same board or collegial body. See Rowe v. Pinellas Sports Authority, 461 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1984). You will also want to refer specifically to Attorney General Opinion 87-34, in which the Attorney General concluded that the Sunshine Law did not apply to a meeting between a city commission member and a member of that city’s appointed planning and zoning board.
Fourth, the implication that it is in any way improper for Commissioner Stoltzfus to state unilaterally his views on matters affecting or of interest to the City and its residents because (a) some residents might agree with him and then (b) having decided that they agree with him, might attempt to get other city officials to agree as well, is just bizarre. Under this very odd rationale, no elected official could ever publish a guest editorial in the local newspaper on a topic of current concern to his constituents for fear that a reader of the editorial might (a) agree and then (b) contact his other elected officials to try to convince them of the soundness of his newfound position. If this is legally correct, of course, then hundreds of newspapers statewide are aiding and abetting such violations on a regular basis, as such editorials by elected officials appear with quite some regularity. As much as I would greatly appreciate the delicious irony of a conclusion that would make the media a part of a vast conspiracy to violate the Sunshine Law, I’m afraid it just isn’t so. For the same reasons, it is not inappropriate for an elected official to attend a meeting of a civic organization, say a local Kiwanis Club, and state his or her views on any matter of current concern locally. Your position, taken to its logical terminus, would prohibit an elected official from ever speaking to even a single citizen about any topic of concern in the community, lest that citizen find that he agrees and then attempt to convince others, including other elected officials, likewise. The absurdity of this position should be readily apparent.
Finally, let me remind you that irrespective of how often you repeat the claim that Commissioner Stoltzfus has violated the Sunshine Law “by holding electronic meetings” and by “using evasive devices,” simply saying it – even saying it over and over – does not make it so. Your accusations have not been proven in any court of law, are untrue and are defamatory per se. Since you elected to distribute your email containing these false statements of fact to a number of other persons, you may be liable to Commissioner Stoltzfus for damages for libel and defamation. In light of the civil claim for damages that Commissioner Stoltzfus may now have against you and pursuant to Fla. Stat. §627.4137, demand is hereby made upon you to disclose the name and coverage of each known provider of liability insurance covering you and which does or may provide coverage for all or any portion of any such claim and to forward this request to each such insurer to enable it to furnish the information required to be provided by the referenced statute.
Very truly yours,
ALLEN DELL, P.A.
Richard A. Harrison
Board Certified in City, County &
Local Government Law
Copy via email to:
Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus, amcommstoltzfus@cityofannamaria.com
Commission Chairperson John Quam, amcommquam@cityofannamaria.com
Commissioner Charles “Chuck” H. Webb, amcommwebb@cityofannamaria.com
Commissioner Jo Ann Mattick, amcommmattick@cityofannamaria.com
Commissioner Dale Woodland, amcommwoodland@cityofannamaria.com
Bob Barlow, ampzbarlow@cityofannamaria.com
Margaret Jenkins, ampzjenkins@cityofannamaria.com
Sandy Mattick, ampzmattick@cityofannamaria.com
Frank Pytel, ampzpytel@cityofannamaria.com
Randall Stover, ampzstover@cityofannamaria.com
Mike Yetter, ampzyetter@cityofannamaria.com
City Clerk Alice Baird, CMC, amclerk@cityofannamaria.com
City Attorney Jim Dye, amattorney@cityofannamaria.com and jdye@dyefirm.com
Mayor Fran Barford, ammayor@cityofannamaria.com
May 11, 1020
Valerie A. Fernandez, Esq.
1411 Mantua Ave.
Coral Gables, FL 33146
fernandezvalerie7@gmail.com
Re: Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
Thank you for your email dated May 7, 2010, and for your gratuitous lecture on the requirements of Florida’s Sunshine Law. You have amply demonstrated the inherent wisdom in that old adage about the value of free advice.
While nobody in the City of Anna Maria should at this point harbor any illusions about the lengths to which you and your client, PAR, will apparently go to achieve the end you desire without regard to the requirements of the law or the wishes of the community, your latest effort is, I’m afraid, somewhat less than compelling. In fact, let us consider the myriad ways in which your recent attempt at intimidation is fundamentally, patently and shockingly incorrect both legally and logically.
First, you will really need to decide whether you think Commissioner Stoltzfus’ letters of which you complain are “one way memos” or are, rather, “attempting to solicit a response from Commissioner Quam.” Simple logic would dictate that both propositions cannot simultaneous be true, at least not any more than a “One Way” traffic sign can be said to “solicit” drivers to travel in the contraindicated direction.
Second, the records of the City reflect that the City Attorney, Mr. Dye, as recently as the January 14, 2010, City Commission/Planning & Zoning Board Worksession addressed this issue specifically in response to a query from Commissioner Quam. According to the minutes of that worksession, “City Attorney Dye informed that one-way emails were legal under the Sunshine Law.” There is no meaningful distinction between an email communication and a letter or a posting on a blog. There is ample support for the proposition that such one way communications do not violate the Sunshine Law and there is no authority to indicate that such communications do violate the law. To be sure, Commissioner Stoltzfus is entitled to rely in good faith on the legal advice of the City Attorney notwithstanding your different view of matters.
With respect to a blog posting in particular, the very Attorney General Opinion you cite in your letter states categorically that “the mere posting of a position does not implicate the Sunshine Law.” Although that opinion goes on to opine that “subsequent postings by other commission members on the subject of the initial posting could be construed as a response which would be subject to the statute,” that does not in any way lead to the conclusion that the original post is or was in violation of the Sunshine Law. More to the point, none of the posts of which you complain had received any comments or responses online as of the date of your email; indeed, no such comments or responses appear as of the date of this letter.
Third, to the extent that you suggest that the Sunshine Law in any way impedes Commissioner Stoltzfus from communicating with members of the City’s Planning & Zoning Board, you are mistaken. The Sunshine Law applies only to meeting of two or more members of the same board or collegial body. See Rowe v. Pinellas Sports Authority, 461 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1984). You will also want to refer specifically to Attorney General Opinion 87-34, in which the Attorney General concluded that the Sunshine Law did not apply to a meeting between a city commission member and a member of that city’s appointed planning and zoning board.
Fourth, the implication that it is in any way improper for Commissioner Stoltzfus to state unilaterally his views on matters affecting or of interest to the City and its residents because (a) some residents might agree with him and then (b) having decided that they agree with him, might attempt to get other city officials to agree as well, is just bizarre. Under this very odd rationale, no elected official could ever publish a guest editorial in the local newspaper on a topic of current concern to his constituents for fear that a reader of the editorial might (a) agree and then (b) contact his other elected officials to try to convince them of the soundness of his newfound position. If this is legally correct, of course, then hundreds of newspapers statewide are aiding and abetting such violations on a regular basis, as such editorials by elected officials appear with quite some regularity. As much as I would greatly appreciate the delicious irony of a conclusion that would make the media a part of a vast conspiracy to violate the Sunshine Law, I’m afraid it just isn’t so. For the same reasons, it is not inappropriate for an elected official to attend a meeting of a civic organization, say a local Kiwanis Club, and state his or her views on any matter of current concern locally. Your position, taken to its logical terminus, would prohibit an elected official from ever speaking to even a single citizen about any topic of concern in the community, lest that citizen find that he agrees and then attempt to convince others, including other elected officials, likewise. The absurdity of this position should be readily apparent.
Finally, let me remind you that irrespective of how often you repeat the claim that Commissioner Stoltzfus has violated the Sunshine Law “by holding electronic meetings” and by “using evasive devices,” simply saying it – even saying it over and over – does not make it so. Your accusations have not been proven in any court of law, are untrue and are defamatory per se. Since you elected to distribute your email containing these false statements of fact to a number of other persons, you may be liable to Commissioner Stoltzfus for damages for libel and defamation. In light of the civil claim for damages that Commissioner Stoltzfus may now have against you and pursuant to Fla. Stat. §627.4137, demand is hereby made upon you to disclose the name and coverage of each known provider of liability insurance covering you and which does or may provide coverage for all or any portion of any such claim and to forward this request to each such insurer to enable it to furnish the information required to be provided by the referenced statute.
Very truly yours,
ALLEN DELL, P.A.
Richard A. Harrison
Board Certified in City, County &
Local Government Law
Copy via email to:
Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus, amcommstoltzfus@cityofannamaria.com
Commission Chairperson John Quam, amcommquam@cityofannamaria.com
Commissioner Charles “Chuck” H. Webb, amcommwebb@cityofannamaria.com
Commissioner Jo Ann Mattick, amcommmattick@cityofannamaria.com
Commissioner Dale Woodland, amcommwoodland@cityofannamaria.com
Bob Barlow, ampzbarlow@cityofannamaria.com
Margaret Jenkins, ampzjenkins@cityofannamaria.com
Sandy Mattick, ampzmattick@cityofannamaria.com
Frank Pytel, ampzpytel@cityofannamaria.com
Randall Stover, ampzstover@cityofannamaria.com
Mike Yetter, ampzyetter@cityofannamaria.com
City Clerk Alice Baird, CMC, amclerk@cityofannamaria.com
City Attorney Jim Dye, amattorney@cityofannamaria.com and jdye@dyefirm.com
Mayor Fran Barford, ammayor@cityofannamaria.com
Monday, May 10, 2010
SOUND FAMILIAR?
Developers Poor-Mouth While Pumping Millions Into Denying People’s Right To Vote
Published Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:00 am
by Florida Hometown Democracy
The real estate speculators’ latest online video against Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 is a dramatic piece of work, courtesy of skilled political spinners, and it is designed to scare people away from getting their right to vote. Let’s pull back the curtain.It features Annie Fleeting, who claims that regulation has dashed her dreams of building a resort on St. Pete Beach. There are lots of scary-looking images of abandoned lots and graffiti.The truth is that when Fleeting and her developer-husband Robert announced they were going to construct high rises on the beachfront several years ago, local residents demanded input.A familiar Florida battle began: existing residents tried to hold onto their quality of life while speculators spread money and political influence around, trying to make more money off million-dollar views.Developers created a so-called “citizen’s group” called “Save Our Little Village.” “Save Our Little Village” was shepherded by Cornerstone Solutions, a political consultant group run by lobbyists for the National Association of Homebuilders and the Florida Association of Homebuilders.Campaign contribution reports show that “Save Our Little Village” was financed by developers and resort companies. To get people in St. Pete Beach to swallow more high rises, “Save Our Little Village” proposed ballot initiatives to change the town’s plan to allow more development. Then the developer-backed “Save Our Little Village” sued the city.So, the land-use situation that is highlighted in this misleading video against Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 was created by developers, for developers.“It’s ludicrous for developers to make a video that blames the failure of this high rise project on our Constitutional Amendment, which hasn’t even passed,” said Florida Hometown Democracy founder Lesley Blackner. “The developers are really rattled that people might actually get the chance to vote and interfere with their sweet deals. They will say anything at this point.”Why can’t Annie and Robert Fleeting (who own and operate other condo projects) build their resort hotel on St. Pete Beach? Because developers all over Florida overbuilt, over-borrowed, and sent the economy into a spiral of foreclosures and empty buildings.But that hasn’t stopped the developers and their friends from coming up with the big bucks – Since 2007, developers and their friends in the Sprawl Machine have raised $6,050,584 million (Floridians for Smarter Growth PAC, Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Save Our Constitution PACs) to try to defeat Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 – $1.4 million of that since January alone.
Published Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:00 am
by Florida Hometown Democracy
The real estate speculators’ latest online video against Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 is a dramatic piece of work, courtesy of skilled political spinners, and it is designed to scare people away from getting their right to vote. Let’s pull back the curtain.It features Annie Fleeting, who claims that regulation has dashed her dreams of building a resort on St. Pete Beach. There are lots of scary-looking images of abandoned lots and graffiti.The truth is that when Fleeting and her developer-husband Robert announced they were going to construct high rises on the beachfront several years ago, local residents demanded input.A familiar Florida battle began: existing residents tried to hold onto their quality of life while speculators spread money and political influence around, trying to make more money off million-dollar views.Developers created a so-called “citizen’s group” called “Save Our Little Village.” “Save Our Little Village” was shepherded by Cornerstone Solutions, a political consultant group run by lobbyists for the National Association of Homebuilders and the Florida Association of Homebuilders.Campaign contribution reports show that “Save Our Little Village” was financed by developers and resort companies. To get people in St. Pete Beach to swallow more high rises, “Save Our Little Village” proposed ballot initiatives to change the town’s plan to allow more development. Then the developer-backed “Save Our Little Village” sued the city.So, the land-use situation that is highlighted in this misleading video against Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 was created by developers, for developers.“It’s ludicrous for developers to make a video that blames the failure of this high rise project on our Constitutional Amendment, which hasn’t even passed,” said Florida Hometown Democracy founder Lesley Blackner. “The developers are really rattled that people might actually get the chance to vote and interfere with their sweet deals. They will say anything at this point.”Why can’t Annie and Robert Fleeting (who own and operate other condo projects) build their resort hotel on St. Pete Beach? Because developers all over Florida overbuilt, over-borrowed, and sent the economy into a spiral of foreclosures and empty buildings.But that hasn’t stopped the developers and their friends from coming up with the big bucks – Since 2007, developers and their friends in the Sprawl Machine have raised $6,050,584 million (Floridians for Smarter Growth PAC, Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Save Our Constitution PACs) to try to defeat Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 – $1.4 million of that since January alone.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Imagine the day when...
The column below, by Julie Hauserman, appeared in the Sunday, May 9, Perspective section of the St. Petersburg Times. I am sending it to two entities: Those that govern one of the smallest political parcels in America--The City of Anna Maria--and to the guy who heads up the largest, Mr. Obama.
The reasons are simple: 1 ) Our City Commission recently voted NOT to support the county's appeal to prohibit drilling close to our coast; and 2) Mr. Obama has succumbed to lean in the same direction.
All I ask of either is, after you read the column below, get your butt to Bean Point at sunset. Yes, Mr. President, you too. While there: Imagine the day, maybe soon, when you won't be able to walk barefoot on our beach; The day the gulls and terns and pelicans and sandpipers are only a memory; The day the sea oats are memorialised at the Mote Marine Laboratory; The day the toxic fumes reduced our bit of paradise to a ghost town; The day you wished the tourist traffic was bumper to bumper once again!
The reasons are simple: 1 ) Our City Commission recently voted NOT to support the county's appeal to prohibit drilling close to our coast; and 2) Mr. Obama has succumbed to lean in the same direction.
All I ask of either is, after you read the column below, get your butt to Bean Point at sunset. Yes, Mr. President, you too. While there: Imagine the day, maybe soon, when you won't be able to walk barefoot on our beach; The day the gulls and terns and pelicans and sandpipers are only a memory; The day the sea oats are memorialised at the Mote Marine Laboratory; The day the toxic fumes reduced our bit of paradise to a ghost town; The day you wished the tourist traffic was bumper to bumper once again!
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Thing About Irony Is It Ain’t Always Funny
By Bill Yanger
Another in a continuing series of imagined conversations over coffee at the Rod & Reel Pier. Any resemblance to persons or personalities, real or imagined, is entirely coincidental and mostly unintended.
Good morning.
Mornin’ buddy.
Hey hand me that sports page, the Rays won again. What’re you reading?
Oh, you know, all this oily crap about those folks who keep trying to mess up what makes this little part of the world so special.
I know exactly what you mean. Everything seems rosy when slick Big Money pats us on the back and tells us how good they are at protecting our golden goose. We’ve heard it all, you know, like, “Trust us. We are different. We got specialists.”
Right, and “It’ll never happen here.” That’s a good one.
Or, I love the “We are making life better for everyone” angle. That one always nets a few napping politicians to pose with ‘em for a photo op or two.
…and a vote or two to get things done.
For sure. They cozy up to government and Very Important People, contribute to big splashy causes, get the newspapers to make ‘em look like Mother Teresa reincarnated. They buy pretty ads and websites with salty red sunsets over gin clear water. They build one here and then one there. Someone’ll complain but instead of listening, Big Money just calls ‘em bad guys and clips the lawyers off their leashes to go gnaw on some fresh meat for a while.
And then they just keep building the damn things anyway.
Exactly. All our brittle natural beauty and precious resources being bounced like rubber balls by the Big Money magicians at the Cash-It-In Circus who just give a crooked grin and say, “Trust us, it’ll be okay. We know what we’re doing.”
Then one of those rubber balls bursts and all they got to say is, “Well shoot, it was supposed to bounce.” And while the rest of us mop up the mess, they slither over to the next honey hole, tap it and suck it dry too.
Yep, I am madder ‘n hell at those damn oil companies ruining our Gulf! And just before tarpon season!
Huh? What the heck are you talking about?
The oil spill. You know, the rig explosion out in The Gulf of Mexico? Crude oil killing fish and birds and working its way across to our sacred Bean Point right over there any day now.
Ohhhhh, my lord…I thought you were talking about Pine Avenue. Pretty funny.
Hmmm, I see your point. But it ain’t funny, dude. It ain't funny at all.
Guess you’re right. See you tomorrow.
Yeah, tomorrow.
©-2010- William L. Yanger
Another in a continuing series of imagined conversations over coffee at the Rod & Reel Pier. Any resemblance to persons or personalities, real or imagined, is entirely coincidental and mostly unintended.
Good morning.
Mornin’ buddy.
Hey hand me that sports page, the Rays won again. What’re you reading?
Oh, you know, all this oily crap about those folks who keep trying to mess up what makes this little part of the world so special.
I know exactly what you mean. Everything seems rosy when slick Big Money pats us on the back and tells us how good they are at protecting our golden goose. We’ve heard it all, you know, like, “Trust us. We are different. We got specialists.”
Right, and “It’ll never happen here.” That’s a good one.
Or, I love the “We are making life better for everyone” angle. That one always nets a few napping politicians to pose with ‘em for a photo op or two.
…and a vote or two to get things done.
For sure. They cozy up to government and Very Important People, contribute to big splashy causes, get the newspapers to make ‘em look like Mother Teresa reincarnated. They buy pretty ads and websites with salty red sunsets over gin clear water. They build one here and then one there. Someone’ll complain but instead of listening, Big Money just calls ‘em bad guys and clips the lawyers off their leashes to go gnaw on some fresh meat for a while.
And then they just keep building the damn things anyway.
Exactly. All our brittle natural beauty and precious resources being bounced like rubber balls by the Big Money magicians at the Cash-It-In Circus who just give a crooked grin and say, “Trust us, it’ll be okay. We know what we’re doing.”
Then one of those rubber balls bursts and all they got to say is, “Well shoot, it was supposed to bounce.” And while the rest of us mop up the mess, they slither over to the next honey hole, tap it and suck it dry too.
Yep, I am madder ‘n hell at those damn oil companies ruining our Gulf! And just before tarpon season!
Huh? What the heck are you talking about?
The oil spill. You know, the rig explosion out in The Gulf of Mexico? Crude oil killing fish and birds and working its way across to our sacred Bean Point right over there any day now.
Ohhhhh, my lord…I thought you were talking about Pine Avenue. Pretty funny.
Hmmm, I see your point. But it ain’t funny, dude. It ain't funny at all.
Guess you’re right. See you tomorrow.
Yeah, tomorrow.
©-2010- William L. Yanger
Parking on Spring, Magnolia, Tarpon, . . .
Chairman Quam, et al.
I'm not sure what your week has been like, but I've gotten a fair share
of phone calls regarding the parallel parking proposal. I've yet to
speak with anyone who supports it.
Here's one of the concerns raised yesterday.
Our LDR's require a ten foot visibility triangle on each side of a
driveway. They also require a 20 ft. visibility triangle at
intersections. Those numbers were adopted before we considered the
parallel parking option.
I'm not sure what your week has been like, but I've gotten a fair share
of phone calls regarding the parallel parking proposal. I've yet to
speak with anyone who supports it.
Here's one of the concerns raised yesterday.
Our LDR's require a ten foot visibility triangle on each side of a
driveway. They also require a 20 ft. visibility triangle at
intersections. Those numbers were adopted before we considered the
parallel parking option.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Parallel Parking vs. our Comp Plan
Chairman Quam,
In my net loss of parking calculation regarding Pine Avenue, I neglected to calculate the frontage unavailable for parking at the intersections of Pine and any side street. Adding the requisite visibility triangles to those intersections results in the loss of 16 additional parking spaces. Net loss if we adopt parallel parking on Pine would be 107 spaces, not 91.
At a recent meeting you suggested there was nothing in the Comp Plan that required on-site parking. You may be right, but I'm not certain that's true. If you go to the Future Land Use Element of the Comp Plan, Policy 1.1.2, you'll find this near the end of the list of bulleted items: "Provide requirements for the provision of open space, and safe and convenient on-site traffic flow and parking requirements." To me, "on-site" means on the subject property.
There's also this language to contend with: "Policy 1.3.7 All commercial uses shall be located and designed so as to enhance safety by providing adequate off-street parking and loading areas and by separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic." Obviously the key words are "off-street parking and loading areas." What exactly is meant by that?
If the Comp Plan said "on-street" would we interpret that to mean "in the middle of the street?" No. We'd say that meant parallel to the street or directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" precludes parallel parking or parking directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" means "on-site." Your interpretation may differ.
There's also the language in Policy 1.3.8 to deal with. Curbs, where they exist, are alway situated at the edge of a road to create a barrier between the roadway and the sidewalk. The language in this policy is about minimizing direct access onto major roads. Parallel parking or any form of adjacent to the street parking maximizes direct access. The only way to minimize direct access is to require driveways and on-site parking.
Recent assertions that situating parking on-site encourages strip development don't hold up in light of our Comp Plan's parking policies. Sun Plaza exactly conforms to those policies. On-site parking with room to maneuver on the subject property, side street access via a driveway, which minimizes direct access to the main road. The end result is not strip development; it's safe traffic circulation.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
Anna Maria City Commissioner
In my net loss of parking calculation regarding Pine Avenue, I neglected to calculate the frontage unavailable for parking at the intersections of Pine and any side street. Adding the requisite visibility triangles to those intersections results in the loss of 16 additional parking spaces. Net loss if we adopt parallel parking on Pine would be 107 spaces, not 91.
At a recent meeting you suggested there was nothing in the Comp Plan that required on-site parking. You may be right, but I'm not certain that's true. If you go to the Future Land Use Element of the Comp Plan, Policy 1.1.2, you'll find this near the end of the list of bulleted items: "Provide requirements for the provision of open space, and safe and convenient on-site traffic flow and parking requirements." To me, "on-site" means on the subject property.
There's also this language to contend with: "Policy 1.3.7 All commercial uses shall be located and designed so as to enhance safety by providing adequate off-street parking and loading areas and by separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic." Obviously the key words are "off-street parking and loading areas." What exactly is meant by that?
If the Comp Plan said "on-street" would we interpret that to mean "in the middle of the street?" No. We'd say that meant parallel to the street or directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" precludes parallel parking or parking directly adjacent to the street. To me, "off-street" means "on-site." Your interpretation may differ.
There's also the language in Policy 1.3.8 to deal with. Curbs, where they exist, are alway situated at the edge of a road to create a barrier between the roadway and the sidewalk. The language in this policy is about minimizing direct access onto major roads. Parallel parking or any form of adjacent to the street parking maximizes direct access. The only way to minimize direct access is to require driveways and on-site parking.
Recent assertions that situating parking on-site encourages strip development don't hold up in light of our Comp Plan's parking policies. Sun Plaza exactly conforms to those policies. On-site parking with room to maneuver on the subject property, side street access via a driveway, which minimizes direct access to the main road. The end result is not strip development; it's safe traffic circulation.
Thanks for listening.
Harry Stoltzfus
Anna Maria City Commissioner
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
JIM CONOLY RESIGNS FROM P & Z EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
This, I am sure, will not come as a surprise to all of us who have witnessed PAR and their lawyers treatment of Mr Conoly over the last six weeks. The intimidation was not even subtle and it was sad and painful to watch. His resignation is a great loss to the City but it speaks highly to his integrity. So who does Mayor Barford put in next - Michael Coleman?
Parallel Parking on Pine
Chairman Quam,
I’ve spend some time studying the “parallel parking” option put forth by you with drawings by Gene Aubry at the most recent P&Z and Commission work session.
I expressed my concerns at that meeting regarding the “net effect” of that plan. To restate, how many parallel parking spaces presently exist on Pine and how many will we lose or gain if we institute this plan?
I’m told we have just over 100 parallel parking spaces presently on Pine. I was also told instituting the new plan would provide a total of 198 spaces, or a net gain of approximately 100 spaces.
I beg to differ. Start with driveways. They are not shown on Aubry's drawing. Not even on existing residences.
I’ve spend some time studying the “parallel parking” option put forth by you with drawings by Gene Aubry at the most recent P&Z and Commission work session.
I expressed my concerns at that meeting regarding the “net effect” of that plan. To restate, how many parallel parking spaces presently exist on Pine and how many will we lose or gain if we institute this plan?
I’m told we have just over 100 parallel parking spaces presently on Pine. I was also told instituting the new plan would provide a total of 198 spaces, or a net gain of approximately 100 spaces.
I beg to differ. Start with driveways. They are not shown on Aubry's drawing. Not even on existing residences.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Preliminary Legislative Wrap Up for Florida from 1000 Friends of Florida
Preliminary Legislative Wrap Up
As is often the case, the just completed session proved to be a mixed bag for Florida's growth management advocates. The legislature failed to reauthorize the Florida Department of Community Affairs, leaving it in a state of "limbo" for another year. In the final hours of the session, legislation failed that would have removed the artificial cap from the allocation of affordable housing dollars in the state. And 1000 Friends could not find sponsors for its "citizen bill of rights" amendments.
There were a few positive notes. In these challenging economic times, the final budget included $15 million for Florida Forever and at least another $10 million for Everglades restoration. The budget also included the same funding for DCA as in 2009 which, given the current economy, is a positive note. 1000 Friends, DCA and others successfully held off a number of damaging bills and amendments that among other things would have promoted inappropriate exemptions from transportation concurrency and weakened urban service boundaries.
As always, your calls made a difference, helping to secure funding for Florida Forever and halting numerous damaging planning amendments. We sincerely appreciate your support and will provide a more detailed update on the 2010 session shortly.
DCA Reauthorization and Funding--Despite many calls, letters and editorials calling for it, the Florida Department of Community Affairs was not reauthorized this session, leaving it in a state of "limbo" for another year and making it more vulnerable to elimination, dismantlement, funding cutbacks and/or excessive political pressure over the coming year. While the Senate passed SB 282 reauthorizing the agency, the House refused to take this bill up. However, the agency's budget was kept at the same level as last year.
Concurrency Exemptions--This damaging legislation failed to pass. Intended to address some problems associated with 2009's SB 360, SB 1742 would have created an exemption from concurrency for "transit oriented development," even when the development had no provisions for transit. 1000 Friends opposed these provisions and we also worked with DCA to make sure they were not added to a permitting bill, SB 1126, in the final hours of the session.
Callery Judge--1000 Friends helped block a number of damaging amendments that were proposed in the final days of the session. These included amendments to HB 7099 to weaken Palm Beach County's urban service boundary and require local governments to create "transportation backlog authorities" to exempt development from transportation concurrency with the intent of benefitting the Callery Judge property in Palm Beach County.
Citizen Planning Bill of Rights--1000 Friends offered amendment language but were unable to secure a sponsor. The Florida League of Cities did have a bill that included the mandatory neighborhood planning meeting requirement, but HB 733 never got out of its first committee meeting.
Florida Forever--The Florida Forever Coalition's hard work resulted in the approved budget including $15 million for Florida Forever, and another $10 million for Everglades restoration. An additional $40 million is possible for Everglades restoration if Congress awards Florida some additional Medicaid dollars which would allow for a budget shift of other monies.
Affordable Housing-- HB 665 did not pass, at least in part because of an attempt to put the damaging Callery Judge amendments there as well. HB 665 included provisions to end the artificial cap on distributions of the fund. This was a major setback, as the legislation seemed likely to pass until the final hours of the session.
As is often the case, the just completed session proved to be a mixed bag for Florida's growth management advocates. The legislature failed to reauthorize the Florida Department of Community Affairs, leaving it in a state of "limbo" for another year. In the final hours of the session, legislation failed that would have removed the artificial cap from the allocation of affordable housing dollars in the state. And 1000 Friends could not find sponsors for its "citizen bill of rights" amendments.
There were a few positive notes. In these challenging economic times, the final budget included $15 million for Florida Forever and at least another $10 million for Everglades restoration. The budget also included the same funding for DCA as in 2009 which, given the current economy, is a positive note. 1000 Friends, DCA and others successfully held off a number of damaging bills and amendments that among other things would have promoted inappropriate exemptions from transportation concurrency and weakened urban service boundaries.
As always, your calls made a difference, helping to secure funding for Florida Forever and halting numerous damaging planning amendments. We sincerely appreciate your support and will provide a more detailed update on the 2010 session shortly.
DCA Reauthorization and Funding--Despite many calls, letters and editorials calling for it, the Florida Department of Community Affairs was not reauthorized this session, leaving it in a state of "limbo" for another year and making it more vulnerable to elimination, dismantlement, funding cutbacks and/or excessive political pressure over the coming year. While the Senate passed SB 282 reauthorizing the agency, the House refused to take this bill up. However, the agency's budget was kept at the same level as last year.
Concurrency Exemptions--This damaging legislation failed to pass. Intended to address some problems associated with 2009's SB 360, SB 1742 would have created an exemption from concurrency for "transit oriented development," even when the development had no provisions for transit. 1000 Friends opposed these provisions and we also worked with DCA to make sure they were not added to a permitting bill, SB 1126, in the final hours of the session.
Callery Judge--1000 Friends helped block a number of damaging amendments that were proposed in the final days of the session. These included amendments to HB 7099 to weaken Palm Beach County's urban service boundary and require local governments to create "transportation backlog authorities" to exempt development from transportation concurrency with the intent of benefitting the Callery Judge property in Palm Beach County.
Citizen Planning Bill of Rights--1000 Friends offered amendment language but were unable to secure a sponsor. The Florida League of Cities did have a bill that included the mandatory neighborhood planning meeting requirement, but HB 733 never got out of its first committee meeting.
Florida Forever--The Florida Forever Coalition's hard work resulted in the approved budget including $15 million for Florida Forever, and another $10 million for Everglades restoration. An additional $40 million is possible for Everglades restoration if Congress awards Florida some additional Medicaid dollars which would allow for a budget shift of other monies.
Affordable Housing-- HB 665 did not pass, at least in part because of an attempt to put the damaging Callery Judge amendments there as well. HB 665 included provisions to end the artificial cap on distributions of the fund. This was a major setback, as the legislation seemed likely to pass until the final hours of the session.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Oil Spill
Mote Marine is taking registration for those who would like to help in the event the oil reaches our shores.
The address is www.mote.org
The address is www.mote.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
