The latest Pine Avenue parking plan du jour has been getting a great deal of attention with feel good headlines and stories in the local press about a "consensus" on the "newly approved" plan. Though a "consensus" does not an ordinance make and there appears to be much work and further debate ahead, Commissioner Quam is said to be fast-tracking the plan for approval by the end of July.
But not so fast, according to William and Barbara Nally who already have a pending lawsuit against the City over its approval of PAR's 216 Pine Avenue site plan. Risking the possibility of knocking down its own building should the City be found to have wrongfully approved the project, PAR is several weeks into construction and is simply ignoring that risk.
The Nally's, though, are making it clear that they are not going away. Today, their attorney Jeremy Anderson, put the City on notice that the newest proposed parking plan violates the Comp Plan. You can read his letter by clicking HERE.
Check back here for more inevitable news on this issue and as always,
Stay informed.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Recall: Curiouser and Curiouser
The ever more intriguing menagerie of characters in the various and sundry story lines capturing the hearts of Anna Marians in general and our readers in particular, just got a little "curiouser."
On the eve, literally, of his deadline to file a responsive brief in the pending appeal, Recaller-In-Chief Robert Carter has retained counsel to do whatever it is counsel does with 24 hours left in which to do it. We'll keep our ear on the tracks and pass along what we learn but you can view the new lawyer's Notice of Appearance by clicking HERE and learn a bit more about her by clicking HERE.
Yeah, I know.
On the eve, literally, of his deadline to file a responsive brief in the pending appeal, Recaller-In-Chief Robert Carter has retained counsel to do whatever it is counsel does with 24 hours left in which to do it. We'll keep our ear on the tracks and pass along what we learn but you can view the new lawyer's Notice of Appearance by clicking HERE and learn a bit more about her by clicking HERE.
Yeah, I know.
This Just In: PAR Writ Filed Today
PAR fulfilled its anticipated next move of suing the City today by filing a Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court in Manatee County. You can view the the filing by clicking HERE.
Valerie Fernandez makes another appearance as counsel for PAR. Go figure.
Valerie Fernandez makes another appearance as counsel for PAR. Go figure.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Recaller Disclosure Follow Up: The Supremes Say It All.
In follow up to our "Libel or Litigation" post directly below, we thank our frequent contributor Hum for the comment to that post. Considering the poignant irony of the timing as well as the gravitas of the Supreme Court's opinion in light of Mr. Carter's letter to the state elections supervisor, we thought we'd share a link HERE to the New York Times editorial from yesterday to which Hum referred us. For the more adventurous amongst you, you can view Chief Justice Robert's full June 24, 2010 Supreme Court opinion HERE.
One more point. Does it not seem garishly disengenuous that the same guy who told The Islander "This is also about the Sunshine laws and being transparent in government,” back when he was whipping his recall posse into a clip-board frenzy, has now suddenly developed a distaste for open records and transparency in a process as fundamental to our democracy as elections? Ask yourself this the next time they ring your door bell or wave you over to their pop-up tent: What's the real agenda here because it sure ain't "about" sunshine and transparency, now is it? Nope, not even close.
Stay informed.
One more point. Does it not seem garishly disengenuous that the same guy who told The Islander "This is also about the Sunshine laws and being transparent in government,” back when he was whipping his recall posse into a clip-board frenzy, has now suddenly developed a distaste for open records and transparency in a process as fundamental to our democracy as elections? Ask yourself this the next time they ring your door bell or wave you over to their pop-up tent: What's the real agenda here because it sure ain't "about" sunshine and transparency, now is it? Nope, not even close.
Stay informed.
Friday, June 25, 2010
New Correspondence: Libel or Litigation, Take Your Pick
Two interesting pieces of correspondence arrived at City Hall today.
First, Recaller-In-Chief Robert Carter has sent THIS LETTER (he only provided the City with the first page) to State Division of Elections Director Donald L. Palmer seeking clarification after a recent (June 15th) directive from Palmer regarding the State’s new “position” (note it says “position” not “requirement “ or “mandate”) on redaction of certain information in recall petitions after May 27, 2010. A few points:
For a week now, Carter’s committee has posted this libelous little ditty on Facebook:
“STOLTZFUS attorney HARRISON violates State law which says petition signatures cannot be copied for public records request by posting copy on law firm web site…”
Well, none of us who actually took the time to look up the “law” to which Mr. Carter and his committee refer in its Facebook libel could find anything substantiating any violation of any such law, and for good reason. Mr. Carter’s Petition for Recall which you can view again HERE was received by the Supervisor of Elections on May 14, 2010, two weeks before the State took what it calls a “position" whatever a “position” may end up meaning. So, with regard to the initial petition there is no such law on which the State can take a "position." Mr. Carter therefore knew, should have known or recklessly ignored that his committee’s Facebook post was and continues to be false and libelous, AGAIN. But more importantly, putting his committee’s anonymous and, frankly, childish libel aside, the subtle undercurrent of Carter’s missive is clearly one of desperation and denial. His inference that somehow somewhere poor souls are cowering in fear at the prospect of having their name attached to this vehicle of democratic retribution and that that prospect, not of course the movement’s simple illegitimacy, is the reason no one is signing the thing the second time around. Perhaps it’s time for he and his pop-up tent lieutenants to accept that after the initial hype, hyperbole and hectoring snared enough signatures to slip into the second round, folks are finally becoming informed. And an informed electorate is less inclined to be bullied and persuaded by Facebook doggerel and more inclined to simply say “No, thank you.”
Next up, PAR surprises, after the "Read More" jump below:
First, Recaller-In-Chief Robert Carter has sent THIS LETTER (he only provided the City with the first page) to State Division of Elections Director Donald L. Palmer seeking clarification after a recent (June 15th) directive from Palmer regarding the State’s new “position” (note it says “position” not “requirement “ or “mandate”) on redaction of certain information in recall petitions after May 27, 2010. A few points:
For a week now, Carter’s committee has posted this libelous little ditty on Facebook:
“STOLTZFUS attorney HARRISON violates State law which says petition signatures cannot be copied for public records request by posting copy on law firm web site…”
Well, none of us who actually took the time to look up the “law” to which Mr. Carter and his committee refer in its Facebook libel could find anything substantiating any violation of any such law, and for good reason. Mr. Carter’s Petition for Recall which you can view again HERE was received by the Supervisor of Elections on May 14, 2010, two weeks before the State took what it calls a “position" whatever a “position” may end up meaning. So, with regard to the initial petition there is no such law on which the State can take a "position." Mr. Carter therefore knew, should have known or recklessly ignored that his committee’s Facebook post was and continues to be false and libelous, AGAIN. But more importantly, putting his committee’s anonymous and, frankly, childish libel aside, the subtle undercurrent of Carter’s missive is clearly one of desperation and denial. His inference that somehow somewhere poor souls are cowering in fear at the prospect of having their name attached to this vehicle of democratic retribution and that that prospect, not of course the movement’s simple illegitimacy, is the reason no one is signing the thing the second time around. Perhaps it’s time for he and his pop-up tent lieutenants to accept that after the initial hype, hyperbole and hectoring snared enough signatures to slip into the second round, folks are finally becoming informed. And an informed electorate is less inclined to be bullied and persuaded by Facebook doggerel and more inclined to simply say “No, thank you.”
Next up, PAR surprises, after the "Read More" jump below:
Watering Sandspurs
By Bill Yanger
It’s been a while but this is 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.
Hey stranger! Where the heck you been?
Me? I’ve been right here where I’ve always been, sipping coffee. Where you been?
Fishin’.
Ahhh yes, tarpon season. Right.
Yep, and it has been glorious. Look at these callouses…
You have that summer flip flop tan, like two white arrows pointing those gnarly toes in the right direction. All appears copacetic with your world, my brother.
Can’t really complain, though I’m getting a lot of heat at home. She pretends like she doesn’t recognize me cuz I’ve been out in the pass so much lately.
You’d think she’d consider that a blessing.
You’re just as funny as ever. Anyway, no fishing til later today. Gotta head into town for something.
Huh? You? Across the…I can’t even say it…the b-b-bridge?
It’s been a while but this is 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.
Hey stranger! Where the heck you been?
Me? I’ve been right here where I’ve always been, sipping coffee. Where you been?
Fishin’.
Ahhh yes, tarpon season. Right.
Yep, and it has been glorious. Look at these callouses…
You have that summer flip flop tan, like two white arrows pointing those gnarly toes in the right direction. All appears copacetic with your world, my brother.
Can’t really complain, though I’m getting a lot of heat at home. She pretends like she doesn’t recognize me cuz I’ve been out in the pass so much lately.
You’d think she’d consider that a blessing.
You’re just as funny as ever. Anyway, no fishing til later today. Gotta head into town for something.
Huh? You? Across the…I can’t even say it…the b-b-bridge?
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Ethics Complaint Attorney Fee Update. Too Little Too Late?
In an interesting twist, on Tuesday City Attorney Jim Dye counseled the City Commission to essentially ignore the request made by attorney Richard Harrison to reimburse his client for attorneys fees and costs associated with John Cagnina's stumbling attempt at an ethics complaint. As you can read HERE, Dye has apparently come to the conclusion that Cagnina's folly was so pitiful, so incompetent, that any thinking person should have known it required no defense, or at least no immediate defense and therefore none should have been mounted. He gets paid to interpret Florida law in such a way as to ultimately protect the pocketbooks of the taxpayers of the City of Anna Maria. If this is his interpretation, then so be it, but it calls into question other concerns.
One must give Mr. Dye this much: he is absolutely right about Cagnina's effort at being an ethics cop. It stunk from the beginning. But given Mr. Dye's interpretation of Florida law, one that -from our view- is arguable at best, did he not then have an obligation to advise the City accordingly way back in May when the thing was filed, not now, after the damage has been done? Who knows, had the powers that be been given such advise and an opportunity to impress upon Mr. Cagnina the impotence of his ways, perhaps Cagnina may have taken his own opportunity to quietly pull the doomed complaint and go home. That didn't happen.
Oh and one more thing...after the "Read more" jump below:
One must give Mr. Dye this much: he is absolutely right about Cagnina's effort at being an ethics cop. It stunk from the beginning. But given Mr. Dye's interpretation of Florida law, one that -from our view- is arguable at best, did he not then have an obligation to advise the City accordingly way back in May when the thing was filed, not now, after the damage has been done? Who knows, had the powers that be been given such advise and an opportunity to impress upon Mr. Cagnina the impotence of his ways, perhaps Cagnina may have taken his own opportunity to quietly pull the doomed complaint and go home. That didn't happen.
Oh and one more thing...after the "Read more" jump below:
MORE QUESTIONABLE APPOINTMENTS
Following the resignation of Frank Pytel and Mike Yetter from P & Z the Mayor is now recommending the following candidates to replace them:
Albert Michael Pescitelli - Mr Pescitelli was Mayor Fran Barford’s choice to serve on the recent Parking Safety Committee. It would appear from his actions on the Committee that he too supports all things PAR.
Nancy Yetter - an interesting recommendation as she is essentially replacing her husband. I understand that the Yetters come from Temple Terrace, hence the Mayor’s association with them.
Mrs Yetter recently published a letter in one of our Island newspapers (reprinted below) which had many absolutely aghast. I am not sure anyone could understand why she would say that when they constructed their house on Gulf Drive they had complained that the back out parking was unsafe and then proceed to admonish the one person who was addressing her worries on back out parking. Mrs Yetter’s letter leaves no doubt as to her contempt for almost everything the ‘lemmings’ of Anna Maria hold dear.
Did Mr Yetter ever vote against anything that PAR proposed? Did he ever do anything to address the back out parking issues that apparently had so distressed him? Who exactly is the hypocrite that Mrs Yetter refers to or am I missing something?
To complete a hat trick for this week, Mr Ed Chiles girlfriend, Tina Fusaro, is being appointed to the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee.
Please read Nancy Yetter’s letter after the "Read More" jump below:
Albert Michael Pescitelli - Mr Pescitelli was Mayor Fran Barford’s choice to serve on the recent Parking Safety Committee. It would appear from his actions on the Committee that he too supports all things PAR.
Nancy Yetter - an interesting recommendation as she is essentially replacing her husband. I understand that the Yetters come from Temple Terrace, hence the Mayor’s association with them.
Mrs Yetter recently published a letter in one of our Island newspapers (reprinted below) which had many absolutely aghast. I am not sure anyone could understand why she would say that when they constructed their house on Gulf Drive they had complained that the back out parking was unsafe and then proceed to admonish the one person who was addressing her worries on back out parking. Mrs Yetter’s letter leaves no doubt as to her contempt for almost everything the ‘lemmings’ of Anna Maria hold dear.
Did Mr Yetter ever vote against anything that PAR proposed? Did he ever do anything to address the back out parking issues that apparently had so distressed him? Who exactly is the hypocrite that Mrs Yetter refers to or am I missing something?
To complete a hat trick for this week, Mr Ed Chiles girlfriend, Tina Fusaro, is being appointed to the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee.
Please read Nancy Yetter’s letter after the "Read More" jump below:
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The Emerald City
The Emerald City
We certainly are not in Anna Maria anymore. On the same day BP claimed it cares about the “the small” people, and as oil continues to gush into the gulf, we hold our breath that the tide may turn against us in our sleepy undeveloped town. We are the locals of the City of Anna Maria who are not only in fear for the shoreline that has brought the nightmare of an unprecedented environmental holocaust created by BP, but are cast in a home town production of the Wizard Oz. As “small people” we are merely film extras in a nightmarish vision carried out by others whose actions indicate they find us insignificant, but in the end, are the very fiber that defines the culture of Anna Maria.
The meeting last Thursday night at City Hall was already underway when I stepped in, but what was shocking was the magnitude of progress some of the City planners appeared to have made on the issue of public parking. How parking will be managed by and for many communities is a volatile subject, but here it has hit a particularly high note, like one of extreme agony, by some of its residents. The plan dumps 262 parking spots onto the formerly empty streets of Anna Maria and has the earmarks of massive commercial development.
We certainly are not in Anna Maria anymore. On the same day BP claimed it cares about the “the small” people, and as oil continues to gush into the gulf, we hold our breath that the tide may turn against us in our sleepy undeveloped town. We are the locals of the City of Anna Maria who are not only in fear for the shoreline that has brought the nightmare of an unprecedented environmental holocaust created by BP, but are cast in a home town production of the Wizard Oz. As “small people” we are merely film extras in a nightmarish vision carried out by others whose actions indicate they find us insignificant, but in the end, are the very fiber that defines the culture of Anna Maria.
The meeting last Thursday night at City Hall was already underway when I stepped in, but what was shocking was the magnitude of progress some of the City planners appeared to have made on the issue of public parking. How parking will be managed by and for many communities is a volatile subject, but here it has hit a particularly high note, like one of extreme agony, by some of its residents. The plan dumps 262 parking spots onto the formerly empty streets of Anna Maria and has the earmarks of massive commercial development.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Appellate Court Frowns On Delay Sought By Recallers
Readers will remember that Judge Edward Nicholas’ May 26, 2010 order (which you can find in the Stay Informed section above and to the right of this post) was appealed by attorney Richard Harrison when Judge Nicholas determined that he would prefer to rule on the legitimacy of the recall petition when and “only if”, his words, the recallers obtain the necessary number of signatures the second time around. While that possibility remains in question, the appeal moves on. Well sort of…
As expected, attorneys for both Anna Maria City Clerk Alice Baird and Manatee County Supervisor of Elections Robert “Bob” Sweat have filed notices informing the Second District Court of Appeal that neither would be submitting responsive briefs in the pending appeal. As representatives of their respective government employers, both Ms. Baird and Mr. Sweat perform important but ministerial functions that are effectively immaterial to the questions of law and fact currently before the appellate court in this case. In an admirable display of the judicious use of taxpayer dollars, a rare occurrence in these parts, the lawyers have said, in effect, “we don’t have a dog in that hunt” and they will not clutter the record and the timing of a decision with superfluous argument. Good for them.
As expected, attorneys for both Anna Maria City Clerk Alice Baird and Manatee County Supervisor of Elections Robert “Bob” Sweat have filed notices informing the Second District Court of Appeal that neither would be submitting responsive briefs in the pending appeal. As representatives of their respective government employers, both Ms. Baird and Mr. Sweat perform important but ministerial functions that are effectively immaterial to the questions of law and fact currently before the appellate court in this case. In an admirable display of the judicious use of taxpayer dollars, a rare occurrence in these parts, the lawyers have said, in effect, “we don’t have a dog in that hunt” and they will not clutter the record and the timing of a decision with superfluous argument. Good for them.
Rules? Developers Rule!
Unless the residents of Anna Maria reject it, our City is about to become someone’s little parking experiment.
Our present regulations require all parking for new development to be on-site. Our developers don’t like those regulations so we’re going to accommodate the developers and change the regulations. Actually, we’ll do much more than that. We’re going to eliminate the regulations altogether.
That’s right. If we adopt the new public parking option, the developers no longer will be required to provide parking. The City will provide it for them.
Oh, and we’re going to move the sidewalks to make it all work, if the owner of each developed lot agrees to allow us to move the sidewalks. It’s all optional. Their option.
One would have hoped when the developers learned the City had mistakenly approved past site plans and allowed noncompliant parking configurations to go forward, the developers would have altered their plans and instituted compliant parking configurations. But that’s not what happened.
Our present regulations require all parking for new development to be on-site. Our developers don’t like those regulations so we’re going to accommodate the developers and change the regulations. Actually, we’ll do much more than that. We’re going to eliminate the regulations altogether.
That’s right. If we adopt the new public parking option, the developers no longer will be required to provide parking. The City will provide it for them.
Oh, and we’re going to move the sidewalks to make it all work, if the owner of each developed lot agrees to allow us to move the sidewalks. It’s all optional. Their option.
One would have hoped when the developers learned the City had mistakenly approved past site plans and allowed noncompliant parking configurations to go forward, the developers would have altered their plans and instituted compliant parking configurations. But that’s not what happened.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Yet Another Comprehensive Plan Change which will affect the "jewel of the county"
As many of our readers know, rampant, inconsistent development is a problem all over Florida and Manatee County is no exception. With the vote on Hometown Democracy looming, developers are frantically pushing to get every Comp Plan change they can before actual citizens have the opportunity to weigh in on these matters.
This proposed change would add to density in areas in the evacuation areas that are already close to maxed out and is inconsistent with the current Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. It is also inconsistent with the FEMA guidelines to not increase development in coastal areas.
Sadly, the very same commissioners who are crying out against BP and what the oil spill is doing to our wildlife, coast and natural habitats could care less when it means they can exploit our land in the same manner.
Adding density to Coastal Bradenton / Palma Sola area will have a negative effect on Anna Maria Island in many ways, please contact the commissioners who do not understand or choose to ignore this and tell them your thoughts.
Please see the letter after the "read more" jump:
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Courageous Anonymity, How Special
Well, we warned you.
A few days ago we told you HERE to expect the inevitable “screeching” from the Recallers over the fallout from John Cagnina’s magnanimous gift to the citizens of Anna Maria. By recklessly filing a doomed ethics complaint with little or no personal knowledge of the facts, no attempt to investigate those facts and no thought whatsoever of the financial consequences of his assured failure, he placed the City at substantial risk. He and the City were both put on notice over a month ago HERE and HERE that Florida law provides for reimbursement of the costs associated with defending the ethics complaint when that complaint fails, as this one did so miserably. Neither the City nor Cagnina refuted that potential consequence nor, apparently, did they act to prevent it.
Yesterday, Commissioner Joanne Mattick characterized our warning as “condescending,” “inappropriate” and “beneath” us HERE and accused us of trying to “belittle and embarrass” Cagnina. Though we do not agree, we do respect her opinion as to our warning; after all, it’s all interpretation and she is entitled to voice her opinion; like the opinion she voiced last commission meeting on the need to address the evils of anonymity. But we reject her accusation regarding our intent to “belittle and embarrass” Cagnina as simply impossible. One cannot make a truth more truthful. And recently, Commissioner Mattick’s daughter Sandy and I had what I consider a respectful on-line exchange in the Sun’s comment section which we reported HERE. She lamented the use of rhetoric in the current debate, citing the desire of “the residents” to see it end.
A few days ago we told you HERE to expect the inevitable “screeching” from the Recallers over the fallout from John Cagnina’s magnanimous gift to the citizens of Anna Maria. By recklessly filing a doomed ethics complaint with little or no personal knowledge of the facts, no attempt to investigate those facts and no thought whatsoever of the financial consequences of his assured failure, he placed the City at substantial risk. He and the City were both put on notice over a month ago HERE and HERE that Florida law provides for reimbursement of the costs associated with defending the ethics complaint when that complaint fails, as this one did so miserably. Neither the City nor Cagnina refuted that potential consequence nor, apparently, did they act to prevent it.
Yesterday, Commissioner Joanne Mattick characterized our warning as “condescending,” “inappropriate” and “beneath” us HERE and accused us of trying to “belittle and embarrass” Cagnina. Though we do not agree, we do respect her opinion as to our warning; after all, it’s all interpretation and she is entitled to voice her opinion; like the opinion she voiced last commission meeting on the need to address the evils of anonymity. But we reject her accusation regarding our intent to “belittle and embarrass” Cagnina as simply impossible. One cannot make a truth more truthful. And recently, Commissioner Mattick’s daughter Sandy and I had what I consider a respectful on-line exchange in the Sun’s comment section which we reported HERE. She lamented the use of rhetoric in the current debate, citing the desire of “the residents” to see it end.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
And Now For The Important Stuff...Oil Spill Meeting
In midst of all the other local noise, let's take time to learn more about the environmental disaster that may be dominating our lives for years to come. Take a look at THIS FLYER for information regarding the Oil Spill meeting being organized for tomorrow, Thursday June 17th, 7 p.m. at the Anna Maria Island Community Center.
Like we continue to say, stay informed.
Like we continue to say, stay informed.
But We Remember When She Liked Us...
City Commissioner Joanne Mattick, in emails to City Clerk Alice Baird yesterday HERE, HERE and HERE, has suddenly taken vocal and repeated exception to blog posts finding their way to the City’s reading file, the repository where all correspondence subject to public records laws are stored. Any emails or correspondence subject to public records laws and not already on City email accounts are forwarded, or are supposed to be forwarded, to Ms. Baird at amclerk@cityofannamaria.com for safe keeping, so to speak, awaiting the next inevitable public records request to arrive on her desk.
Let’s be clear. We welcome all forms of distribution and, like the coffee stained front page section of the Bradenton Herald winding up on a conference room table after a morning meeting, if we indirectly find our way to City Hall readers, that’s okay with us. And if requested, we would gladly send posts directly to Ms. Baird, Mayor Barford, Commissioner Mattick or anyone else at 10005 Gulf Drive who is kind enough to ask. But, a post from this blog has never been sent unsolicited directly to Ms. Baird’s email address or to any other city email address to our knowledge.
Let’s be clear. We welcome all forms of distribution and, like the coffee stained front page section of the Bradenton Herald winding up on a conference room table after a morning meeting, if we indirectly find our way to City Hall readers, that’s okay with us. And if requested, we would gladly send posts directly to Ms. Baird, Mayor Barford, Commissioner Mattick or anyone else at 10005 Gulf Drive who is kind enough to ask. But, a post from this blog has never been sent unsolicited directly to Ms. Baird’s email address or to any other city email address to our knowledge.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
"All the News We See Fit to Print"
Last week we posted THIS regarding our efforts to bring you real information from actual source documents so you can read and decide for yourself your individual positions on the issues. Too often, facts and events can be skewed and contorted before they reach you for digestion. We don't profess to have all the information out there but we do try to locate and provide as much of it to you as we can.
Look, we'll be the first to say that publishing a weekly newspaper cannot be easy. Errors are inevitable and even awkward slips happen, like the Islander today reporting that John Cagnina was unavailable for comment on the dismissal of his ethics complaint after a previously published version of the same story included an alleged quote from him. Like that tree in the woods, if he was no longer "available" for the later published version, was there ever really a quote? But stuff happens. It seems to happen with regularity around here but it happens. We move on.
Sometimes though that "stuff" calls into question other motives. Like the Sun covering a story on the recall and providing a phone number to call if one wants to sign up, like some company newsletter asking for volunteers to organize the annual picnic. Not a proud journalistic moment. And today's edition of the Islander contains a story we reported HERE last week regarding the recent foray into public records exploration by PAR's lawyer Valerie Fernandez. As we showed you HERE, her June 4, 2010 subpoena contained requests for emails tied to numerous sources, this blog and this writer included. Particularly compelling was the inclusion of email addresses of reporters for both the Islander and the Sun, an interesting and certainly newsworthy development considering the polarized PAR and recaller-friendly positions both papers have taken publicy in either editorial opinions or "news" reports.
Look, we'll be the first to say that publishing a weekly newspaper cannot be easy. Errors are inevitable and even awkward slips happen, like the Islander today reporting that John Cagnina was unavailable for comment on the dismissal of his ethics complaint after a previously published version of the same story included an alleged quote from him. Like that tree in the woods, if he was no longer "available" for the later published version, was there ever really a quote? But stuff happens. It seems to happen with regularity around here but it happens. We move on.
Sometimes though that "stuff" calls into question other motives. Like the Sun covering a story on the recall and providing a phone number to call if one wants to sign up, like some company newsletter asking for volunteers to organize the annual picnic. Not a proud journalistic moment. And today's edition of the Islander contains a story we reported HERE last week regarding the recent foray into public records exploration by PAR's lawyer Valerie Fernandez. As we showed you HERE, her June 4, 2010 subpoena contained requests for emails tied to numerous sources, this blog and this writer included. Particularly compelling was the inclusion of email addresses of reporters for both the Islander and the Sun, an interesting and certainly newsworthy development considering the polarized PAR and recaller-friendly positions both papers have taken publicy in either editorial opinions or "news" reports.
P & Z Loses Two More
Word from City Hall today confirms that Mike Yetter, citing a "change in job responsibilities," has tendered his resignation from the Planning & Zoning Board by email to Mayor Barford this morning.
As reported by the Islander today, Frank Pytel stepped down last week from his position on the P&Z Board. Mr. Pytel gave no reason for his departure.
As reported by the Islander today, Frank Pytel stepped down last week from his position on the P&Z Board. Mr. Pytel gave no reason for his departure.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Thank You John Cagnina...
That distant honking you hear is not those crazy horns from the World Cup matches in South Africa. It's the inevitable screeching of Recallers whose petition was used as a template for John Cagnina's failed ethics complaint against Mr. Stoltzfus. Richard Harrison placed the city on notice a month ago (HERE) that Cagnina's complaint was ill conceived and that Florida law requires the city to reimburse Mr. Stoltzfus for the costs of his defense should he prevail. Harrison notified City Attorney Jim Dye Friday HERE and Sunday HERE that the bill is on the way.
That the ethics complaint tracked the language of the recall petition is no coincidence. And, of course, it will be trumpeted as all Mr. Stotzfus' fault that Cagnina took it upon himself to file it with no apparent independent knowledge or investigation beyond the pages of the local papers. As you can read HERE, Mr. Stoltzfus has the option of pursuing Mr. Cagnina for the expenses and in a perfect world that is exactly what should happen. But pursuing Mr. Cagnina places the city at additional risk should Cagnina, and one expects he would, bob and weave his way through the collection process. Under Florida law, the city should have third-party claims against Cagnina for the money it is forced to expend because of Cagnina's actions and it should take immediate steps to assert those claims.
So, we are sure you'll hear shouts of blame tossed at Mr. Stoltzfus. But you can thank John Cagnina.
Bill Yanger
That the ethics complaint tracked the language of the recall petition is no coincidence. And, of course, it will be trumpeted as all Mr. Stotzfus' fault that Cagnina took it upon himself to file it with no apparent independent knowledge or investigation beyond the pages of the local papers. As you can read HERE, Mr. Stoltzfus has the option of pursuing Mr. Cagnina for the expenses and in a perfect world that is exactly what should happen. But pursuing Mr. Cagnina places the city at additional risk should Cagnina, and one expects he would, bob and weave his way through the collection process. Under Florida law, the city should have third-party claims against Cagnina for the money it is forced to expend because of Cagnina's actions and it should take immediate steps to assert those claims.
So, we are sure you'll hear shouts of blame tossed at Mr. Stoltzfus. But you can thank John Cagnina.
Bill Yanger
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Pass This Along! AMI Is One Sweet Beach
Anna Maria Island - June 12, 2010After spending an otherwise glorious morning being assaulted by shots on the tube of reporters in sludge smeared hazmat suits slogging through black lapping surf while uttering unfathomable dread about the misery now facing our sister beach cities along our shared coast north and west of here, perhaps it is time to pass this along. Send it to friends and family who may be wondering whether trip to AMI is worth the dough. Tell them to show others. "Look Ma, no oil!"
AMI is one sweet beach. Come see for yourself.
There Are Thinkers Out There
While one may have issues with Carl Nudi's story in the Bradenton Herald Saturday regarding the dismissal of the ethics complaint against Mr. Sotltzfus, it is by and large balanced, if less than substantial, reporting. But the real fun is in the comments section. Take a look HERE.
Of course, there will always be detractors and contrarians who like to be contrary because they think being contrary is cool. But there are folks out there who get it.
Of course, there will always be detractors and contrarians who like to be contrary because they think being contrary is cool. But there are folks out there who get it.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Breaking News: FEC Dismisses Stoltzfus Ethics Complaint
The Florida Ethics Commission has summarily dismissed ethics charges filed by Holmes Beach resident John Cagnina against Anna Maria City Commissioner Harry Stoltzfus. The Commission found that the Complaint "substantively fail[ed] to indicate" a violation of Florida law.
Click HERE to view the Order and associated Press Release from Richard Harrison.
Click HERE to view the Order and associated Press Release from Richard Harrison.
Irony Redux: Public Records Absurdity Marches On
With so much recent attention focused on recalls and recallers and reconsidering reconsiderations, one may think that PAR’s favorite marionettes Michael Barfield a/k/a Inmate #15549-075 and lawyer Valerie Fernandez are feeling a bit limp in the strings of late. After all, a search of the two local papers reveals no significant reports of sunshine law or public records stories in nearly a month. But alas, her strings apparently yanked taut by PAR, along comes THIS from Ms. Fernandez.
Much of the list of sought-after emails (on page 5) is no surprise and some are redundant requests from previous public records demands. But a few deserve mention for varying reasons.
One wonders what deep dark conspiracy PAR hopes to dig up by seeking Sgt. Turner‘s email correspondence. Is it their theory that the ludicrously labeled “Shadow Government” contained a law enforcement branch? I mean, really.
Several private citizens and entities, already the subjects of meritless public records requests, are again included and a few new ones make an appearance, yours truly and this blog included. Good luck with that one. The last time our blog entries made the cut our readership shot through the roof. Thanks, I guess.
The intrepid reporters from The Islander and The Sun made the guest list as well. I suppose PAR, er… Fernandez, has her reasons but why would they subpoena records from their own public relations department? Just asking.
And is it a surprise to anyone familiar with PAR’s tactics that exactly one week after Commissioner Woodland cast his vote to deny their 308 Pine Ave. site plan, he was added, for the first time, to PAR’s email target list. No more need be said on that one.
Finally, attorney Jeremy Anderson is included on the list. Oh, the irony in that one. Nearly two months ago, Mr. Anderson filed public records requests that sought, among others, Michael Coleman’s emails in his capacity as a de facto member the City’s Parking Safety Committee just when the Pine Avenue safety debate was nearing its frenzied tipping point. Does it surprise you that Mr. Coleman has apparently failed to produce a single email in response Mr. Anderson’s lawful demand? Nope, me either, and neither does the mute reporting from the local press on the issue.
Don’t expect production of any documents any time soon. Since the subpoena seeks private records of private citizens and entities far outside the scope of sunshine and public records laws, Mr. Harrison has already filed objections you can view HERE. The objections will be ruled on by the court sometime down the road. Until then, we wait for the marionettes’ strings to inevitably be yanked again.
All the best,
Bill Yanger
Much of the list of sought-after emails (on page 5) is no surprise and some are redundant requests from previous public records demands. But a few deserve mention for varying reasons.
One wonders what deep dark conspiracy PAR hopes to dig up by seeking Sgt. Turner‘s email correspondence. Is it their theory that the ludicrously labeled “Shadow Government” contained a law enforcement branch? I mean, really.
Several private citizens and entities, already the subjects of meritless public records requests, are again included and a few new ones make an appearance, yours truly and this blog included. Good luck with that one. The last time our blog entries made the cut our readership shot through the roof. Thanks, I guess.
The intrepid reporters from The Islander and The Sun made the guest list as well. I suppose PAR, er… Fernandez, has her reasons but why would they subpoena records from their own public relations department? Just asking.
And is it a surprise to anyone familiar with PAR’s tactics that exactly one week after Commissioner Woodland cast his vote to deny their 308 Pine Ave. site plan, he was added, for the first time, to PAR’s email target list. No more need be said on that one.
Finally, attorney Jeremy Anderson is included on the list. Oh, the irony in that one. Nearly two months ago, Mr. Anderson filed public records requests that sought, among others, Michael Coleman’s emails in his capacity as a de facto member the City’s Parking Safety Committee just when the Pine Avenue safety debate was nearing its frenzied tipping point. Does it surprise you that Mr. Coleman has apparently failed to produce a single email in response Mr. Anderson’s lawful demand? Nope, me either, and neither does the mute reporting from the local press on the issue.
Don’t expect production of any documents any time soon. Since the subpoena seeks private records of private citizens and entities far outside the scope of sunshine and public records laws, Mr. Harrison has already filed objections you can view HERE. The objections will be ruled on by the court sometime down the road. Until then, we wait for the marionettes’ strings to inevitably be yanked again.
All the best,
Bill Yanger
No Second Bite Of The Mango: Reconsideration Update
Guessing some of you woke up this morning with a burning desire to know whether the developers of 308 Pine Ave. will get a second bite of the site plan mango as a result of the Special Commission Meeting last night. Okay, maybe not a burning desire but we expect some are curious. Well, fear not. There was no motion, there was no vote and there will be no reconsideration of the site plan that was denied May 27th.
Of course, the developers have every right to submit another plan and we think they should. But perhaps this time they will consider the requirements of law and the will of the citizens and less their own hubris.
Of course, the developers have every right to submit another plan and we think they should. But perhaps this time they will consider the requirements of law and the will of the citizens and less their own hubris.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Double Due Process, Now That's Special
It ought to be standing room only tonight at City Hall.
First, the City Commission takes up the issue of reconsidering its May 27th denial of PAR's 308 Pine Ave. site plan. You gotta hand it to Commission Chairman John Quam for dotting the I's and crossing the T's on this one. I suspect he'll discuss his understandable desire to be complete. And should PAR feel special or what? Seriously, it's not often that a developer gets double due process. Don't expect the typical menagerie of commentators PAR loves to showcase at these meetings. Knowing Mr. Quam's agility with the gavel and assuming City Attorney Jim Dye has the gumption to stand behind his forceful recommendation that "public comment not be taken", this will be a procedural matter for Commission discussion only. Then, only the Commissioners who originally voted to deny the 308 Pine Ave. application can make a motion to reconsider. No motion means no vote and after this extra helping of due process perhaps Mr. Coleman, our Sunshine Law D'Artagnan, can now find the time to finally respond to public records requests that he's shoved aside for two months.
Next, another of the City's legal bugaboos gets the spotlight when The Banyan Tree Estates folks look to get some clarity on their project at the end of Park and Beach. With a lawsuit pending over the development of a portion of their project in an area next to the dunes where the City seeks a moratorium, at least until the issue is settled in Court, on development in a conservation zone that apparently includes those parcels. But the tract contains an abundance of parcels that would apparently not be subject to the moratorium and one expects development there to proceed. More on this sticky wicket at a later time.
And interestingly, the Hunt's project at Pine Ave and North Shore is approaching some permitting deadlines so there will be some discussion and analysis of how to proceed. One never knows what will happen when this project is the subject of discussion and analysis. Expect the unexpected.
First, the City Commission takes up the issue of reconsidering its May 27th denial of PAR's 308 Pine Ave. site plan. You gotta hand it to Commission Chairman John Quam for dotting the I's and crossing the T's on this one. I suspect he'll discuss his understandable desire to be complete. And should PAR feel special or what? Seriously, it's not often that a developer gets double due process. Don't expect the typical menagerie of commentators PAR loves to showcase at these meetings. Knowing Mr. Quam's agility with the gavel and assuming City Attorney Jim Dye has the gumption to stand behind his forceful recommendation that "public comment not be taken", this will be a procedural matter for Commission discussion only. Then, only the Commissioners who originally voted to deny the 308 Pine Ave. application can make a motion to reconsider. No motion means no vote and after this extra helping of due process perhaps Mr. Coleman, our Sunshine Law D'Artagnan, can now find the time to finally respond to public records requests that he's shoved aside for two months.
Next, another of the City's legal bugaboos gets the spotlight when The Banyan Tree Estates folks look to get some clarity on their project at the end of Park and Beach. With a lawsuit pending over the development of a portion of their project in an area next to the dunes where the City seeks a moratorium, at least until the issue is settled in Court, on development in a conservation zone that apparently includes those parcels. But the tract contains an abundance of parcels that would apparently not be subject to the moratorium and one expects development there to proceed. More on this sticky wicket at a later time.
And interestingly, the Hunt's project at Pine Ave and North Shore is approaching some permitting deadlines so there will be some discussion and analysis of how to proceed. One never knows what will happen when this project is the subject of discussion and analysis. Expect the unexpected.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Post Office Letter Unmasked...
We reported HERE yesterday on the letter to the Mayor regarding the Recaller's apparent violation of federal law by setting up shop adjacent to the Post Office in Bayview Plaza.
As pointed out by our contibutor Hum in a comment HERE and, frankly, by several other readers as well, Mr. Breiter's reference to the plaza as being "private property ... not intended ... for one trying to avoid recall" was "odd" to say the least. Seeing as though the "one trying to avoid recall" was, quite obviously, not and has never been a part of the gang of Recallers that was apparently violating federal law by hassling honest citizens outside the Post Office, one has to wonder why Mr. Breiter so gratuitously added that phrase in his letter.
Well as is often the case, the answer is there for us if we just look for it. Mr. Breiter is, in fact, Recall Committee Member #47 (wife Kathleen is #48) by virtue of his signature on the Recall Petition. You can find it HERE on page 84 of the Recall Committee list or by hitting the link in the "Stay Informed!" section above.
It is interesting, is it not, that the Recaller's illegal conduct was ignored by the landlord and its representative Mr. Breiter, who offices in the same plaza, throughout earlier recall activities and only became an issue when the flagrant violation of federal law was about to become a messy public issue.
Oh, the tangled webs...
As pointed out by our contibutor Hum in a comment HERE and, frankly, by several other readers as well, Mr. Breiter's reference to the plaza as being "private property ... not intended ... for one trying to avoid recall" was "odd" to say the least. Seeing as though the "one trying to avoid recall" was, quite obviously, not and has never been a part of the gang of Recallers that was apparently violating federal law by hassling honest citizens outside the Post Office, one has to wonder why Mr. Breiter so gratuitously added that phrase in his letter.
Well as is often the case, the answer is there for us if we just look for it. Mr. Breiter is, in fact, Recall Committee Member #47 (wife Kathleen is #48) by virtue of his signature on the Recall Petition. You can find it HERE on page 84 of the Recall Committee list or by hitting the link in the "Stay Informed!" section above.
It is interesting, is it not, that the Recaller's illegal conduct was ignored by the landlord and its representative Mr. Breiter, who offices in the same plaza, throughout earlier recall activities and only became an issue when the flagrant violation of federal law was about to become a messy public issue.
Oh, the tangled webs...
Reconsideration Equivocation
As we reported two days ago HERE, City Attorney Jim Dye was recently requested to provide a legal opinion regarding the procedure applicable to a "reconsideration" of the May 27th Commission vote denying approval of PAR's 308 Pine Ave. site plan. Mr. Dye's letter cryptically danced around who exactly requested the opinion so we asked who that person may have been and why the opinion was sought.
Well, no one has stepped forward to claim responsibility but, lo and behold, the "reconsideration" has been listed as the first item on tomorrow's Commission Agenda (which you can view HERE). Apparently here's what will happen:
This will not be a rehearing of the 308 Pine Ave. site plan application. The Commission will only be discussing a motion to reconsider the May 27th vote. And they will be doing so in spite of (1)Dye's clear warning that there is no "formal rule" to guide the Commission and (2) his finessed tap dancing around whether such a motion is even authorized at all. Come on, really? I mean, having your lawyer tell you that it's "possible" that you "may" be okay would not appear to be particularly comforting.
So the saga continues. Stay tuned.
Well, no one has stepped forward to claim responsibility but, lo and behold, the "reconsideration" has been listed as the first item on tomorrow's Commission Agenda (which you can view HERE). Apparently here's what will happen:
This will not be a rehearing of the 308 Pine Ave. site plan application. The Commission will only be discussing a motion to reconsider the May 27th vote. And they will be doing so in spite of (1)Dye's clear warning that there is no "formal rule" to guide the Commission and (2) his finessed tap dancing around whether such a motion is even authorized at all. Come on, really? I mean, having your lawyer tell you that it's "possible" that you "may" be okay would not appear to be particularly comforting.
So the saga continues. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Recallers In Violation Of Federal Law?
The following is the text of an email sent by a representative of Bayview Plaza to the Mayor and Commissioners late yesterday regarding the Recaller's use of the Post Office and adjacent facilities for recall activities. The email is self-explanatory but, among other things, warns that such use is a violation of federal statutes:
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Breiter [mailto:tom@breitercapital.com]
Sent: Mon 6/7/2010 3:13 PM
To: Fran Barford; jktoomey@tampabay.rr.com
Cc: 'Sandra Mattick'; 'Carol Carter'; JoAnne Mattick; John Quam; Harry Stoltzfus; Chuck Webb; Dale Woodland
Subject:
Hi Fran,
The committee for the recall of Mr. Stoltzfus used the Bayview Plaza as a site to obtain signatures for the initial recall petition. This last weekend I guess some things got a little heated during their efforts for the second petition, and there were complaints to the Postmaster (Gloria) and her staff. Gloria filled me in this morning and advised me of the federal statutes prohibiting political and commercial activity in and around federal facilities, including Post Offices.
The Plaza's owners have a policy of not allowing political campaign efforts or promotion of commercial activity other than for the businesses located in the Plaza. The presence of the Post Office is another factor since political and commercial promotion are strictly prohibited on federal property and facilities. We have a bit of a gray area with the Post Office occupying about one third of the Plaza, but the parking and sidewalks are used by post office patrons as well, so where does the Post office begin and end? Without knowing some of the interpretations of the federal statutes and our desire to continue to not favor one side or another as a commercial business condominium association, we have decided to maintain our previous stance of prohibiting the aforementioned activity for political and commercial promotions.
I am writing to ask your help with notifying all present commissioners and future candidates that the Bayview Commercial Plaza is private property and is not intended for the self-promotion of any political candidate for election or for one trying to avoid recall. These individuals as residents are, of course, able to use the postal facility and adjoining sidewalks and parking to obtain their mail or patronize the resident businesses, but no gatherings for political efforts are allowed. They should also be advised they may be deemed to have run afoul of federal statutes if they do so.
We also understand that this activity has gone on in the past at election time and the plaza's owners have not gone to great lengths to police the activity. We will be more active in the future to prevent these occurrences.
Fran, I appreciate your help and it is not my intent to put you in the middle of the issue, just to gain your help in educating the current commissioners and to perhaps advise future candidates about this throughsomething inserted in the election packet.
Please call me with any questions or observations on this topic. I have copied the current commissioners and the key members of the recall committee on this email as well. It should be easy to understand.
Tom Breiter, Treasurer
Bayview Commercial Plaza Association, Inc.
941-778-1900
101 South Bay Blvd. / Suite B-4
P.O. Box 818
Anna Maria, FL 34216
You can view the original email at City Hall.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Breiter [mailto:tom@breitercapital.com]
Sent: Mon 6/7/2010 3:13 PM
To: Fran Barford; jktoomey@tampabay.rr.com
Cc: 'Sandra Mattick'; 'Carol Carter'; JoAnne Mattick; John Quam; Harry Stoltzfus; Chuck Webb; Dale Woodland
Subject:
Hi Fran,
The committee for the recall of Mr. Stoltzfus used the Bayview Plaza as a site to obtain signatures for the initial recall petition. This last weekend I guess some things got a little heated during their efforts for the second petition, and there were complaints to the Postmaster (Gloria) and her staff. Gloria filled me in this morning and advised me of the federal statutes prohibiting political and commercial activity in and around federal facilities, including Post Offices.
The Plaza's owners have a policy of not allowing political campaign efforts or promotion of commercial activity other than for the businesses located in the Plaza. The presence of the Post Office is another factor since political and commercial promotion are strictly prohibited on federal property and facilities. We have a bit of a gray area with the Post Office occupying about one third of the Plaza, but the parking and sidewalks are used by post office patrons as well, so where does the Post office begin and end? Without knowing some of the interpretations of the federal statutes and our desire to continue to not favor one side or another as a commercial business condominium association, we have decided to maintain our previous stance of prohibiting the aforementioned activity for political and commercial promotions.
I am writing to ask your help with notifying all present commissioners and future candidates that the Bayview Commercial Plaza is private property and is not intended for the self-promotion of any political candidate for election or for one trying to avoid recall. These individuals as residents are, of course, able to use the postal facility and adjoining sidewalks and parking to obtain their mail or patronize the resident businesses, but no gatherings for political efforts are allowed. They should also be advised they may be deemed to have run afoul of federal statutes if they do so.
We also understand that this activity has gone on in the past at election time and the plaza's owners have not gone to great lengths to police the activity. We will be more active in the future to prevent these occurrences.
Fran, I appreciate your help and it is not my intent to put you in the middle of the issue, just to gain your help in educating the current commissioners and to perhaps advise future candidates about this throughsomething inserted in the election packet.
Please call me with any questions or observations on this topic. I have copied the current commissioners and the key members of the recall committee on this email as well. It should be easy to understand.
Tom Breiter, Treasurer
Bayview Commercial Plaza Association, Inc.
941-778-1900
101 South Bay Blvd. / Suite B-4
P.O. Box 818
Anna Maria, FL 34216
You can view the original email at City Hall.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Who Asked For This Legal Opinion?
On June 4, 2010, following the City Commission's May 27th vote denying PAR's 308 Pine site plan, City Attorney Jim Dye sent THIS letter to Commission Chairman John Quam. It is also available in the public reading file at Anna Maria City Hall.
The letter addresses "procedural questions which have arisen" as to whether the Commission's denial can be "reconsidered." Interestingly though, Mr. Dye does not identify whose "questions" prompted his research into the issue. Though he directs the letter to Commissioner Quam in his capacity as Chair, the vagueness of his reference seems to indicate that the questions came from a source other than Mr. Quam. The letter is copied to the Mayor and City Clerk, as is custom, but there is no indication that either were the source of the inquiry.
Mr. Dye's conclusion, at least in my estimation, is essentially that since there is no "formal rule specifically addressing [the] situation" it would be cumbersome and require multiple additional hearings. Apparently though, it is possible for a motion for reconsideration to be procedurally wrangled through the Commission, but only upon the motion of a commissioner who originally voted for denial of the application.
First, who asked for the legal opinion?
And second, why?
The letter addresses "procedural questions which have arisen" as to whether the Commission's denial can be "reconsidered." Interestingly though, Mr. Dye does not identify whose "questions" prompted his research into the issue. Though he directs the letter to Commissioner Quam in his capacity as Chair, the vagueness of his reference seems to indicate that the questions came from a source other than Mr. Quam. The letter is copied to the Mayor and City Clerk, as is custom, but there is no indication that either were the source of the inquiry.
Mr. Dye's conclusion, at least in my estimation, is essentially that since there is no "formal rule specifically addressing [the] situation" it would be cumbersome and require multiple additional hearings. Apparently though, it is possible for a motion for reconsideration to be procedurally wrangled through the Commission, but only upon the motion of a commissioner who originally voted for denial of the application.
First, who asked for the legal opinion?
And second, why?
THE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE STREETS
Anna DeAugustine and her husband live on Crescent Drive. She has asked that I post the letter she wrote to the City last week:
I want to thank Mayor Barford and the City of Anna Maria's Director of Public Works George Mckay and Sergeant David Turner for taking the time to understand the concerns of speeding traffic and the incredible density of traffic foisted onto Crescent Drive. Mr. McKay and Sergeant Turner were more than sympathetic to the fact that as a result of much needed bridge repair the unavoidable simple gesture of detouring traffic down a residential street, changed the face of Crescent Avenue from a quiet sleepy street to a very busy and dangerous street. Crescent escorted up to 30 cars per quarter hour, or, as simple math would dictate, 120 cars an hour. Loud motorcycle traffic, 18 wheelers, and a train of local work and landscaping trucks all won space on the road over our visitors and kids on bikes, people walking their dogs, the elderly who can only manage early morning or late night excursions, and the wildlife that crosses over from the canal behind Roser Memorial Community Church.
I want to thank Mayor Barford and the City of Anna Maria's Director of Public Works George Mckay and Sergeant David Turner for taking the time to understand the concerns of speeding traffic and the incredible density of traffic foisted onto Crescent Drive. Mr. McKay and Sergeant Turner were more than sympathetic to the fact that as a result of much needed bridge repair the unavoidable simple gesture of detouring traffic down a residential street, changed the face of Crescent Avenue from a quiet sleepy street to a very busy and dangerous street. Crescent escorted up to 30 cars per quarter hour, or, as simple math would dictate, 120 cars an hour. Loud motorcycle traffic, 18 wheelers, and a train of local work and landscaping trucks all won space on the road over our visitors and kids on bikes, people walking their dogs, the elderly who can only manage early morning or late night excursions, and the wildlife that crosses over from the canal behind Roser Memorial Community Church.
It Depends On Whose Ox Is Being Gored: Island Sun Letter to the Editor Follow Up
I posted a letter to the Editor of the Island Sun recently which you can find HERE or by scrolling down a few posts below. I posted same the letter on the Sun's comment page. P&Z Board member Sandy Mattick was kind enough to take the time to respond and you can read her thoughts HERE.
My response to Ms. Mattick is also on the Sun's comment page but for the sake of convenience, I include it here:
Ms. Mattick:
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my letter to Mr. Field. I do not question your recollection of Mr. Burden's assessment and the context in which you place his appraisal of Pine Avenue parking scenarios and current safety. As I said in my letter, those interpretations may differ in the minds of reasonable men and women. I do however stand behind my quote of Mr. Burden's assessment. Your committment to finding a compromise is admirable and it is the hope of many of those interested in the future of the city that each of the P&Z members and City Commissioners share your committment.
It is, however, unclear to whom you refer when you state that "the residents are...tired of the rhetoric..." It is doubtful you or anyone else has canvassed each of "the residents" and therefore the statement itself is rhetorical and exaggerated. While I doubt it was your intention "to inflame" with such rhetoric, it does illustrate the axiom that one man's rhetoric is another's doctrine. In the end we are governed by majority rule. And one's perception of language and thought is largely dependent upon whose ox is being gored.
Thank you for your public service and continuing efforts to seek solutions.
Bill Yanger
My response to Ms. Mattick is also on the Sun's comment page but for the sake of convenience, I include it here:
Ms. Mattick:
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my letter to Mr. Field. I do not question your recollection of Mr. Burden's assessment and the context in which you place his appraisal of Pine Avenue parking scenarios and current safety. As I said in my letter, those interpretations may differ in the minds of reasonable men and women. I do however stand behind my quote of Mr. Burden's assessment. Your committment to finding a compromise is admirable and it is the hope of many of those interested in the future of the city that each of the P&Z members and City Commissioners share your committment.
It is, however, unclear to whom you refer when you state that "the residents are...tired of the rhetoric..." It is doubtful you or anyone else has canvassed each of "the residents" and therefore the statement itself is rhetorical and exaggerated. While I doubt it was your intention "to inflame" with such rhetoric, it does illustrate the axiom that one man's rhetoric is another's doctrine. In the end we are governed by majority rule. And one's perception of language and thought is largely dependent upon whose ox is being gored.
Thank you for your public service and continuing efforts to seek solutions.
Bill Yanger
Lawyer will work for free, helping Hillsborough County Commission to trust again
Sue Carlton, the author of this article, is a frequent visitor to Anna Maria. In this article she tells about Richard A. Harrison's offer to help Hillsborough County to recover their legal costs.
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=ODYzNTk3Mw==
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=ODYzNTk3Mw==
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Letter to Island Sun Editor
As many of you know, on May 27th the Anna Maria City Commission denied PAR's 308 site plan application. The June 2 issue of the Island Sun contained an editorial you can read HERE.
The following is a letter to the editor submitted to The Sun in response to its editorial:
June 5, 2010
To the Editor of The Island Sun:
Mr. Field’s recent Island Sun editorial (“Anna Maria Does It Again”) asks for an “explanation” of PAR’s 308 Pine Avenue site plan denial by Anna Maria’s City Commission. He implores that “history” should have guided the Commission to rubber stamp previous approvals simply because, well, they were approved.
His logic fails in numerous respects.
First, in Mr. Field’s world it would appear that the role of a legislator is to blindly follow the analysis and interpretations of staff, regardless of whether those interpretations may differ in the minds of reasonable men and women. Is it Mr. Field’s position that we elect commissioners to cower and follow instead of to think and lead? Should the courage behind every vote be tamed by the specter of litigation? Of course not.
Secondly, Mr. Field did not attend the commission meeting at which the vote was taken. The minutes have not been published and it is doubtful he ordered and reviewed the tape prior to offering his opinion. He did not contact any of the three commissioners who voted to deny the site plan approval to better understand their thinking – imagine that, actual thought applied to the legislative process – prior to criticizing their denial. Multiple valid and incisive questions were raised by the commission which staff, the city attorney and the applicant were obviously unable to adequately address, at least to the satisfaction of the majority.
Finally, as reported by the Sun in its June 2nd edition, world renowned “Walkable Communities” expert Dan Burden visited Anna Maria on Friday June 4th. Mr. Burden was given a tour of Pine Avenue to assess first hand the situation at ground zero. If you have spent any appreciable time with PAR principals, it does not take them long to espouse Mr. Burden as an expert without peer in his field, the man we should all rely upon to lead us to a walkable promised land, one lined, of course, with PAR development. Well, after months and months of PAR and the local press poo-pooing the issue of current Pine Avenue safety, Mr. Burden was characteristically clear in his assessment, summing it up quite simply: “What you have now is the most dangerous situation.” He repeated this warning several more times. Mr. Field, will your paper accurately report this blasphemous betrayal of the Book of PAR by its own messiah? We shall see.
So, not only was the commission’s denial of the 308 Pine site plan on Tuesday the result of thoughtful inquiry and analysis at the time, it was a prescient vote, one legitimized three days later by PAR’s own guru.
There’s your explanation Mr. Field.
Bill Yanger
The following is a letter to the editor submitted to The Sun in response to its editorial:
June 5, 2010
To the Editor of The Island Sun:
Mr. Field’s recent Island Sun editorial (“Anna Maria Does It Again”) asks for an “explanation” of PAR’s 308 Pine Avenue site plan denial by Anna Maria’s City Commission. He implores that “history” should have guided the Commission to rubber stamp previous approvals simply because, well, they were approved.
His logic fails in numerous respects.
First, in Mr. Field’s world it would appear that the role of a legislator is to blindly follow the analysis and interpretations of staff, regardless of whether those interpretations may differ in the minds of reasonable men and women. Is it Mr. Field’s position that we elect commissioners to cower and follow instead of to think and lead? Should the courage behind every vote be tamed by the specter of litigation? Of course not.
Secondly, Mr. Field did not attend the commission meeting at which the vote was taken. The minutes have not been published and it is doubtful he ordered and reviewed the tape prior to offering his opinion. He did not contact any of the three commissioners who voted to deny the site plan approval to better understand their thinking – imagine that, actual thought applied to the legislative process – prior to criticizing their denial. Multiple valid and incisive questions were raised by the commission which staff, the city attorney and the applicant were obviously unable to adequately address, at least to the satisfaction of the majority.
Finally, as reported by the Sun in its June 2nd edition, world renowned “Walkable Communities” expert Dan Burden visited Anna Maria on Friday June 4th. Mr. Burden was given a tour of Pine Avenue to assess first hand the situation at ground zero. If you have spent any appreciable time with PAR principals, it does not take them long to espouse Mr. Burden as an expert without peer in his field, the man we should all rely upon to lead us to a walkable promised land, one lined, of course, with PAR development. Well, after months and months of PAR and the local press poo-pooing the issue of current Pine Avenue safety, Mr. Burden was characteristically clear in his assessment, summing it up quite simply: “What you have now is the most dangerous situation.” He repeated this warning several more times. Mr. Field, will your paper accurately report this blasphemous betrayal of the Book of PAR by its own messiah? We shall see.
So, not only was the commission’s denial of the 308 Pine site plan on Tuesday the result of thoughtful inquiry and analysis at the time, it was a prescient vote, one legitimized three days later by PAR’s own guru.
There’s your explanation Mr. Field.
Bill Yanger
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Thanks, I'd Rather Make My Own
As consumers, we have choices.
And on the hot days ahead, many of us will dream of a tall ice-cold parch-quenching fruity drink. Some are content to pop the top on a diabolical concoction of fructose, citric acid, maltodextrin, yellow #5, calcium fumarate and other mystery additives that some concoctor somewhere dehydrates, rehydrolizes, evaporates and then reconstitutes. They tell us this koolade is "5% Real Juice" or some such thing and, of course, that makes it good for us. And there are those who are content to believe these concoctors.
Then there are those of us whom prefer to hit the local green market to methodically select a dozen or so plump Meyer lemons, tenderly pressing each to find the perfect blend of fullness and give that hints at the sunny bounty within, a juice with subtle sweetness that requires little more sugar and has just enough pucker to tickle the driest tongue. We prefer to squeeze that juice ourselves, pour it over ice in a tall glass pitcher, perhaps adding a bit of bubbly seltzer or a sprig of mint to tease the throat on the way down. We listen to the ice cubes tink and tankle in the pitcher as we stir and pour the lemonade, real lemonade, our lemonade, into a chilled tall tumbler. True and pure satisfaction, because we know it's real and from the source.
As consumers of information, we also have choices.
Some of us simply rely on others to locate, analyze, interpret and filter the news and information we choose to digest. There are those willing to forego analysis and thought for the convenience of having someone else do the heavy lifting for them. “Don’t tell me what it actually says, tell me what you think it says, that way I don’t have to waste my time figuring out what I think it says.” They then make assumptions, express opinions, form committees and even seek retribution, all based upon the dehydrated, rehydrolized, evaporated and reconstituted informational koolade prepared and passed on to them by someone else. “Hell, it must be real, Cupcake! It says so right here on the label!” Or on the front page. Or in a letter to the editor. Or on a clipboard in a recall petition.
But for those of you interested enough to actually read and analyze source information and then decide for yourself what that information means to you – if you want to choose your own Meyer lemons and make your own lemonade – this blog will continue to try its best to provide access to that information. We cannot and will not force you to think. But we can try to give you the tools to do so.
Making real lemonade takes time and methodical effort. And so does arriving at the truth.
In the column above and to the right is a list of links to various source documents available to date. We will update the list as information is received.
Have at it.
Bill Yanger
And on the hot days ahead, many of us will dream of a tall ice-cold parch-quenching fruity drink. Some are content to pop the top on a diabolical concoction of fructose, citric acid, maltodextrin, yellow #5, calcium fumarate and other mystery additives that some concoctor somewhere dehydrates, rehydrolizes, evaporates and then reconstitutes. They tell us this koolade is "5% Real Juice" or some such thing and, of course, that makes it good for us. And there are those who are content to believe these concoctors.
Then there are those of us whom prefer to hit the local green market to methodically select a dozen or so plump Meyer lemons, tenderly pressing each to find the perfect blend of fullness and give that hints at the sunny bounty within, a juice with subtle sweetness that requires little more sugar and has just enough pucker to tickle the driest tongue. We prefer to squeeze that juice ourselves, pour it over ice in a tall glass pitcher, perhaps adding a bit of bubbly seltzer or a sprig of mint to tease the throat on the way down. We listen to the ice cubes tink and tankle in the pitcher as we stir and pour the lemonade, real lemonade, our lemonade, into a chilled tall tumbler. True and pure satisfaction, because we know it's real and from the source.
As consumers of information, we also have choices.
Some of us simply rely on others to locate, analyze, interpret and filter the news and information we choose to digest. There are those willing to forego analysis and thought for the convenience of having someone else do the heavy lifting for them. “Don’t tell me what it actually says, tell me what you think it says, that way I don’t have to waste my time figuring out what I think it says.” They then make assumptions, express opinions, form committees and even seek retribution, all based upon the dehydrated, rehydrolized, evaporated and reconstituted informational koolade prepared and passed on to them by someone else. “Hell, it must be real, Cupcake! It says so right here on the label!” Or on the front page. Or in a letter to the editor. Or on a clipboard in a recall petition.
But for those of you interested enough to actually read and analyze source information and then decide for yourself what that information means to you – if you want to choose your own Meyer lemons and make your own lemonade – this blog will continue to try its best to provide access to that information. We cannot and will not force you to think. But we can try to give you the tools to do so.
Making real lemonade takes time and methodical effort. And so does arriving at the truth.
In the column above and to the right is a list of links to various source documents available to date. We will update the list as information is received.
Have at it.
Bill Yanger
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
15,000 Thank You's To Our Loyal Readers
We've all heard that old saying about whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound if no one is around to hear it, right? Well, does a blog floating around in cyberspace with no readers have anything to say? Luckily, this blog, your blog, has no such problem.
In the 20 weeks since we have been counting, nearly 4,200 of you have visited us over 15,000 times. In a town of 1,800 or so folks and 1,500 some-odd voters, that is more than just significant. It illustrates the passion each of you has for this village and its future. So thanks again.
And keep reading.
In the 20 weeks since we have been counting, nearly 4,200 of you have visited us over 15,000 times. In a town of 1,800 or so folks and 1,500 some-odd voters, that is more than just significant. It illustrates the passion each of you has for this village and its future. So thanks again.
And keep reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
