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
Monday, June 7, 2010
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.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
A Brother's Perspective...
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
