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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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==

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

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

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.