On Tuesday, we suggested HERE that more news on the Pine Avenue parking saga was inevitable and today that suggestion became reality.
A ballot initiative petition was filed today with Anna Maria City Clerk Alice Baird which you can read by clicking HERE. The initiative seeks to place a proposed ordinance on the ballot that essentially requires all new commercial development to contain parking on-site and to preserve the use of City rights-of-way for public purposes.
We understand that signatures are already being collected today and that effort will continue in earnest in the coming weeks. Check back for more details as this story unfolds. And, of course,
Stay informed.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Nallys to City: Not So Fast On Pine Parking Plan
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
