POP Editorials:

2/20:

Another Land Grab On The Horizon?  

There are only a few things you can do when the alarm clock goes off: get up, hit the snooze button or shut it off and go back to sleep. Two of these actions have a consequence. Right now, in DeBary, the City Council has requested the city’s EDAC (Economic Development Advisory Committee) to research and bring back their findings to see if a CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) is feasible in DeBary. When the alarm clocks rings, don’t turn over and go back to sleep, don’t hit the snooze button. Get up on time, prepare yourself with as much information as you can, get involved, and speak-up at meetings by asking questions. Do not allow a bad policy to become the law in DeBary. Know what is true and what is spin. Don’t become concerned after it’s too late. The City is getting their ducks all in a row now, don’t place yourself in a position to play catch-up, you can seldom win from that position. Stand up for your rights and your neighbor’s rights. CRA’s can happen to you and your neighbors!!

What is a CRA?

A city creates a CRA by carving out a specific part of town and capping the taxes there. As property values rise in that district the increment collected above the amount capped is funneled back into the CRA. Usually commercial areas dominate CRA’s. The monies that are funneled back are used to provide roads or other improvements. Or they’re used as incentives to encourage re-development, which then leads to more tax revenue. So the extra tax revenue may not exist without the CRA. In theory that’s wonderful.

One: we do not live in a world of theory; we live in a world of reality.

Two: what happens when city governments touch on residential areas?

Three: CRA’s and eminent domain work hand in hand. In other words if you don’t want to sell to a CRA, they will eminent domain your property. Yes, you will receive compensation but not market value.

Let us start with what happened here in DeBary. About a decade ago the citizens of DeBary and the city government were involved in a controversy over a CRA. The CRA the City wanted would have allowed 21% of the City to be labeled slum and blighted. This percentage would have equated to 1200 homes and businesses. Needless to say, this met with disapproval by a large number of citizens that were affected by the “slum and blighted” CRA label. Not only did the citizens that were affected reject this idea, but by most of the citizens of DeBary who thought this was wrong, a land grab of the highest degree, something that was just wrong! The CRA the City wanted to impose created a scar that after ten years has not healed. A scar the people will not forget; a scar that takes a long, long, time to heal, if it heals at all. If you were here during this period you will remember it as if it were yesterday. If you were not living here at the time I urge you to go on line and google up CRA Debary. You will then get an idea of how bad this idea was and leave you in shock as to what a government will do to get its way.

All one has to do is look back at the problems with CRA’s. Granted some have been successful but the ones that have not became nightmares. No matter what, anytime you have a great sum of money you will have corruption or ineptness. I will concede that there are times when these two evils are not present. But more times than not there will be problems. We see the problems they are having right now in Daytona Beach , New Smyrna Beach , Eatonville, Polk County , Casselberry , etc. with their CRA’s. Most CRA’s in the state of California have turned out to be huge failures costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. CRA’s remind me of people who buy Rolex watches from street vendors thinking they have made a great deal only to find out they have been SCAMMED!!

CRA’s and eminent domain are always linked together. When someone will not give up their property no matter what, eminent domain procedures will take over. That, perhaps, is worse than corruption or ineptness. Keep in mind that CRA’s would not be possible if it deals with a small amount of commercial or residential property, but can only be successful if there is a large amount of property available. 21% of DeBary is a huge amount of property to take away from their people and turn the property over for development. To me, it seems the rightful owner of the property has lost their right of ownership. It is given to a developer or Real Estate Company’s and let’s not forget the City Government!

When someone has worked hard for their American dream, to own a home, or like my parents who worked so hard, came home tired and bent over like the letter “U” just to have a home for their family; then some smarty-pants big shots decide they have a better idea for your property and will take it one way or another. Yes, you will get compensated, but not for what would really be just compensation. Then there are those who do not want to be up-rooted from their homes but are told they have to move.

Well, after ten years of lying dormant the Mayor and Council have given direction to the EDAC Committee to see if another CRA is feasible for DeBary. They gave that direction to EDAC and then voted unanimously later to again continue in that direction of a CRA. Let’s hope if there is a new CRA it does not affect any of our residential neighborhoods. Let’s hope eminent domain will not be enforced to make a CRA successful.

Just imagine if the government could seize your home and the rest of the homes in your neighborhood, and turn them over to a development group to build a shopping center, an office complex or a hotel in their place because your town had fallen on hard economic times? Well according to the United States Supreme Court, that is an absolutely acceptable use of the government’s eminent-domain powers.

The fifth amendment of the Bill of Rights gave the people the right to protect themselves from eminent domain abuse. Before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, government, whether local, state or federal could only take some ones property if it was for the good of the people offering just compensation that was protected by the Fifth amendment. Roads, bridges, police/fire stations and hospitals and a handful of other understandable reasons fit into this description. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 23, 2005 changed all that. Now you and yourneighbors haven’t any say when the government can take your private property give and give it to another private party for development.

Thanks to that infamous Supreme Court decision (a 5-4 vote), the days of the Fifth Amendment or for that matter the Bill of Rights that severed this country for centuries have changed. Some of our so called leaders have decided to implement there newly given powers to allow confiscated private property your property to be given to another private entity a developer that in their judgment would serve the community better. Soon after the Supreme Courts vote, when eminent domain abuse was obvious, many states and influential organizations began to speak out against this outrageous decision.

Kelo v. City of New London is a lawsuit brought by Susette Kelo and other landowners that were affected by a land grab of enormous proportions. Their entire neighborhood was being handed over to large development corporation. The City believed and the court agreed that the development corporation had more right to the land than the present owners. They believed a waterfront hotel, office space and residential housing was better for the people than allowing the present owners keep their homes. Most people have figured what this was all about: 3,169 jobs and 1.2 million dollars in tax revenue! These are just two of the catalysts that drive these land grabs and now with the blessing of the Supreme Court. Just a few years later when the economy tanked so did this project. To this day nothing has been built at this site and the original home owners are gone and the land stands vacant. (Read about the whole issue by clicking on the following link: KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON)

Ask yourself what you would think if your elected officials told you that your home was being handed over to a another private entity, this time a construction company because they felt in some way “it would boost economy.” Not giving any concern to the people who would lose their property.

The founding Fathers of our country all agreed “We the People” had a God given right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Thank God for their wisdom. The “pursuit of happiness” they spoke about was our right to own and keep private property. Those Founding Fathers would be shocked if they knew what some individuals in our government have done to our property rights nowadays.

Unfortunately, while the Supreme Court took the case and by the narrow vote of 5-4 did not agree with the Founding Fathers on the right to own property, it seems our DeBary City Council are positioning themselves to do the exact same thing - if you let them.

Lenny Marks

One of the 6008 discarded votes

 

2/15:

Norm's comments in blue.

Some of my favorites from Mark Harper’s article:

"What we have here is a unique place that benefits the community, and if somebody can't see that, well, most people do," Wilson said in a recent interview. "We don't try to limit him. He shouldn't be trying to limit us. If he doesn't like it here, he shouldn't be here." (That’s a hell of a line given that CM Carson’s whole career in local politics is to make us like Orlando, Heathrow, Winter Park, Winter Springs, Altamonte…did I miss one? CM Carson is always referencing other cities and what they’re doing and that we should be doing it here. If CM Carson doesn’t like it here, he shouldn’t be trying to make us like those other places – I agree with Mrs. Wilson.)

At that point, someone recognized him as the center's chief critic and an argument ensued. According to a sheriff's report, deputies were called and told of a "man intoxicated" who was violating an injunction. (This is the real story. Who told them Mort was intoxicated? He was then left to go home? Lying to police? Who are these GCA members lying to police? Or did the police let an “intoxicated” man drive away?)

According to the sheriff's notes, "Morton Culligan has been trespassed warned from the park."

Culligan said this, too, was not true. He said he was asked by a deputy if he was leaving, and he said that he was. He said he never signed any formal trespass warning.

A few days later, on Dec. 21, Culligan said he returned to the Gateway Center to discuss getting a membership. Center officials complained, and a sheriff's deputy arrested Culligan on the misdemeanor trespass charge. (Easiest thing in the world is to show us the trespass warrant with Mort’s signature on it. Due process? Again, this is the real story here. It’s a dangerous thing when the individual is right and the “powers that be” are wrong.)

But Charles Gray said it was Culligan who had been making "scary" comments to several people inside the center. Gray questions why Culligan has continued to voice his opposition years after the decisions to fund the Gateway Center have been made. (How long can an institution be around before it is immune from criticism? Has DebaryPOP reached that time limit? Wait a second, wasn’t the VGMC just re-vamped because of mission-creep? And that’s been around for 20 years…)

Charles Gray says he wants to keep taxes low just like anyone would. But he believes DeBary taxpayers have gotten a great deal with the Gateway Center, a facility he says looks like it should cost more than double what it took to build.

"You can't get a better bang for your buck than this," he said. (What is the bang for the buck? The rest of Harper’s article talks up the greatness and “miracle” of the GCA. The article underplays Mort probably having his due process rights trampled on, lies from the GCA members about Mort being intoxicated and no trespass warrant on record. Talk about getting a bang for…how much does this newspaper cost?)

"We're astonished that people don't appreciate what we appreciate, but everybody has their own level of understanding," Wilson said. "There is strength in feeling good about what we do. It's not diminished by someone who doesn't understand.” (This is my favorite of all time and it’s a favorite of ignorant politicians: you couldn’t possibly understand the issue and disagree with it, John Q. Public. It’s not possible. If you really understood the Arts Center (or the CRA or Sunrail…), you would have to agree to pay at the city, county, state, and federal level for it. It can’t be that I’m not able to explain things about the questions and facts you’re presenting, Sir. It’s that you don’t understand about the GCA, CRA, Sunrail, {fill in the blank}. I feel great about DeBaryPOP and therefore the “naysayers and haters” must not understand that there is strength in feeling good about what I and our contributors do. I really feel proud that not a dime of taxpayer money is taken to provide DeBaryPOP to its thousands of readers and that people calling on phones, driving to their friends house to tell them about the latest on POP helps move this economy forward – talk about a nice bang for the taxpayer without taking their bucks. However, I promise that if I become a big hoity-toity something or other, I will keep the name “DeBary” in our title.)

And now…

Further Reflection on Mort Culligan

In reading Mark Harper’s article a few things are interesting:

First of all, debarypop scooped all the newspapers on this issue by a month! So, debarypop is providing a service to thousands at no cost to taxpayers and no free advertisements to anyone and it is such a benefit that we are now immune to being criticized. If you do not like POP, you can leave DeBary – so says Mrs. Wilson.

Ok, I feel better…now to get to it:

CM Carson and others like to say that DeBary is “progressive” which means, going back to Webster’s: making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities. Unless you’re an entity like the GCA that has been around for many years: Then it isn’t wise to question it or think new things about it or question the original intentions of the project. However, if you’re the VGMC which is much, much older, you can talk about “mission creep” and how they have gotten away from their original intent and irritating developers, politicians, etc,. oh, wait a second.

Also, why was Mort arrested? Trespassing? It was not for any of the reasons really cited by others concerning Mort’s words or actions. Trespassing because the GCA members called the police on Mort after THEY stopped Mort from leaving that meeting on Dec 15 th. The December 16 th date is wrong, no trespass warrant was given on paper with signatures. Due process – it was important to Mr. Garcia during his public hearing. Is it still now important? It depends on the person – not the issue, law, consistency or fairness.

GCA just doesn’t want even one, not one person speaking against them. If you do enough good and create enough warm and fuzzies like the GCA you are loved by everyone and you should be loved by everyone and anyone speaking against you…well…they can just leave the progressive City of DeBary – that’s Ms. Wilson’s line in the newspaper article and her position.

I notice the article is front loaded with all the wonderful things the Art Center does; therefore, it should be immune to any and all criticism. Let them do anything even if it wasn’t the original intention. No one is allowed to simply take the position they are against it. When the Council went against the Mayor he threw a temper tantrum, yelled, screamed, threatened and no one said anything or wrote an article about it.

The article is about Mort’s criticism and subsequent arrest by GCA members. “Nuff said.

Mort’s story is backed up by paperwork, transcripts and due process. It will be interesting to see how the public hearing deals with this.

The City was never to have a “partnership” with the GCA. It was a one time payout of 100,000 dollars. We’ve not been given our free concerts, DeBary citizens who have been triple-dipped in taxes for this entity do not get a reduced rate. “DeBary” isn’t even in the name – it was dropped. It’s a rental hall and if it goes under…well…let me paint you a picture: Sheriff’s Substation.

Mrs. Wilson think Mort who was arrested is blowing this out of proportion. Mrs. Wilson filed a police report that was found to be baseless – but Mort is blowing things out of proportion. Mr. Rinaldo also filed what was to be found as a baseless police report – but Mort is blowing this out of proportion. Mort was accosted at a meeting at the GCA invited in by the Marquee – but Mort is blowing this out of proportion. On the paperwork Mort is not allowed back into Gateway Park – period – but Mort is blowing this out of proportion.

Lastly, the piece overall is pretty fair. But it overplays the role of GCA in the community and underplays the fact that Mort wasn’t properly trespass warranted; he didn’t even know he was to be arrested if he entered the Park after the 15 th of December. There is no paperwork and his due process, it seems, was not followed. Is it the argument that if one is too vocal and too factual they give up their due process? Is that the argument of the GCA and its ardent supporters? Is that progressive?

Mark Harper had a tough story to write to try and avoid exposing the umbilical between the most vocal opponent of the GCA getting arrested by “trespassing” at the GCA – a building that is in a public park built with taxpayer dollars. And Mort Culligan has lived in DeBary for 25 years…longevity in DeBary counts for something, I thought. I hear it being bandied about by the Council members as though living in DeBary gives one a handle on the truth, makes them better Council members and a past City Manager.

Debarypop will keep its readers informed as to the outcome of Mr. Culligan’s hearing.

Let’s stop criticizing education, healthcare, social security, and all that stuff because it still helps a lot of people, it helps a lot of children, it’s been around a long time and if you don’t like it…well… just leave the country. Right? Right? Right? And that being said…motion to adjourn.

Norm Erickson

 

 

 

 

2/11:

This is what is written about DeBary on the Team Volusia website:

“Though best known for its historical charm and abundance of parks, DeBary is a progressive community. Slated to be the first link for SunRail, the commuter rail service that will connect DeBary to Orlando and other neighboring communities, DeBary is proud to be part of changing the way central Florida travels.”

(http://www.teamvolusiaedc.com/about-volusia/debary.stml)

DeBary is proud to be part of changing the way central Florida travels? Was there a city-wide vote on this? I was never asked. Changing the way we travel? That’s what is really behind this: They want Us to change the way We travel. I thought it was about traffic.

Secondly, what’s with this “progressive” term being bandied about? I’ve heard CM Carson use is at least three times and when I asked him what it meant, he couldn’t explain it himself.

The word progressive means:

1

a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression

I’m not so sure about that “encouragement of self-expression” and I think Mort Culligan would agree with me. He expressed himself and found two police reports and a mug shot waiting for him as a reward. More on that in another essay I’m sure after the DBNJ does an article on it.

I just notice that word “progressive” being used a lot as if the City or any city for that matter wasn’t being progressive. Capital Improvements which are a part of, probably, every budget is being “progressive”. Actual new ideas are rejected in this City most of the time. Bring something forward that hasn’t been done in Winter Springs or Altamonte or Orlando and it is shunned. Whether it’s new management, an audit, going to two meetings a month, etc,. But if you want to do what’s being done elsewhere and everyone else is doing it, then you’re on solid ground. But if you’re outside the box…really outside the box, really questioning and holding people accountable…you’re threatened, called racist or even possibly arrested. I don’t call that being progressive…

Norm Erickson

 

2/5:

Deltona business panel shelves commerce park plan

By MARK HARPER, Staff writer

  February 4, 2012 12:05 AM

DELTONA -- The timing for the creation of a commerce park - one of several job-creation ideas floated by city leaders - isn't right, a subcommittee determined Friday.

Members listened to a to-the-point presentation by Coldwell Banker Broker John Wanamaker on Friday and determined in equally short order that the commerce park might be an idea ahead of its time.

"At this point, I don't think it's feasible," said Joe Cerrato, chairman of the Economic Development Commerce Park & SunRail Subcommittee . "Maybe we can look at it a year from now and see if the market has changed."

Other members agreed. That included Robert Desmond, chairman of the Deltona Economic Development Advisory Board, to which the subcommittee will report its findings. The advisory board will then report to the City Commission in the next few weeks.

Wanamaker and his partner Chuck Rudis, who handle commercial real-estate transactions from a Coldwell Banker office in Orange City , said in a presentation the current cycle is one of oversupply.

There are more vacancies in existing commercial real estate both in West Volusia and Central Florida than demand, they said. In fact, in DeLand, DeBary and Orange City alone there is more than 1 million square feet of commercial space vacant , They should put the 1 million sq, ft, into the great incubator cure. depressing costs.

During and since the recession, building construction in and around Deltona was among the hardest-hit industries. A lot of the warehouses that had been rented by building contractors suddenly went vacant, Wanamaker said . Solution, build more.

"We don't see it bolting right back up," he said. "It's not just our professional opinion. We heard Sean Snaith (a University of Central Florida economist), and he said the same thing. It might be 2015 or 2016 before we see a comeback. A lot of the construction jobs are not going to come back because the boom was due to the mortgage fraud and speculation."

Subcommittee members said they would like to see the concept of a commerce park in Deltona be revisited in a year or so.

In the meantime, Cerrato said he would like to see Deltona focus more on a different concept, a micro-incubator for some of the city's small businesses.

Under that concept, the city would look for small commercial spaces to help those businesses expand.

"We try to move people with a home business to the next step, to three, four, five employees," he said. "I've done a little research on it and I think it's a great concept."

Jerry Mayes, the city's economic development administrator, said the subcommittee's name would be changing to reflect the interest in the micro-incubator concept. Now we have a micro-incubator!! Next will be a nano-incubator!

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

She’s not to worry; Ken Sharples will find her another job. After all her mistakes were less then “Strike up the Band Ken.”

Former Southeast Volusia tourism director returns credit card, other items

By ANDREW GANT, Staff writer

  February 4, 2012 12:50 AM

The attorney for ex-Southeast Volusia Advertising Authority director Nicole Carni handed over nine boxes of electronics, clothes and other gear to county officials Friday -- most or all of it believed to be items Carni bought with the SVAA's credit card before she was fired amid a financial audit.

She also still had, and returned, the American Express card, according to the inventory.

While the boxes -- the contents detailed in a five-page list with some brief explanations from Carni and attorney Judith Lane -- hadn't been fully examined by the county by Friday afternoon, county spokesman Dave Byron confirmed it was a large haul of property.

The purchases have become a focus of the audit that has examined Carni's pay and spending, caused her dismissal and eventually led to the resignation of two SVAA board members who vouched for her.

Among the things returned Friday: a Sony Playstation 3, an Apple iPad, a handful of gift cards and certificates, 22 pieces of clothing, the keys to the New Smyrna Beach Visitors Center and the "AMEX card ending in 1010."

"We have not completed a list to totally match up the things that we had on the original list," Byron said, referring to an account of about 200 missing items worth more than $9,000 in charges between Aug. 5 and Dec. 14 last year.

County staff picked up the items from Lane's office, county attorney Dan Eckert said, following a request earlier this week for her to give them back. In his request, assistant attorney Art Graham had also asked for explanations as to why the SVAA would have needed some of the items.

The clothes, according to Lane's inventory, were SVAA uniforms -- some of them embroidered with a New Smyrna Beach logo. They also included 17 "assorted garments" from Ann Taylor Loft that cost $478.58, according to the county's American Express records.

The iPad and its accessories were for "presentations and graphic design." The Playstation 3 was in a box labeled "Computer Laptop and Electronics Presentation Hardware, Misc." The gift cards -- nearly $3,000 worth, according to the records -- were for "refunds, promotionals, gifts." One such card, for the Spa at Riverview in New Smyrna Beach , was Carni's Christmas gift from the SVAA.

In total, Lane returned 225 items and 544 USB drives (giveaway items) on Friday. The county had requested about 200 items in its list.

In a recent email to the county, Lane said Carni had tried multiple times to return various SVAA-owned property while she was still on administrative leave. "As I understand it," she wrote, "no one at the county has ever taken the time to even speak to Ms. Carni" since County Manager Jim Dinneen "commandeered authority over the SVAA away from its own board and demanded that the board terminate her."

County attorney Larry Smith responded by asking Lane to specify exactly how, when and who Carni asked.

The county's audit remains ongoing and is examining issues at the SVAA beyond Carni's spending, including the pay she received. Payroll records showed Carni received about $102,000 in checks for pay periods between July 1 and Dec. 11 -- much of it overtime pay, placing her total compensation high above her roughly $72,000 annual base salary. (That salary was reduced by the County Council after Carni's board initially agreed to pay her $110,000 a year.)

The SVAA runs on bed taxes collected from the area's hotels and short-term rentals. It's one of three ad authorities in Volusia County that use public money to market the area to out-of-town visitors.

County officials have met with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for a briefing on the still-open audit, but an FDLE spokeswoman recently said the agency isn't investigating the SVAA.

Neither Carni nor Lane have responded to messages from The News-Journal, but Lane told the county that its officials' public comments about the audit have overwhelmed Carni and forced her to leave town even before she was officially fired.

 

 

 

 

1/29:

New Smyrna Beach CRA chairman quits, blasts critics

By MARK I. JOHNSON, Staff writer

 January 27, 2012

James M. Kosmas, embattled chairman of the New Smyrna Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, quit Thursday, blaming appointed and public officials for trying to sabotage the board's efforts.

"To have certain elected and appointed public officials try to throw me and other volunteers who serve on the CRA under the bus to advance their own political agenda is simply wrong," Kosmas said in a letter of resignation to Mayor Adam Barringer. "As a result, I cannot continue to serve as a member of the CRA."

The city's CRA has been under intense scrutiny over the way the board has distributed the $1.5 million in tax funds it receives for capital projects annually.

With Kosmas' resignation, the third since Dec. 2, only four members remain on the seven-member redevelopment board, leaving it with barely a quorum. (From Norm: Sounds like CPPI in DeBary where the top board members resigned due to infighting.) His resignation was preceded by CRA members Tom Williams and Doug Hodson, both of whom said business commitments left them without time to give to the volunteer agency.

In the wake of Hodson's and Williams' resignations, the City Commission indicated if someone did not step up to fill the vacancies, it would take control of the semi-autonomous redevelopment board.

When contacted at his law office by telephone Thursday afternoon, Kosmas declined to comment further on the controversy, saying his letter of resignation said it all.

"There is nothing I want to add," he said.

Kosmas came under scrutiny in November when CRA attorney Mark Hall said he and fellow CRA member Chad Schilsky unwittingly violated a state conflict-of-interest law when they applied for grants from the agency.

While Kosmas has strongly denied he violated any ethics statute, he repaid the almost $2,000 grant he received to repaint the exterior of his law office. Schilsky withdrew his grant request. Neither voted on their separate applications and both declared conflicts.

Additionally, over the past several months, the city and its CRA have come under fire from citizens and the Volusia County Council, the city's partner in the agency. The most recent round of verbal assaults came during Monday's town hall meeting hosted by At-Large Volusia County Councilwoman Joyce Cusack, where members of the audience were critical of how the CRA earmarked its funds. None of those remarks were directed at Kosmas, who did not attend the public meeting. .

Kosmas was vocal defending himself and the board during a Jan. 18 joint City Commission/CRA meeting.

Thursday's letter was as direct as his comments during that meeting."I feel the City Commission has and continues to direct criticism at me personally, as well as my follow board members, for public policy decisions made by the CRA in good faith and subsequently approved by the City Commission, that now have become politically unpopular," Kosmas' letter states.

"What has been lost in every discussion of the CRA over the last several months is the City Commission approved every expenditure of the CRA. Further, the city manager (Pam Brangaccio) signed all purchase orders authorizing such expenditures. If the commission had not approved these expenditures, or the city manager had not authorized the check(s) to pay for them, they would not have occurred. The suggestion by the City Commission that they had no control or input with respect to these funds is nonsense." (From Norm: Remember this sentence!)

The CRA oversees and recommends distribution of tax dollars for the improvement of blighted areas throughout an established boundary that includes the city's Canal Street, Flagler Avenue and Third Avenue business districts, as well as part of the city's Historic Westside Neighborhood.

Those expenditures vary from direct financing of capital improvement projects such as the recently completed Mary Avenue streetscape to awarding grants for interior or exterior improvements to buildings within the CRA district boundaries. The board recently recommended an opportunity grant of more than $400,000 for renovations to the former Pennysaver building on Canal Street, which was authorized by the commission.

"To suggest the members of the CRA, and/or the projects that come before the CRA, do not reflect the desires of the city commission, is perplexing," Kosmas wrote. "First the city commission selects the members of all of its boards from those applicants willing to serve. Second, all projects presented to the CRA for consideration are determined in the sole discretion of CRA staff. As you know, the executive director of the CRA (Tony Otte) is also employed by the city commission."

Messages left on Barringer's city cell phone Thursday were not immediately returned.

When contacted Thursday afternoon, Otte said he was "caught by surprise" by the resignation.

"The email was the first I had heard about this," he said of an email copy of the resignation letter he received. "(Kosmas) was on the board for a long time and has a lot of experience with CRA activities. He will be missed."

Brangaccio said she had not talked to Kosmas about his resignation and didn't know it was coming.

"My only concern is having a quorum to be able to do business at the Feb. 1 CRA meeting," she said. On that agenda is consideration of a more than $400,000 opportunity grant request for the renovation of the Babcock building at Canal Street and U.S. 1, as well as a rental assistance grant request from a proposed artist project. The city manager said she "does not have an opinion on Kosmas' resignation.

"He is a private citizen. He gets to do what he needs to do," Brangaccio said. "We will get on with the business here."

City Commissioner Jack Grasty believes Kosmas will not be the last CRA member to step down.

What the city needs, Grasty said, is some people who can shrug off the political criticism and citizens' negative comments that come from people who do not understand how the CRA works. (From Norm: You mean like the Commissioners, Mr. Grasty? Remember this from Kosmas:"the City Commission approved every expenditure of the CRA" and, "The suggestion by the City Commission that they had no control or input with respect to these funds is nonsense." When elected officials or puppets for the elected officials say “the people don’t understand” that‘s code for: the elected officials don’t understand how to answer real questions based on the facts. It seem Grasty is saying the Commissioners don’t understand the process because the Commissioners are saying they have nothing to do with the process, yet no money is spent unless approved by the Commission. Grasty should start by educating the Commissioners.)

Vice-Mayor Judy Reiker said if the board cannot find the members to retain a quorum, the commission will have to revert to its Plan B: "taking over the agency's authority.

Commissioner Jim Hathaway said he was unsure of the specifics to which Kosmas referred to in his letter.

"I am sorry Mr. Kosmas decided to take the action he did and wish him well in his future endeavors," he said.

 

 

 

1/25:

HOW MUCH WILL WE SPEND THIS TIME?

 

Mayor Rosamonda said the CRA never had the intention of doing what its detractors said it was going to do. This alone swayed CM Hunt even though hundreds of citizens spoke to the contrary and 4 council members voted against the issue of creating a CRA.

We paid, I believe, 30 thousand dollars for a study the last time we did this. We never used it. How much will we pay this time only to, possibly, have the City Council say “No” again? How committed are they – to the idea of a CRA? They just voted again in December to pursue the issue of creating a CRA in DeBary.

You see, instead of saying, we have blight and slum...we say, hey, we need to finance something..so lets call ourselves blight and slum...it was never the intention for a CRA to be used in this way. But intentions have a way of getting hijacked, don’t they? Especially when CRA’s last anywhere from 20 to 30 years.

But enough of opinion and history. What is blight and slum? What do we need to find in a Finding of Necessity study to create a CRA in the City of DeBary? Let’s go to those pesky State Statutes – I wonder if all the Council members have read what is below:

163.335 Findings and declarations of necessity. —

(1) It is hereby found and declared that there exist in counties and municipalities of the state slum and blighted areas which constitute a serious and growing menace, injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the state; that the existence of such areas contributes substantially and increasingly to the spread of disease and crime, constitutes an economic and social liability imposing onerous burdens which decrease the tax base and reduce tax revenues, substantially impairs or arrests sound growth, retards the provision of housing accommodations, aggravates traffic problems, and substantially hampers the elimination of traffic hazards and the improvement of traffic facilities; and that the prevention and elimination of slums and blight is a matter of state policy and state concern in order that the state and its counties and municipalities shall not continue to be endangered by areas which are focal centers of disease, promote juvenile delinquency, and consume an excessive proportion of its revenues because of the extra services required for police, fire, accident, hospitalization, and other forms of public protection, services, and facilities.

163.340 Definitions. — The following terms, wherever used or referred to in this part, have the following meanings:

(7) “Slum area” means an area having physical or economic conditions conducive to disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, poverty, or crime because there is a predominance of buildings or improvements, whether residential or nonresidential, which are impaired by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age, or obsolescence, and exhibiting one or more of the following factors:

(a) Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces;

(b) High density of population, compared to the population density of adjacent areas within the county or municipality; and overcrowding, as indicated by government-maintained statistics or other studies and the requirements of the Florida Building Code; or

(c) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes.

(8) “Blighted area” means an area in which there are a substantial number of deteriorated, or deteriorating structures, in which conditions, as indicated by government-maintained statistics or other studies, are leading to economic distress or endanger life or property, and in which two or more of the following factors are present:

(a) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, parking facilities, roadways, bridges, or public transportation facilities;

(b) Aggregate assessed values of real property in the area for ad valorem tax purposes have failed to show any appreciable increase over the 5 years prior to the finding of such conditions;

(c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;

(d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;

(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements;

(f) Inadequate and outdated building density patterns;

(g) Falling lease rates per square foot of office, commercial, or industrial space compared to the remainder of the county or municipality;

(h) Tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land;

(i) Residential and commercial vacancy rates higher in the area than in the remainder of the county or municipality;

(j) Incidence of crime in the area higher than in the remainder of the county or municipality;

(k) Fire and emergency medical service calls to the area proportionately higher than in the remainder of the county or municipality;

(l) A greater number of violations of the Florida Building Code in the area than the number of violations recorded in the remainder of the county or municipality;

(m) Diversity of ownership or defective or unusual conditions of title which prevent the free alienability of land within the deteriorated or hazardous area; or

(n) Governmentally owned property with adverse environmental conditions caused by a public or private entity.

163.355 Finding of necessity by county or municipality. — No county or municipality shall exercise the community redevelopment authority conferred by this part until after the governing body has adopted a resolution, supported by data and analysis, which makes a legislative finding that the conditions in the area (IN DEBARY- NORM) meet the criteria described in s. 163.340(7) or (8). The resolution must state that:

(1) One or more slum or blighted areas, or one or more areas in which there is a shortage of housing affordable to residents of low or moderate income, including the elderly, exist in such county or municipality; and

(2) The rehabilitation, conservation, or redevelopment, or a combination thereof, of such area or areas, including, if appropriate, the development of housing which residents of low or moderate income, including the elderly, can afford, is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the residents of such county or municipality.

It will be interesting to see if the area is large enough to create a CRA district down by Sunrail. If all the things required by state statute can be met and if this Council is willing to commit to such a portrayal of DeBary to create a CRA which had as its original intention a mechanism for areas of cities that were truly dangerous and in need of intervention – to such a degree that people wanted a CRA to be created. I don’t see that desire coming from the people but, rather, from the powers that be.

Check out a discussion online about CRA’s at this website: http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/01/31/17728/are-community-redevelopment-agencies-job-creating

 

 

1/22:

CM Hunt broached the subject about the CRA issue from 2004. Below is what I read to the EDAC at the time. It seems we’re almost back there again. It’s in the minutes from 2004 that the EDAC wasn’t exactly sure what or how the CRA works. This is actually in the minutes. CM Hunt at the last meeting on 12/7 stated that Mayor Rosamonda said it was never the intention to use eminent domain. Sid Vihlen on 12/7 said that CRA’s last 20 years. The Florida Redevelopment Association that was referenced by Mr. Vihlen has 30 year time frame for CRA’s on their website. Excuse me, how can Mayor Rosamonda or anyone for that matter say what intentions will be around 10, 15, 25 or 30 years later? They can’t. Their default position then, and now for some, is that the people don’t know when actually the people do know – better than some want.

A trust was broken with the CRA and THAT was the issue – even more so than the CRA itself. If you actually read what I wrote below you will see that this whole thing was a done deal, out of the public’s eye, and it was an issue brought back by Bill Long from a conference in Miami – it’s all in the minutes from that time period. CRA’s were and are now again the flavor of the month.

Intentions. CRA’s were born out of truly blight and slum areas that were dangerous. People begged to have their area designated blight and slum so that it would be improved. Over time CRA’s were abused by elected officials and developers – I’m sure it was never the intention though.

Are we going to be a small town or will we embrace all the growth and business that is supposed to be happening around the Sunrail? We’ll see. It seems citizens only want business here when the zoning and usage are already in place; to go beyond it is irritable. Developers know, as I do, when 40+ people show up and are vocal, the Council will fold on the new business coming to DeBary. Whether this is a good thing or not is not my point; my point is if I see this, I’m sure the 15-30 people who actually run this County, and it’s not many elected officials mind you, know the same thing. Skip over DeBary and lets build up Deland’s railway station. I don’t know. I’m just speculating. If I wanted to sound like a mayor, I’d state it as fact which would then be, of course, humbug spelled bull…..

Lastly, note in what I wrote below what was NOT DONE after this whole CRA thing was over. Did the City Council or EDAC at the time explore the OTHER ways in which we could re-develop the City? No. Did they re-visit the initial intention: redevelop the City? No. It was dropped. It was never about re-development – it was about getting a CRA established. Three of the four proposals cited below were about how to re-develop WITHOUT using a CRA. Not interested. We only want to re-develop with a CRA and if we can’t get that, we’re taking our ball and going home. And that’s what they did. Also be aware that Ginger Corless cited below was recently given an award for her work on the TOD and was hailed, rightfully so, by the Council. Ask her about the other non-CRA ways of doing things.

 

FROM THE SPRING OF 2004:

Norm Erickson

Speech:

From the Debary.org website:

STRATEGIC VISION

GOAL #1 Provide a foundation to preserve DeBary's small-town atmosphere and continuously improve the quality of life.

GOAL #2 Proactively manage new development and growth, while encouraging redevelopment and beautification of DeBary's commercial and industrial areas.

GOAL #5 Continuously improve stakeholder and customer satisfaction.

The minutes from the Saturday June 7 th, 2003 EDAC Special Meeting at 9am reads thusly:

“Lonnie Groot Attorney for GAI Consulants reviewed his background and experience as City Attorney for the City of Lake Helen and with Seminole County CRA, which included the Seminole Towne Center; that Debary did not seem to have the physical appearance of blight but could possibly meet the legal requirements as there was a broad range of criteria; It was discussed that several of the Staff of GAI had substantial experience in Volusia; that in their opinion there appeared to be good possibility for County approval of a CRA; that eminent domain would be one of the powers of a CRA in order to assemble properties to maximize development potential; that the team would have the expertise to evaluate property, address issues and minimize adversarial actions; and that they would provide expertise in eminent domain actions. It was also discussed that all criteria for determining blight would be studied and that as many as possible would be included and that the most serious areas would then be focused on to present as strong a case as possible.” However, three other consultants also spoke at this meeting; all three seemed to be saying something different than GAI, the consultant that you may or may not decide to do business with. The first to speak was Ginger Corless, Director of Planning at Herbert Halback, Inc. She said the following:

“Ms. Corless discussed the importance of the involvement of the community; Finding of Necessity would provide the legal standing to proceed. Ms. Corless noted that there appeared to be moderate deterioration in DeBary, but did not appear to be substantial; that there might be alternatives to a CRA; and that the purpose of the study would be to provide the best solution for the City of Debary for redevelopment objectives.”

In addition, Mr. Kohler, 25 years experience with the City of Orlando, involved with the Downtown Development Board and expertise in setting up the CRA there said the following: “Mr. Kohler further discussed that a CRA was not always the appropriate solution.”

Moreover, Attorney David Cardwell was present and said

“that compared to other areas DeBary was a small area and a CRA would provide limited revenues and that was the reason that options to a CRA might be appropriate; that caution should be used with the inclusion of any residential area; and that the focus should be the creation of a sense of place for the City and then determine the source of revenue that would be most appropriate.”

City Manager Diamond said, “that the County had been consulted as to what type of policy they would consider for CRA proposals in the area; that they would approve CRA’s under certain conditions, one of which was not to utilize the tax increment for streetscape improvements;”

Civic Design Associates was the second consultant to speak and they said the following: “It was noted that DeBary was not an obvious slum and blight area; that the challenge would be to meet that criteria and support negotiations with the County; and that the vision of the city would be the goal of their team.” In addition,: “It was also discussed that through the study counseling would be provided where analysis showed that options other than CRA should be pursued.” Ivey, Harris and Wall, Inc. was the last consultant and their planner George Kramer said thusly: “…the CRA and Needs Study was a multi-step process; that the first step was community involvement and the second step was the Study.” Joel Ivey, president of Ivey, Harris and Walls, Inc., presented information on both CRA and non-CRA projects that the firm had worked on. “ They ( Ivey, Harris, and Wall, Inc.,) encouraged public input.”

This was back in June of 2003. Of the four presentations one was for CRA while the other three appreciated non-CRA solutions.

Public input. What happened to it? You’re deciding tonight on whether to have the city vote this in or not in 20 days or so. There was even mention that property owners could be sent a survey to obtain feedback. I’m only referencing ONE meeting in this paper. Overwhelmingly, public input and education about CRAs is a consistent theme throughout all the meetings, yet failed to transcend the idea stage into actions taken. Myself and other residents in the slum areas still have not received a mailing that I know of explaining or arguing for a CRA. Most people here probably found out about this from a neighbor or the newspaper. If there is a point of argument for CRAs, this committee and the city council have been impotent in informing the public of it. And then the mayor says that the residents don’t know what they are talking about or that they are misinformed. The residents of this city are informed about CRAs not because of this committee and the city council but regardless of this committee and our city council. Civic Design Associates said it would be a challenge to make Debary fit the blighted and slum definition. Evidently and for some unknown reason, this is a challenge this committee and some on the city council have taken up. Indeed all four consultants spoke to this challenge to shoehorn Debary into this definition of blight and slum. Is it supposed to be this way? Shouldn’t the blight and slum be apparent? Shouldn’t it be conspicuous? If we have to finesse the legalities of the statute to fit our city, isn’t there perhaps a concern as to the legitimacy of the whole process and purpose of it?

There are non-CRA solutions to our problems.

What you think you want this city to be, it already is. No one is arguing for this CRA except GAI and the mayor. And when the Mayor tried to argue for it at the last city council meeting, his arguments were feckless; he didn’t know what he wanted to say and he didn’t say it very well. Even though three other consultants say there can be, even should be in some cases, other options to a CRA.

Being elected to the city council or appointed to a committee is not an excuse to stop listening to the will of the people. A trust has been broken; once it is broken it may be repaired, but it will never be the same. You have awakened a sleeping giant that has now been filled with terrible resolve. This issue will never go away as long as this land is here. We are the gadfly that will not go away. You are not operating in a vacuum. So many of these important issues are discussed at special meetings and workshops. While I read dozens of meetings worth of minutes, I only printed eight and of those eight only two were Regular EDAC meetings that had little information about CRA’s except that the public should be informed. The other six were special meetings most on Saturdays at 9 a.m. or Tuesday night at 6 pm. These six contained the most interesting reading. Do not send the GAI Study to the city council to vote on it. End it here for now, tonight. Remember your charge: Continuously improve stakeholder and customer satisfaction. Provide a foundation to preserve DeBary's small-town atmosphere and continuously improve the quality of life. CRA’s are not the only way to “Proactively manage new development and growth, while encouraging redevelopment and beautification of DeBary's commercial and industrial areas”. I’m getting this information from your own minutes and the consultants to whom you listened. There are other ways to go about this.

In closing I say this: If GAI can make you believe absurdities such as blight about our city, they just might make the city and county councils commit atrocities to our city.

Norm Erickson

 

1/1/12:

DEBARYPOP: CLOSING THE DOORS

All things end. DeBaryPOP, the City’s first and only website dedicated to City issues, ends another year.

Oh, were you thinking DeBaryPOP was shutting down and going away? Unfortunately for some, that’s not the case. In point of fact, we’ve “re-upped" with GoDaddy for another two years. 2012 is a big election year for District 5 for the County. We have a presidential election coming. We have Sunrail coming. DeBaryPOP might get involved in Orange City and Deltona politics as our emails and phone calls from those cities want us to cover them as well – they like what we have on POP for DeBary and want the same thing in their city. We might be expanding, folks. Our 7 th year will be no seventh inning stretch for us or 7 year itch. We’re committed to letting our thoughts be known about this new City Council coming on board.

DeBary POP was present in its first Christmas Parade which many DeBary citizens wanted us to do years ago but Lenny and I were on the Council and could not be in two places at once. We saw so many “thumbs up” from the people and the “V” for victory sign that we realized, again, that we are on the right track in sharing our views and allowing citizens to share theirs regardless of whether it is about DeBary issues or national or, usually, the two combined.

At the December 21 st meeting Mr. Garcia talked about the “big, huge challenges coming in January”. Big challenges. Huge. Massive challenges. Challenges, people. What will they be? What “challenges” will Mr. Garcia outline in January other than the standbys: water, Sunrail, jobs, the CRA, and incubators - and will what he outlines actually be challenges? I’ll be listening closely with my one good ear.

 

THE ROAD TO ‘12 WAS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS

 

The good intentions of the CRA, CPPI and the Gateway Center for the Arts were the topics of 2011.

1. Creating a Citizens Events Committee, which became a non-profit organization called the Community Partnership Program (CPPI). The events are great, but using one’s position on the Council (Chris Carson) to add this to the agenda and put your fellow Council members in this position is not the way to do it. When I asked CM Carson five minutes before the meeting how much the Holiday Concert was going to cost the City, he didn’t know – yet he was the one who had added it to the agenda. Then, 20 minutes later the Asst. City Manager gave the amount at 1200.00 dollars. CM Carson didn’t know this?

2. Getting the property of the old City Hall “jazzed up”. 8 thousand dollars. Phase II will be for budget time. CM Carson (who ran on 12 years experience) couldn’t even make the motion…. Dead grass and dying plants…it’s been addressed. There was a motion on the floor and then it was replaced by CM Carson with a different motion – it doesn’t work that way and Robert’s Rules of Order was molested terribly.

3. A Speakers Bureau so citizens can talk to Council members – because, apparently, they can’t now – I thought that’s why they gave the office back.

4. Researching what is going on with having dogs in the yard both in Central Florida, surrounding states, and nationwide.

5. Shrubbery at DGCC. CM Carson was adamant about bringing this non-City issue to the City Council. It’s an HOA issue.

6. Adding to the agenda the very serious issue of whether or not to present a key to the City to Larry the Cable Guy.

7. Adding to the agenda the very serious issue of getting the City of DeBary on Facebook.

8. Going back to one meeting a month.

9. Giving the Mayor his office back but not discussing the other 80% of the issue: Should Council members have offices?

10. Team Volusia. Mr. Garcia never had anything good to say about this entity. Then he had one meeting with them and now he is the City’s rep for Team Volusia. Team Volusia wants to keep jobs in Volusia County; they can’t keep their CEO in Volusia County. They already want more money and after they got the first quarter million they thought: we should have some goals. Hey, if we give to Team Volusia at the County level and then our City gives 25 thousand – isn’t that double dipping? Isn’t that two bites at the apple? We give to the Gateway Center for the Arts at the City, County, State and Federal level...wow…how about those apples?

We’ve had an Autumn Festival and the first ever Christmas tree lighting ceremony. It’s been a year of “1 st Annual (fill in the blank)”

The heavy lifting was done in getting honest and competent management in place at the level of the City Manager, Asst. City Manager and the City Planner. It took from 2007 until February of 2010 to accomplish these tasks.

Norm Erickson

 

 

12/15:

Sanford Lofts receives final approval: Lawsuit filed claims city violated Comp Plan, Florida Law

by Rachel Delinski, Herald Editor

12.14.11

Commissioners once again approved the controversial Sanford Lofts project on second reading during Monday’s meeting, despite the community’s pleas to stop it from being developed.

On Tuesday, Gallery Walk Inc., former mayor Linda Kuhn and downtown property owner Howard Marks filed a lawsuit against the city claiming they violated the comprehensive plan and Florida law by approving the project.

The project on second reading during Monday’s meeting, despite the community’s pleas to stop it from being developed.

On Tuesday, Gallery Walk Inc., former mayor Linda Kuhn and downtown property owner Howard Marks filed a lawsuit against the city claiming they violated the comprehensive plan and Florida law by approving the project.

The project would put a four story multi-use building at N. 111 Palmetto Ave. that would include retail on the first floor and 17 residential units for low-income seniors on the top three floors.

The lawsuit cites eight sections of the comprehensive plan the plaintiff claims the project violates. Additionally, it says commissioners did not allow due process by prohibiting the public from a fair and appropriate public hearing.

The lawsuit goes on to state that commissioners violated the Sunshine Law, and that Mayor Jeff Triplett “potentially cut a side deal with the applicant outside of public scrutiny, and that this was one of the motivations for his vote.”

During an interview Tuesday Triplett said, “I stand by my position and I voted on the issues at hand.”

Triplett went on to say, “The fact that I received word of this through the media – That shows me what type of people we’re dealing with.”

Florida SPECS (Superior Properties Economic Community Services) is the owner of the property and the recipient of a grant that would make building the property possible.

Florida SPECS Executive Director R.T. Hillery said in an interview Monday that he is working closely with the city to see if a property switch may be possible. Hillery and the city are currently looking into several city-owned properties that may be a better location for the Lofts. Most notably, they are pursuing a potential switch with the former Sanford Police Department building, located along French Avenue.

Hillery said, “I am still amenable to switching the property location.”

During the commission meeting, Commissioner Mark McCarty tried to inject this possibility into his decision making process on the Lofts, however City Attorney William Colbert warned him he may be opening up the city to a potential law suit if he did not make a decision on solely the information that was being presented.

Despite the warnings, McCarty said, “I just may change my vote is there is no possibility to move this building.”

McCarty’s reference to the possible switch is also cited in the lawsuit, stating the only reason he voted for the rezone was because of the land swap deal.

Ultimately, however, McCarty retained his original vote in the affirmative, stating he would have to put his good faith in Hillery and hope that he was still looking to switch the property.

Commissioners Randy Jones and Patty Mahany also retained their original votes against the projects, both stating they did not believe the project complied with the comprehensive land use plan for the downtown area.

Several residents who spoke during the meeting agreed and stated city staff made an error moving the project forward.

Resident Frank Loose said, “I think city staff was wrong that this development meets the criteria set forth in the codes.”

Resident Jay Vaughn also spoke to that theory, stating there is no provision in the comprehensive plan for adding affordable housing downtown.

Mahany also noted that she did not believe the project met parking requirements for the area.

During the meeting no one spoke in favor of the project.

When it came time to make a decision, Commissioner Velma Williams moved to approve the project, but with no second, Triplett was forced to pass the gavel to provide a second on the project.

The Sanford Lofts rezone was approved in a 3-2 vote, however it remains to be seen whether the project will actually end up at the proposed location because of a pending lawsuit and continued discussions between Hillery and the city.

© mysanfordherald.com 2011

 

12/10:

Willful Unawareness

At the December 7 th City Council meetings the Council deliberated over a code enforcement issue. The citizen had run up a bill to 18 thousand dollars. The Council settled it for about 550 dollars with CM Koval dissenting; he wanted the full 18 thousand dollars. Mr. Garcia had a number around 2400 dollars which reduced the daily fine to about 10 dollars per day but he never made that motion.

At the very end of the meeting during Communications, CM Hunt brought up the case again stating the citizen got a very “Merry Christmas” with such a reduction. CM Hunt stated that perhaps the amount offered by Mr. Garcia was more in keeping with the fine given and that he “would have gone along with it” but, to quote CM Hunt, “…but we already had a motion on the floor.”

It seems the City Council still doesn’t understand how Robert’s Rules of Order works and that they can govern more effectively with basic knowledge of Robert’s Rules.

To begin, Mr. Garcia still seems incapable of making a motion. He speaks last which is the safest route to go as everyone else’s cards are on the table. Mr. Garcia gives the impression that he is a leader with leadership skills. It’s not ever shown on the dais unless he is defending himself. Why didn’t Mr. Garcia make a motion as CM Koval did for his position? Yes, CM Koval’s motion failed for a second, but at least CM Koval had a position AND was willing to voice it, defend it AND make a motion. That is leadership, Mr. Garcia. I’m sure Mr. Garcia goes around town talking to people in the attempt of making those people think that he has leadership capabilities. Yet he can’t make a motion to represent his position. The Race Trac issue: Mr. Garcia voted with Council members Carson and Koval yet Mr. Garcia was unable and/or unwilling to make a motion or even second the motion to deny. The term “paper tiger” comes to mind.

Secondly, motions can be amended, gentlemen. There is an easy process for doing this by moving to amend the motion. Immediately after the vote for the 550 dollars, Mr. Garcia had voter’s remorse but it was too late.

I don’t know why this Council is still so reluctant to learn the very basic and straightforward rules that are commonly used to govern. Not to learn them is to, as I saw at the meeting, put themselves at a disadvantage in carrying out their own positions on the issues facing the City. Where is all the training from the Florida League of Cities? We have a thrice elected Council member in Chris Carson who offers no guidance to fellow members in trying to help them carry out their desires – why? We’ve been told that Mr. Garcia knows Robert’s Rules of Order better than anyone – not true.

CM Hunt asked a very good question: Does DeBary want to continue to be a sleepy little town or really engage with economic growth? I have another question that is far simpler and narrow: Does the DeBary City Council want to arm itself with the basic rules of order to carry out its own desires?

I don’t know how they could attempt to carry out the former without first answering the latter in the affirmative.

On the other hand, why would they learn them if I'm the only one, and it appears I am, that takes the wild position that the DeBary City Council should have a better handle on their rules that govern their own meetings?

Norm Erickson

 

 

12/3:

 

 

Now that you have had a little time to digest part one, here is part two. I will re-run my editorial “Let the Sun Shine In” of 11/23/11 to let you see the connection between the News Journal editorial and the one posted on POP. Are we traveling down that dangerous road of the public be damned?

6008 Votes Discarded 11/4/11

Here We Go Again, Get Ready For The Ride

It’s amazing how things come back like The Swallows to Capistrano, a bad penny or that old standby History Repeats Itself. That is just what will happen on November 8th, Election Day. Cities in Volusia County are being asked to consider changing their municipal election schedules to join city elections with state and national elections. There will be a referendum to change the City Charter to establish longer council term limits from three (3) years to (4) years. Nothing unusual about that except the voters voted on this same referendum on November 4, 2008, just three years ago. Talk about taking two bites of the apple.

The result of the 2008 vote in DeBary was that 6,008 citizens voted to leave the charter as is. That’s 6008 votes out of a total of 9856 votes or 61% of the vote. You would think this issue was over and the people had spoken, but you are wrong. A handful of people lobbied to have this referendum placed on the ballot, again. With this being an off election year it is very possible that the referendum could pass with as little as a few hundred votes cast that will change the City Charter and the term limits of the City Council. How sad that a total of a few hundred votes could trump 6008 votes.

How did we get here? Let us look back to 2008. The Supervisor of Elections office was trying to coordinate all elections in the county to be on even numbered years. The thinking was it would save the cities about $22,000 and there would be a higher voter turnout. The higher voter turnout is because more people will vote during a presidential or gubernatorial election. That’s alright up to now.

Now comes the rub: the people voted, 6008 people voted, 61% of the people voted to leave the charter stand as is. But that didn’t settle well with a certain group of people so the lobbying began. They were able to convince the present sitting council to once again place the same referendum that failed overwhelmingly in 2008. What makes this even more interesting is that two council members were on both the 2008 and 2011 councils.

Didn’t they know the voters already mandated that they do not want a change to council term limits? It’s also a failure by the entire city council not to recognize and honor the people’s vote just 3 years ago. They fell to the lobbyists and others that just could not accept the people’s vote. It’s just another way of circumnavigating the vote to get what they want. Just another reason why many people do not trust their government!

It’s an embarrassment that our government is attempting to change what has already been voted on by 61% of the voters on this charter change. The argument is that so few people come to the poles to cast their vote. Then you get a total of 9856 people vote, but, too bad it’s not what a certain group wants and, like magic, another vote on the same issue appears on the ballot. Once again our votes do not count because it is not what the "powers-that be" want.

There is concern, however, that small municipal races would be greatly affected by the election for presidential, congressional or gubernatorial elections. A number of candidate’s fear they will have to raise more money to get their campaign message out to the voters. Also a candidate’s name could appear near the bottom of a full ballot. This will cause some voters not to take their time to completely look over the ballot and vote for candidates in their local election. Regardless of the many valid reasons not to do this the most valid has already occurred: 6008 people, 61%, have already delivered a resounding NO!

If this takes place and a few hundred votes overturns thousands and thousand and thousands, then the voters of Debary have been cheated.

To sum up all of the above, it is not about money or the amount of voters who might show up at the polls but about over-turning the will of the people. That is the issue!!

Thus ends Part I. And now the exciting conclusion…Part II:

It seems 6008 votes made no difference to the Mayor and Council. The 725 were more important! All that mattered was that the powers that be got what they wanted. Then it was compounded when at a city workshop the Mayor stated that "the people" approved the term limit changes from 3 years to 4. That’s the 725 voters not the 6008 voters. No matter how you slice the pie the 725 won over 6008. No matter how you slice it, the Mayor’s reasoning is flawed. He did not stand up for the people. The 6008 voters who voted to keep the city charter as is and not to change the term limits. No matter what he bases his reasoning on, he and the Council disregarded the people’s vote. He’s acting like his hands aren’t stained but they are and it’s going to be hard getting that stain off. It’s sad that he believes in things he doesn’t understand.

He and the other council members are hanging their hats on two issues: it will save money and increase voter turn out at the polls. That is true it will save money about $22,000 to $25,000 over a 10 year period. They can spend that at any given Council Meeting. The other is that by changing the term limits to four years more voters would turn out. That is true except they just turned away 6008 vote for 725 votes to change the charter. It makes no sense.

Why do they kowtow to the powerful, not listen to their constituents, and have little faith in their own convictions? DeBaryites: Wake up and speak up or you will have to live with it.

Lenny Marks

One of the 6008

Debary

 

 

11/23:

Let The Sunshine In

I could not agree more with the News Journal Editorial warning of the diluting of our first amendment rights and the Sunshine Laws.

They reference the limits of Florida’s open government laws when a trial court and then an appellate court ruled that William Stetson Kennedy rights were not violated when he was not permitted to speak at a public meeting at the headquarters of the St. Johns Water management headquarter in Palatka.

Now, it’s possible once again, for this issue to go before the Florida Supreme Court. In 1983 the Florida Supreme Court said that the public does not have “the right to be more than spectators. The public has no authority to participate with the decision-making process.”

We are rapidly developing into an oligarchy type of government and we have no one to blame but ourselves. We have been warned for many years that this “could happen,”; now, we can take the “could” out of the equation and replace it with “it is happening.”

No wonder few citizens attend City Council Meetings. When we watch television, snooze, or just let apathy take its course, we all lose. You lose because others will be working hard to find ways to achieve their agendas. It’s not about you and your rights anymore; it’s about what a handful of people want. They will try to shut the people out; they feel if they don’t hear from the people, they can say, no one brought this to council, the people just don’t care. Wake up folks! If you don’t speak up now, someone other than you will be manipulating the vote or worse change your vote.

Below is the Daytona Beach News Journal editorial that ran in the 11/15/11 edition. Read the article and if that doesn’t get you fighting mad, I don’t know what will. Slowly we are losing the We in We The People. Get involved! Wait until the CRA rears its ugly head again. It’s in the beginning stages now and has a better than a good chance of getting to the council for a vote. As the Boy Scouts’ Motto says “Be Prepared.”

Stay tuned for Part II that will be coming soon!

Lenny Marks

DeBary 

Florida should guard public input at meetings  

EDITORIAL  

  November 15, 2011 12:05 AM William Stetson Kennedy, a civil rights crusader who died in August at 94 years of age, ignited an interesting and important discussion about the limits of Florida 's open government law.

Kennedy was one of two plaintiffs in a lawsuit that raised concerns about the openness with which local governments run their meetings -- an issue that is generally defined in the state's vaunted "Sunshine Law."

A trial court and then an appellate court found Kennedy's rights were not violated when he was not permitted to speak at an April 13, 2009, public meeting at the Palatka headquarters of the St. Johns River Water Management District.

Kennedy complained that the district told the public that it was limiting input from people affiliated with the St. Johns Riverkeeper, a nonprofit organization that opposed a Seminole County water treatment plant. The group had filed an administrative challenge against the district. Kennedy also complained that the district did not provide the public proper accommodations for the 2009 meeting, which saw record turnout from citizens, according to court documents.

Florida courts apparently didn't see a legal problem with the water district's actions.

The Putnam County trial court noted the state Supreme Court, in interpreting the Sunshine Law in 1983, said that the public does not have "the right to be more than spectators. The public has no authority to participate in or to interfere with the decision-making process."

In other words, in our representative democracy, the public mainly speaks at the polls. Once lawmakers and policymakers are elected or appointed, they meet in public to discuss the public's business. But they are not required to take input from the public.

But public bodies should invite input from the public. It's good policy to listen to citizens and take into account their comments and complaints. It's good politics, too. As a general rule, elected officials aren't inclined to tell voters to sit down and shut up.

The public, in turn, should realize that not every voice can be heard at every public meeting. Time is a factor and meetings need to be run efficiently -- in public. After all, public officials can't do the public's business if they're sitting for hours listening to citizens vent about various and sundry issues.

Kennedy's case probably will not disappear from the political scene. It's possible the issue of public input could again go to the state Supreme Court. The issue of more defined rules for public input also comes up in the Legislature from time to time.

Lawmakers have introduced bills in the Senate (SB 206) and the House (HB 355) that spell out the right of citizens to speak at public meetings. The Legislature should review the Sunshine Law and determine if there is need to specifically define the public's right to speak at meetings of state and local governmental bodies.

Citizens are constantly exhorted to get more involved in public discussions and debates. Laws and policies should not be a barrier to public involvement in the democratic process.

11/17: The City Council of DeBary is looking into doing the same thing for our City:

 

 

11/4:

REFERENDUM:

AMENDMENT CHANGING DEBARY CITY COUNCIL TERMS OF OFFICE

FROM 3 YEARS TO 4 YEARS.

VOTE “NO”

6008 Votes Discarded

Here We Go Again, Get Ready For The Ride

It’s amazing how things come back like The Swallows to Capistrano, a bad penny or that old standby History Repeats Itself. That is just what will happen on November 8th, Election Day. Cities in Volusia County are being asked to consider changing their municipal election schedules to join city elections with state and national elections. There will be a referendum to change the City Charter to establish longer council term limits from three (3) years to (4) years. Nothing unusual about that except the voters voted on this same referendum on November 4, 2008, just three years ago. Talk about taking two bites of the apple.

The result of the 2008 vote in DeBary was that 6,008 citizens voted to leave the charter as is. That’s 6008 votes out of a total of 9856 votes or 61% of the vote. You would think this issue was over and the people had spoken, but you are wrong. A handful of people lobbied to have this referendum placed on the ballot, again. With this being an off election year it is very possible that the referendum could pass with as little as a few hundred votes cast that will change the City Charter and the term limits of the City Council. How sad that a total of a few hundred votes could trump 6008 votes.

How did we get here? Let us look back to 2008. The Supervisor of Elections office was trying to coordinate all elections in the county to be on even numbered years. The thinking was it would save the cities about $22,000 and there would be a higher voter turnout. The higher voter turnout is because more people will vote during a presidential or gubernatorial election. That’s alright up to now.

Now comes the rub: the people voted, 6008 people voted, 61% of the people voted to leave the charter stand as is. But that didn’t settle well with a certain group of people so the lobbying began. They were able to convince the present sitting council to once again place the same referendum that failed overwhelmingly in 2008. What makes this even more interesting is that two council members were on both the 2008 and 2011 councils.

Didn’t they know the voters already mandated that they do not want a change to council term limits? It’s also a failure by the entire city council not to recognize and honor the people’s vote just 3 years ago. They fell to the lobbyists and others that just could not accept the people’s vote. It’s just another way of circumnavigating the vote to get what they want. Just another reason why many people do not trust their government!

It’s an embarrassment that our government is attempting to change what has already been voted on by 61% of the voters on this charter change. The argument is that so few people come to the poles to cast their vote. Then you get a total of 9856 people vote, but, too bad it’s not what a certain group wants and, like magic, another vote on the same issue appears on the ballot. Once again our votes do not count because it is not what the "powers-that be" want.

There is concern, however, that small municipal races would be greatly affected by the election for presidential, congressional or gubernatorial elections. A number of candidate’s fear they will have to raise more money to get their campaign message out to the voters. Also a candidate’s name could appear near the bottom of a full ballot. This will cause some voters not to take their time to completely look over the ballot and vote for candidates in their local election. Regardless of the many valid reasons not to do this the most valid has already occurred: 6008 people, 61%, have already delivered a resounding NO!

If this takes place and a few hundred votes overturns thousands and thousand and thousands, then the voters of Debary have been cheated.

To sum up all of the above, it is not about money or the amount of voters who might show up at the polls but about over-turning the will of the people. That is the issue!!

Lenny Marks

DeBary

From Norm: The current council wants four years so more people are heard from and to save money. What happened to the 6,000 people that were heard from just three years ago? This same amendment is happening elsewhere to make the election process easier for others - philosophical or core beliefs about the actual issue be damned.

It is sinful to have this issue brought back which has at its core the desire to hear from more citizens when 6,000 have already spoken only to be ignored. When have 6,000 registered DeBary citizens spoken so pronounced on any other issue?

Why was this brought back? To save money? It seems that 20 thousand dollars isn’t much when it comes to Community Events but it’s too much to retain the votes of 6,000 citizens and keep terms to what I call the “Goldilocks” zone: two years is too short and four years is too long; 3 years is just right - 6,000 citizens agreed three years ago. But five people ignored that and now those five will, hopefully, be told again – for what should be the final time.

REFERENDUM:

AMENDMENT CHANGING DEBARY CITY COUNCIL TERMS OF OFFICE FROM 3 YEARS TO 4 YEARS.

VOTE “NO”

 

 

10/6:

TO ALL DEBARY CITIZENS. THIS IS MUST READING. IMPORTANT.

I’m going to start this letter with the meaning of Ethics. What it means and how it’s used or not used. Stay with me because it pertains to all of you in DeBary.

Ethics – A theory or system of moral values. A set of moral principles or values. The discipline dealing with what’s good and bad and with moral duty and obligation. A standard of what is right and good.

Why do I feel this to be so important? Why does the State feel important enough to have a “Committee On Ethics”? Is our Mayor aware of that? Does he care? He’s already said he doesn’t need a Council or anyone else. He said it on Day 1 and continues to do so.

Ethics are nowhere to be seen or heard in the Mayor’s vocabulary.

During the ’09-’10 years numerous acts of “Public Misbehavior” took place including disregard for the City Charter and State Statutes.

401(d): Conduct unbecoming the office. Malfeasance and Misfeasance. “…to elect, re-elect, or dismiss their elected officials whose promise of performance or actual performance in office best reflects the policies which the citizens desire to implement in the government of the City.” (FS 112.311)

407 (a): Lacks at any time during the term of office any qualification for the office prescribed by this Charter or by law; (Ord. No. 15-96, 1,8 -7-96. 11-06, 1, 5-3-06)

Councilmen have been vilified, forced to listen to gavel poundings, and endless long winded speeches. This behavior was made known to him and I held it back from the public because I thought a change was underway by the Mayor. I also have a respect for his family. However, Ethics have again disappeared from the Mayor’s chair and I cannot in good conscience disregard what took place – and is taking place again. He worked hard as hell to keep 2 Councilmen and get nothing better than 2 votes (3-2 votes) on just about anything that pertained to the Comp Plan, City Codes, LDC and other normal necessary topics. Current Councilmen are getting a first hand taste of what is going on now.

Here are a dozen acts out of 15 some of which have been chronicled previously:

Public Misbehavior:

1. At a meeting being chaired by the City Manager, the Mayor walked in and began to comment, with curse words, that caused 2 ladies to get up and leave. The City Manager reminded him where he was and the language he was using and the Mayor left.

2. At a 12/2/09 Public Hearing, the Mayor threatened to go to the Governor to file suit for false accusations if we did not vote to exonerate him. Threatening to sue when he doesn’t like what’s happening is not uncommon.

3. The Mayor threatened Vice Mayor Erickson. The Vice Mayor was speaking and The Mayor interupted and said, “Come on. Bring it on. I want to dance with you, tonight.” Vice Mayor Erickson responded with, “I’m not here to dance.” The Mayor said, “Oh, I’m going to dance with you a lot, sir. For the remainder of my time I’m going to dance with you a lot! We’re going to be so close, I’m going to love you.”

4. Refusal to accept a 4-1 vote when he dissents. Treats the decision as if it never existed. Has done this at least 4 times. Says he’ll take care of it himself. Subverts the Council and undermines its effectiveness.

5. Derogatory and slanderous comments during discussion about a previous candidate for City Manager. “If that son of a…(pause) Gentleman can’t…” What fits the pause? Discussed this with local media. The Candidate turned down the job with “I won’t move my family into that hostile environment.”

6. Creates an atmosphere of fear that keeps citizens from coming up to speak. When someone brings this up he points to one of “his” in the audience and says “Have I ever kept you from speaking?”

7. On May 16 th, 2009 we met in the Walgreens parking lot and I asked, “How is the VFW sign going?” The Post Commander had told me about it a few days before. The shouting and cursing began and lasted for 10 minutes or more before he got in his truck. I said nothing. I wrote a transcript of what happened and sent a notarized copy to the City Attorney.

8. On 8/24/09 at a Council Meeting, the discussion between Councilman Marks, Erickson and the Mayor. The voices got louder until the Mayor slammed the gavel down and said, “there will be no more discussion.” Cutting both men off.

9. Verbal and face to face abuse directed at Councilman Conoley at City Hall in front of a City Employee. Severe enough for Councilman Conoley to file a police report. The Mayor prepared a Counter-suit a few days later.

10. During public speaking, a citizen mentioned “recall” a­nd was yelled at by the Mayor and told to “Meet me outside after the meeting and we can debate it.” Gavel pounding to end discussion.

11. The Mayor said, in public and to the media, “I will not follow the Charter Law or Council decisions.”

12. The Mayor said in public and to the media that he doesn’t need anyone to run the City except himself.

13. A Baker’s Dozen: The Mayor still insists that this is “MY Council”, “MY City”, “MY City Manager”, “MY Attorney”, “MY people”, “MY Beautiful City”, “MY City Hall”. He’s been told often enough that they do not belong to him.

There’s more but I won’t belabor this. The Mayor knows exactly what this is all about. Three hundred words with some “friends” around a table isn’t going to change anything as they are the facts of what has been happening under this Mayor’s term of office. And he's doing it again.

The four Councilmen need to be alert and aware of what gets put on the Agendas and where the $$$$ are going. Robert’s Rules can make life a lot easier. I commend the ladies and men who write in to POP for the truth and aren’t afraid to question what is going on, which for those who have been paying attention to the Mayor’s behavior isn’t anything new regardless of who is up on the dais with the Mayor.

Is this what you want in a Mayor?

John Likakis

p.s. Norm’s recent article (below) is excellent, factual, and pertinent to this discussion. Please read it and spread the word.

10/2:

Before we complain about behavior at the podium,

let’s start with the Mayor on the dais

At the September 21st workshop/special meeting, CM Hunt and VM Lenzen were acquainted and re-acquainted respectively of how the Mayor behaves. Four Council members had an adult conversation on one topic: how can we improve the way in which we run our meetings? The Mayor threw a mild temper tantrum, took no responsibility and his body language was disrespectful – practically turning his back on the Council near the end. When CM Hunt spoke last, the Mayor literally got up and walked away while CM Hunt was talking. At the end of this editorial is the link to watch this on video.

It gets worse. At the end of the Special Meeting that followed the workshop, the Mayor allowed CM Hunt and Koval to speak and then said that Carson and Lenzen would not speak because they know the rules of a special meeting: that we can only talk about what is on the agenda.

What is shameful and disrespectful of the Mayor is that he set up his two council members Hunt and Koval: The Mayor allowed them to talk about non-agenda items only to say immediately after they finished that they were not allowed to talk about non-agenda items at a special meeting. So why didn’t the Mayor, the one running the meeting, stop Hunt and Koval? He did it for Carson and Lenzen. Answer: because the Mayor wanted to publicly and figuratively slap them when they were finished talking. The Mayor put his thumb in CM Hunt and Koval’s eye to which CM Hunt responded, “…I will cease and desist speaking as an elected official.” CM Hunt was justifiably taken aback and upset.

Why did the Mayor do this? Because the Mayor is not an adult. He doesn’t know the Charter as it relates to Special Meetings but he wants people to think he does. Here is what the Charter actually says about Special Meetings at 4.11:

“Action taken at a special meeting shall be limited to the purpose for which the special meeting is called.”

CM Hunt and Koval were not looking to take any action whatsoever; they were simply sharing some information with their fellow Council members. So, the Mayor doesn’t understand the Charter though he wants his Council members and public to think he does. And, worse, he mistakenly cited the Charter only to put his thumb in the eye of fellow Council members.

Mayor Garcia will say anything and everything hoping people will believe that he knows everything and anything. “This indifference to how things really are is the very essence of bullshit” – Dr. Frankfurt from his book, On Bullshit.

This is what is seen at most meetings and it’s been proven with quotes on the record from the Mayor where he states something, is called on it, and then responds by saying he misstated what he said: he meant the opposite. It’s happened over and over and is documented on this website.

Most people I talk to or email know this about the Mayor but literally one or two people will “put it out there” publicly – I’m one of them. So how about it, Mr. Mayor – why did you, the person running the meeting, allow CM Hunt and Koval to speak, when just moments later you said there was to be no speaking? Let us assume that CM Hunt and Koval didn’t know there was to be no speaking…but you knew it, Mr. Mayor. As Mayor you should be setting the example of how to lead, not the opposite. You should be working with your Council members, not setting them only to knock them down. Why did you make an example of Hunt and Koval? Is this really what you mean by “working with your Council”? What do you say about them elsewhere like at an HOA meeting or the DeBary Diner? Is this really what you mean by “there aren’t any hard feelings”? Jack Wilson said that the Mayor is “first among equals”. What an insult to four sitting Council members to equate them to such childish behavior.

The four council members can dictate to Mayor Garcia how meetings will be run, because this behavior on the part of the Mayor will continue – if the other four allow it.

CM Hunt wanted to talk about the issue of filling out the speaker’s cards, no talking from the floor, not having further discussions when the discussion is over and dealing with threats from the podium. The Mayor did not respond to any of these issues. He was argumentative, complained about two of his Council members talking during the meeting, and was defensive not cooperative in trying to improve the running of the meetings.

At 1:33:15 the Mayor turned away and put his back to CM Hunt. At 1:34:45 the Mayor stood up and walked around while CM Hunt was talking.

Irony: Those actions by the Mayor are as disrespectful and discourteous to the Council, as the behavior from the podium that the Council is trying to prohibit. The change they seek should start at the dais not the podium. The Mayor was exhibiting the very same behavior that was being condemned by the whole Council.

Shouldn't the Council hold not only the Citizens but also each other to the same standard of decorum? Will they?

The Mayor should apologize to CM Hunt and Koval as a beginning to getting back on track and an end this bickering. What the Mayor did was disrespectful and deliberate - regardless of how he tries to explain it away or not at the next meeting.

Kudos to four people trying to improve the running of the meetings. Twice I tried to have an adult conversation with the Mayor about his direction to Mr. Seelbinder and then the whole office issue and twice the Mayor reacted as he did on September 21st. It wasn’t Norm or Lenny or Lita or Jack or Van then, just as it isn’t Chris, Nick, Dan or Jack now. Maybe…just maybe, it’s the Mayor…but don’t tell him that. Bring this issue back to the table and start agreeing on things with or without the Mayor.

This Council is fractured and when four of them try to improve the running of the meeting the Mayor has a temper tantrum and betrays two of the Council members. The Honeymoon is over…and it’s the Mayor who should be sent to the couch.

This issue of how to run a meeting is needed...if the Mayor is just going to pout, then the other four need to come to some conclusions on their own regardless of the Mayor's behavior.

When I left the Council, I resolved to defend any Council member who was treated unfairly by the Mayor- that's why I'm writing this. When I was threatened by the Mayor and Jack Wilson suggested racism was somehow a facet of the office issue, no one defended me or the other Council members - that's why I'm writing this editorial - because to say nothing is to excuse what the Mayor did and that's not acceptable. Whether the rest of the Council feels the same way is yet to be determined.

Norm Erickson

Discussion of Council Meeting Procedures

LINK TO WATCH THE MEETINGS REFERENCED ABOVE - SCROLL DOWN TO "Discussion of Council Meeting Procedures"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9/26:

8/10:

It’s not lying…it’s something worse.

From the July 21st City Council meeting:

"If for any reason the council feels that it warrants that the office is not good for the mayor and you wish to remove it I have no problems with that."

The next day the media blitz started and Mr. Garcia embarrassed and shamed this City with his antics instead of discussing and working with the Council on possible compromises. On July 21st the Council merely agreed to direct the City Manager to draft a resolution. Mr. Garcia made the CHOICE, a poor one in my opinion, to stand in the heat, work from his truck, work from a restaurant and call the media to capture it all in what should be an Oscar-nominated performance. I've worked with teenagers long enough to know that if the Council TOLD Mr. Garcia to stand in the heat, work from his truck and a restaurant, he would surely be up in one of those conference rooms meeting with citizens.

From the television news:

“Because they can’t get one (an office) have an attitude…if I can’t get one…you can’t get one.” Bob Garcia referring to the council members not having an office.

No council member ever asked for nor was denied an office space, Mr. Garcia. Once again you just say things that have no connection to reality.

It’s not lying; it’s something worse and the free book review below will explain it better than I ever could.

In 2005 philosopher Harry Frankfurt , a professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University and who previously taught at Yale, published a nonfiction bestseller, that spent twenty-seven weeks on the New York Times Bestseller list. The title of the book: On Bullshit.

For someone to lie, there must be a truth to contradict. In finding that truth the liar can then be brought to justice. But there is something worse than lying. This thing worse than lying is often easily perceived by people but difficult to point out because it’s not as definite or conspicuous or obvious as the outright lie. It is called bullshit. And one who bullshits is a bullshitter. The bullshitter does not reject the authority of the truth as the liar does. Indeed, the bullshitter pays no attention to the truth at all which is most treacherous.

Frankfurt claims on page 61 of this book that, "...bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.” Why? Because while the liar deliberately makes false claims, the bullshitter is simply uninterested in the truth. A statement made by a bullshitter is grounded neither in a belief that it is true nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true. It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth – this indifference to how things really are – that Frankfurt regards as the very essence of bullshit.

Frankfurt continues to explain that it is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. For the bullshitter, all bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

This is important because bullshitters can’t be called liars since they have no concern for truth; yet there is a motivation for spreading bullshit. Bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences. What he cares about is what people think of him. He wants them to think of him as someone with deep thoughts. While liars need to know the truth to better conceal it, bullshitters, interested solely in advancing their own agendas, have no use for the truth so concludes Frankfurt.

This is important when we think of what Cicero expressed over 2000 years ago: “Even a virtuous man can be corrupted by oratory (bullshit) though he cannot be corrupted by a bribe” (Cicero: On Government, Penguin Classics pg. 190). The most honest and trustworthy yet unlearned individual can be taken in by bullshit.

Frankfurt ends his book by explaining that bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life or running for office.

At the August 4th meeting, Mr. Garcia said the following at the 2:42:24 time stamp:

"Once my Council decides to do something, guess what - I follow it through - I don't go against them."

On August 5th, the next day, he said the following in the Deland-Beacon:

Garcia said, "If I had the authority, the power, I would get rid of them all and hold a special election."

Is it lying? Not really...but I think now we know what it is...don't we?

Norm Erickson

 

 

9/18:

THE GREAT DETRACTOR

CALLING SOMEONE A NAYSAYER

Once again political expediency rears its ugly head by using a word or a phrase that will cover the true meaning of what is being discussed so that it goes into a fog bank of political mumbo-jumbo. One of the most intellectually dishonest responses to a discussion is when one party throws in the “naysayer” card. It has become apparent that anyone who has a difference of opinion or idea with some members of the Council, the discussion is quickly shut down with the now famous buzz words “you’re a naysayer”.  When the word “naysayer” is used, it cuts off any discussion dead in its tracks. It also takes away a person’s right to speak their mind. Everyone has the right to free speech, to express their opinion and to have their preferences heard. We are very lucky to live in a free country, a fact that is often all too easily forgotten.

Does the use of “naysayer” or any of a few other choice words actually end up as restricting free speech? One individual in particular, Council Member Carson, holds the belief that you must be in agreement with him or you are a “naysayer”.

Unbelievably at the May 18 th, 2011 City Workshop in the minutes, Council Member Hunt asked “if it is typical to have public input at a workshop and suggested that they discontinue the practice”. If he misspoke he could have corrected it before the minutes were approved. Just another step to silence the common slob!

The current word of choice by politicians who want to restrict discussion they cannot support is “naysayer”. An over used word.  A word used to cover up weaknesses in their discussions. Never slow down a Politician or Council Member who finds a way to cover his/her tracks by using words that will make the questioner look foolish while they swing onto the next subject.

This word has been used by Politicians and Council Members to fulfill what’s lacking from their ability to contribute to an idea or are afraid to jeopardize a position on a given subject. Just call the individual publicly or in private a naysayer and that kills the discussion. And so it goes. It puts one person at a distinct disadvantage by making them look foolish and not knowing what they are talking about. Because you have a difference of opinion, does not make you a “naysayer; it does mean you are a rational thinking human being.

Council Member Carson seems to enjoy using this word. It is a political tactic used not only by Council Member Carson but any Politian who wants to stop any discussion that is naturally contrary to theirs. This tactic has been used in our City by past and present Councils; it is a method to confuse and belittle the person who may be asking questions that they do not want to answer, or can not answer. When a citizen brings forth a discussion and Council Member Carson has no answer, his answer becomes you’re a ‘Naysayer”. According to Sigmund Freud using “naysaying is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead - insisting that it’s not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence”.

Then there is also another thought process called Logical Fallacies.  One Logical Fallacy states “when you do not have a valid argument (response or answer) you "argue the person", that is, you call the person you CAN'T answer a "name" - in his case "a naysayer". This does not address the question (because they don't have an answer or don't want to give an answer / response) but it usually stops the communicating - which is what they want.  What this means is that the person who calls the other person a "naysayer", has neither logic nor an answer. The one who calls another a naysayer only does so to cover up his/her weak position only to tag along with the powers to be or his friends. We are very lucky to live in a free country, a fact that is often all to easily forgotten by many.

   One could respond to the person who calls you a “naysayer” by pointing out that their response is "a classical Logical Fallacy" and does not address the question/topic - and therefore you would appreciate a logical and reasonable response to your question or suggestion. You will never get a response, neither logical or reasonable! One could also just drop the whole thing as you realize you are engaged in a dialogue with an uneducated ass! 

 To sum this up, it is easier for Council Member Carson to hold the belief that you must be in agreement with him or you are a “naysayer”. He needs to justify his opinion by calling others naysayers, which once again indicates he has no reasonable response to your objection. He unfortunately believes it is not possible for anyone else to have another and potentially a better idea than his.

We do not have the right to use our own minds, and dare I say it, disagree with CM Carson without being labeled a naysayer. It would be a very dull, mind numbing world if there were no other choices than to buy what the dictator put in front of us. Most people can’t seem to see beyond their own preferences. They seem to derive pride, self image and whatnot from their ideas. They’re either too immature or have some other problem that prevents them from accepting any ideas or criticism other than theirs. Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, and then try to beat you with experience, or name calling

Lenny Marks

DeBary

FROM NORM:

From CM Hunt @ 5/18/11 Workshop:

"Council Member Hunt asked if it is typical to have public input at a workshop and suggested that they discontinue the practice."

Wow, this was said and voted through and I was shocked to read this. And no Council member is on the record disagreeing. And if you speak up and question, CM Carson calls you a naysayer and hater...so basically, don't say anything...just drink the kool-aid...but that was a hell of a fireworks show, wasn't it?

READ ARTICLE BELOW WITH SOME OF MY COMMENTS:

9/17:

Why Don't We Complain?

William F. Buckley Jr.

 

It was the very last coach and the only empty seat on the entire train, so there was no turning back. The problem was to breathe. Outside the temperature was below freezing. Inside the railroad car the temperature must have been about 85 degrees. I took off my overcoat and a few minutes later my jacket, and noticed that the car was flecked with the white shirts of the passengers. I soon found my hand moving to loosen my tie. From one end of the car to the other, as we rattled through Westchester Country, we sweated; but we did not moan.

I watched the train conductor appear at the head of the car. "Tickets, all tickets, please!" In a more virile age, I thought the passengers would seize the conductor and strap him down on a seat over the radiator to share the fate of his patrons. He shuffled down the aisle, picking up tickets, punching commutation cards. No one addressed a word to him. He approached my seat, and I drew a deep breath of resolution. "conductor," I began with a considerable edge to my voice.... Instantly the doleful eyes of my seatmate turned tiredly from his newspaper to fix me with a resentful stare: what question could be so important as to justify my sibilant intrusion into his stupor? I was shaken by those eyes. I am incapable of making a discreet fuss, so I mumbled a question about what time we were due in Stamford (I didn't even ask whether it would be before or after dehydration could be expected to set in), got my reply, and went back to my newspaper and to wiping my brow.

The conductor had nonchalantly walked down the gauntlet of eighty sweating American freemen, and not one of them had asked him to explain why the passengers in that car had been consigned to suffer. There is nothing to be done when the temperature outdoors is 85 degrees, and indoors the air conditioner has broken down; obviously when that happens there is nothing to do, except perhaps curse the day that one was born. But when the temperature outdoors is below freezing, it takes a positive act of will on somebody's part to set the temperature indoors at 85. Somewhere a valve was turned too far, a furnace overstocked, a thermostat maladjusted: something that could easily be remedied by turning off the heat and allowing the great outdoors to come indoors. All this is so obvious. What is not obvious is what has happened to the American people.

It isn't just the commuters, whom we have come to visualize as a supine breed who have got on to the trick of suspending their sensory faculties twice a day while they submit to the creeping dissolution of the railroad industry. It isn't just they who have given up trying to rectify irrational vexations. It is the American people everywhere.

A few weeks ago at a large movie theatre I turned to my wife and said, "The picture is out of focus." "Be quiet," she answered. I obeyed. But a few minutes later I raised the point again, with mounting impatience. "It will be all right in a minute," she said apprehensively. (She would rather lose her eyesight than be around when I make one of my infrequent scenes.) I waited. It was just out of focus -- not glaringly out, but out. My vision is 20-20, and I assume that is the vision, adjusted, of most people in the movie house. So, after hectoring my wife throughout the first reel, I finally prevailed upon her to admit that it was off, and very annoying. We then settled down, coming to rest on the presumption that: a) someone connected with the management of the theatre must soon notice the blur and make the correction; or b) that someone seated near the rear of the house would make the complaint in behalf of those of us up front; or c) that -- any minute now -- the entire house would explode into catcalls and foot stamping, calling dramatic attention to the irksome distortion.

What happened was nothing. The movie ended, as it had begun just out of focus, and we trooped out, we stretched our faces in a variety of contortions to accustom the eye to the shock of normal focus.

I think it is safe to say that everybody suffered on that occasion. And I think it is safe to assume that everyone was expecting someone else to take the initiative in going back to speak to the manager. And it is probably true even that if we had supposed the movie would run right through the blurred image, someone surely would have summoned up the purposive indignation to get up out of his seat and file his complaint.

But notice that no one did. And the reason no one did is because we are all increasingly anxious in America to be unobtrusive, we are reluctant to make our voices heard, hesitant about claiming our right; we are afraid that our cause is unjust, or that if it is not unjust, that it is ambiguous; or if not even that, that it is too trivial to justify the horrors of a confrontation with Authority (From Norm: or be called a "naysayer" or "hater"); we will sit in an oven or endure a racking headache before undertaking a head-on, I'm-here-to-tell-you complaint. That tendency to passive compliance, to a heedless endurance, is something to keep one's eyes on -- in sharp focus.

I myself can occasionally summon the courage to complain, but I cannot, as I have intimated, complain softly. My own instinct is so strong to let the thing ride, to forget about it -- to expect that someone will take the matter up, when the grievance is collective, in my behalf -- that it is only when the provocation is at a very special key, whose vibrations touch simultaneously a complex of nerves, allergies, and passions, that I catch fire and find the reserves of courage and assertiveness to speak up. When that happens, I get quite carried away. My blood gets hot, my brow wet, I become unbearably and unconscionably sarcastic and bellicose; I am girded for a total showdown.

Why should that be? Why could not I (or anyone else) on that railroad coach have said simply to the conductor, "Sir" -- I take that back: that sounds sarcastic -- "Conductor, would you be good enough to turn down the heat? I am extremely hot. In fact, I tend to get hot every time the temperature reaches 85 degr -- " Strike that last sentence. Just end it with the simple statement that you are extremely hot, and let the conductor infer the cause.

Every New Year's Eve I resolve to do something about the Milquetoast in me and vow to speak up, calmly, for my rights, and for the betterment of our society, on every appropriate occasion. Entering last New Year's Eve I was fortified in my resolve because that morning at breakfast I had had to ask the Waitress three times for a glass of milk. She finally brought it -- after I had finished my eggs, which is when I don't want it any more. I did not have the manliness to order her to take the milk back, but settled instead for a cowardly sulk, and ostentatiously refused to drink the milk -- though I later paid for it -- rather than state plainly to the hostess, as I should have, why I had not drunk it, and would not pay for it.

So by the time the New Year ushered out the Old, riding in on my morning's indignation and stimulated by the gastric juices of resolution that flow so faithfully on New Year's Eve, I rendered my vow. Henceforward I would conquer my shyness, my despicable disposition to supineness. I would speak out like a man against the unnecessary annoyances of our time.

Forty-eight hours later, I was standing in line at the ski repair store in Pico Peak , Vermont . All I needed, to get on with my skiing, was the loan, for one minute, of a small screwdriver, to tighten a loose binding. Behind the counter in the workshop were two men. One was industriously engaged in servicing the complicated requirements of a young lady at the head of the line, and obviously he would be tied up for quite a while. The other -- "Jiggs," his workmate called him -- was a middle-aged man, who sat in a chair puffing a pipe, exchanging small talk with his working partner. My pulse began its telltale acceleration. The minutes ticked on. I stared at the idle shopkeeper, hoping to shame him into action, but he was impervious to my telepathic reproof and continued his small talk with his friend, brazenly insensitive to the nervous demands of six good men who were raring to ski.

Suddenly my New Year's Eve resolution struck me. It was now or never. I broke from my place in line and marched to the counter. I was going to control myself. I dug my nails into my palms. My effort was only partially successful.

"If you are not too busy," I said icily, "would you mind handing me a screwdriver?"

Work stopped and everyone turned his eyes on me, and I experienced that mortification I always feel when I am the center of centripetal shafts of curiosity, resentment, perplexity.

But the worst was yet to come. "I am sorry, sir," said Jiggs deferentially, moving the pipe from his mouth. "I am not supposed to move. I have just had a heart attack." That was the signal for a great whirring noise that descended from heaven. We looked, stricken, out the window, and it appeared as though a cyclone had suddenly focused on the snowy courtyard between the shop and the ski lift. Suddenly a gigantic army helicopter materialized, and hovered down to a landing. Two men jumped out of the plane carrying a stretcher tore into the ski shop, and lifted the shopkeeper onto the stretcher. Jiggs bade his companion goodbye, was whisked out the door, into the plane, up to the heavens, down -- we learned -- to a near-by army hospital. I looked up manfully -- into a score of man-eating eyes. I put the experience down as a reversal.

As I write this, on an airplane, I have run out of paper and need to reach into my briefcase under my legs for more. I cannot do this until my empty lunch tray is removed from my lap. I arrested the stewardess as she passed empty-handed down the aisle on the way to the kitchen to fetch the lunch trays for the passengers up forward who haven't been served yet. "Would you please take my tray?" "Just a moment, sir!" she said, and marched on sternly. Shall I tell her that since she is headed for the kitchen anyway, it could not delay the feeding of the other passengers by more than two seconds necessary to stash away my empty tray? Or remind her that not fifteen minutes ago she spoke unctuously into the loudspeaker the words undoubtedly devised by the airline's highly paid public relations counselor: "If there is anything I or Miss French can do for you to make your trip more enjoyable, please let us -- " I have run out of paper.

I think the observable reluctance of the majority of Americans to assert themselves in minor matters is related to our increased sense of helplessness in an age of technology and centralized political and economic power. For generations, Americans who were too hot, or too cold, got up and did something about it. Now we call the plumber, or the electrician, or the furnace man. The habit of looking after our own needs obviously had something to do with the assertiveness that characterized the American family familiar to readers of American literature. With the technification of life goes our direct responsibility for our material environment, and we are conditioned to adopt a position of helplessness not only as regards the broken air conditioner, but as regards the over-heated train. It takes an expert to fix the former, but not the latter; yet these distinctions, as we withdraw into helplessness, tend to fade away.

Our notorious political apathy is a related phenomenon. Every year, whether the Republican or the Democratic Party is in office, more and more power drains away from the individual to feed vast reservoirs in far-off places; and we have less and less say about the shape of events which shape our future. From this alienation of personal power comes the sense of resignation with which we accept the political dispensations of a powerful government whose hold upon us continues to increase.

An editor of a national weekly news magazine told me a few years ago that as few as a dozen letters of protest against an editorial stance of his magazine was enough to convene a plenipotentiary meeting of the board of editors to review policy. "So few people complain, or make their voices heard," he explained to me, "that we assume a dozen letters represent the unarticulated views of thousands of readers." In the past ten years, he said, the volume of mail has noticeably decreased, even though the circulation of his magazine has risen.

When our voices are finally mute (From Norm: when someone does not allow us to talk at a workshop), when we have finally suppressed the natural instinct to complain, whether the vexation is trivial or grave, we shall have become automatons, incapable of feeling. When Premier Khrushchev first came to this country late in 1959 he was primed, we are informed, to experience the bitter resentment of the American people against his tyranny, against his persecutions, against the movement which is responsible for the great number of American deaths in Korea, for billions in taxes every year, and for life everlasting on the brink of disaster; but Khrushchev was pleasantly surprised, and reported back to the Russian people that he had been met with overwhelming cordiality (read: apathy), except, to be sure, for "a few fascists who followed me around with their wretched posters, and should be horsewhipped."

I may be crazy, but I say there would have been lots more posters in a society where train temperatures in the dead of winter are not allowed to climb to 85 degrees without complaint.

1961

Fuller, William F. Buckley, Jr. “Why Don’t We Complain?” 50 Essays. Ed. Samuel Cohen. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 64-70.

 

 

9/5: Florida's Real Industry: SUPER GROWTH...

Much Ado About Nothing

The Land Management Act of 1985 that no County or City was ever really following anyway has been gutted - so what?

Some quotes with my response in italics and the link to read the whole article at the end.

“When passed in 1985, Florida's growth law was the toughest in the nation. It required cities and counties to create long-range "comprehensive" growth plans to fight sprawl and environmental destruction, including requiring developers to help pay for roads and schools that would be needed to serve their projects.” Is there anyone out there who is taking the position that since 1985 and up until 2007 growth was stunted and intruded upon by the Land Management Act of 1985? Didn’t think so. Example: I was on the school oversight committee when I was on the Council. Why was that Committee created? Precisely because cities and counties were growing so fast and not following their Comprehensive Plans another layer of bureaucracy had to be created. So the Land Act wasn’t being followed. The payment of roads and services were passed on to the home buyer and the citizens were and are stuck with the bills to up keep them in this recession. Coming up with the rules are easy but following them is impossible when elected officials don’t even read them much less understand them.

“…some of the state's biggest developers already had outlined a game plan to make it easier for large-scale projects to spread across the rural and exurban landscape.” Has it really been that difficult from 1985 to 2007 to get approvals? How many projects has the VGMC killed? State review from the DCA ends up in mitigation and the development proceeds.

“And the emails show those lobbyists largely wrote the bill lawmakers wound up passing in May: a 190-page dismantling of Florida's growth-management act that dramatically limits the state's role in overseeing growth and makes it harder for citizens to challenge future development plans.” The 1985 Land Management Act made Florida the toughest state in the union for growth control and concurrency. As for making it harder for citizens to challenge growth…wait a second, you mean it used to be easy?

“The developers' legislation ‘rolled through the legislature like a tsunami, with little deliberation, few changes, and virtually no concessions to other stakeholder groups’” I’m sure anyone questioning the developers writing the legislation would be called naysayers and haters. The elected officials probably didn’t even read what they were passing…thank God that doesn’t happen in this County or City.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE

 

 

 

8/25:

While driving down 17/92 the other day, I couldn’t help notice how dirty it has become with sign pollution. Have we become an extension of 17/92 that runs through Sanford or for that matter Orange City?

I wonder why the Mayor and Council members have allowed it to get this way. They have eyes don’t they?

I did find out some of the reasons the Mayor and Council have allowed the businesses to display signs wherever and in whatever manner they want with absolutely no accountability. It seems they have not passed an ordinance that spells out specific rules as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. Just look at the swimming pool business, signs, flags, banners you name it, it’s there. This is one of the biggest offenders and sadly the owner sits on the City’s Economic Development Advisory Committee. Just working for the business community (which most of the business owners live outside of the City) is not going to do. We have a whole City that must be taken care of first!

I wonder why the City’s Streetscape Committee has also turned a blind eye to this pollution creep. I know they are trying hard to keep the City clean and pleasant looking, but when the rules are stacked against them and no one helps, their efforts become ineffective. Then again, there was a past Streetscape Committee, the one that brought in the infamous pots and was given $250,000 to put in fancy sidewalk crossings for the beautification and clean up the business section of the City. What a let down to them. Was the taxpayer’s money spent wisely so as to end up with such a rundown main thoroughfare? I think not! The sign pollution on 17/92 can only be blamed on the Mayor and Council, they have allowed it. It is a result of having a weak council. I will say this for the present Streetscape Committee, they work hard with a near “0” budget. They have been working on bus stop shelters and have one in place by Walgreens. It’s hard to do anything when no money is allocated for any projects.

To make things worse, the Mayor and Council in the next few weeks will vote on a new budget for the City. In the budget is $160,000 to have lights installed at Rob Sullivan Park for sporting events. Where are the priorities of this Council, $160,000 for lights opposed to a few thousand dollars for the Streetscape Committee for beautifying our city?

This is the bottom line; please, clean up our City!!! And spend our money in a wiser manner.

Lenny Marks

DeBary

 

 

 

7/6:

There is an article in the News Journal about inmates at the Gateway Center for the Arts (GCA) and safety. An important issue and I read the article. My thought afterward was: Why did this make it into the News Journal with no less than FIVE interviews from the City Manager to the Mayor to the Director of Parks and Rec?

What follows is an excerpt of an article, by Mark Harper of the News Journal, you can read online at the News Journal (http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/west-volusia/2011/07/04/working-inmates-presence-rattles-debary-parents.html):

Most of the complaints came from a day last week when the inmates -- who are usually in and out of the park by 8:30 a.m. -- arrived late. They used the park bathroom that day, but Fletcher said he has since instructed the correctional officer in charge of the prisoners to have them use restroom facilities at another park that doesn't house a summer camp.

"Since they've been here with us, we've not had one altercation that was inappropriate, other than some perceptual bias," Fletcher said. "We understand that perception."

Why is this article even in the newspaper, who got it going and who called the paper?  What was that phone call like?

“Hey, Mr. Harper, have you heard what happened at the GCA?”

“No, what?”

“Well, inmates came late to work and were in close proximity to kids which had not happened before nor since and now the problem has been resolved by using another park.”

“Holy involved citizen, Batman! You mean it’s been resolved but you’re calling me to write a whole article and interview five people about it anyway?”

“Yes, Mr. Harper.”

“What about the issue of the City Council not enforcing the lease agreement with the GCA?”

“Can you please stay focused and concentrate on the issue that has been resolved and write about that?!”

“Got it.”

I can only assume that someone from the GCA has a line into the News Journal to get a long article written about an issue that’s been resolved. However, kudos to the GCA for looking out for itself – as it relates to the lease agreement it has with the City Council, maybe the City Council will take the same path to look out for its own interests.

And now some thoughts on the 4 th of July: Who were these founding fathers? They were men who doubted, dissented, argued, and did not accept what was given to them. They questioned a King’s words and actions. They called out the King on his humbug, to put it nicely. They stirred the pot and rattled the cage by not just going along to get along and “phoning it in”. They didn’t call it “throwing someone under the bus” when they didn’t know how to do their job; they called it holding people accountable. In that spirit of dissent and debate, oratory and philosophy, they were my kind of people. And if dissenting and debating is wrong, sweethearts, I don’t want to be right. Doubt sharpens truth.

Norm Erickson

 

 

 

7/2:

When the DeBary Art League, Inc. incorporated in July of 1998, they created Articles of Incorporation. Article III is Purpose and this is what was written:

The purpose of the corporation is to encourage and perpetuate appreciation of artistic endeavors including, but not limited to, production, preservation, conservation and viewing of the fine arts and the educational support of the arts in the community.

In November of 2007 Debary Art League, Inc changed their name to Gateway Center For The Arts, Inc. There is a place on that document to change anything else; they did not. That is to say, their purpose as quoted above stayed the same.

I contend that the Gateway Center for the Arts (GCA) is as much a rental space to generate revenue as it is a place for artistic endeavors. Evidence: A recent editorial in the Deland Beacon newspaper by a supporter of the GCA confirms this. Look at the list of activities that seem to run contrary to Article III:

I would think Mr. Culligan would be glad our community was awarded a grant based on relentless efforts to provide a place of…political debates, health seminars, Scout meetings, literacy help, local business expos and pageants, and a place for weddings, private parties and other community needs.

Shirley Marshall, DeBary

 

From GCA’s website:

Cost to rent space:

Expense to rent the space is $125/hr. for receptions

or $1000 per day. Includes long tables and chairs.

Is this why the City Council gave 100,000 dollars of tax money to the GCA – to build another DeBary Civic Center? I’ve written before and I’ve sent it to the current City Council TWICE that the lease agreement between the GCA and the City is not being adhered to by the GCA. This City Council will do nothing about this but the GCA is quick to try and enforce/expand the lease agreement to get their restrooms cleaned – they are willing to talk about the lease. The GCA is subleasing the building as rental space. If you rent an apartment, can you turn around and sub-lease it to another entity? This is what the GCA is doing to the City.

Take note, I am NOT saying do not allow GCA to do what they are doing – I’m simply saying address it as the leaders that you claim to be sitting in leadership positions. You can re-write the lease allowing all the current activities or not but to do nothing is to act like children believing that if we ignore the issue, ignore Norm, it will go away. Adults address issues. But then again, in thinking about the management problems of the past and the inability and unwillingness…etc…etc…

I know some Council members can’t face this issue as it will put them at odds with their friends, constituents and/or campaign contributors, but that’s the position for which you ran.

Lastly, if the GCA filled out grant applications at the County and State level and cited Article III of their Articles of Incorporations as to what the funds would be used for, there seems to be some inconsistency given that space built with taxpayer money is being used as rental space for any and all occasions not having to do with artistic endeavors. The space built with taxpayer money can be rented by the taxpayer for a fee in addition to the taxes that were used to build the space in the first place by the same taxpayer.

I never would have known about Articles of Incorporation had not a citizen directed me to the website concerning the Community Partnership Program, Inc. which was brought to the Council by CM Carson initially as only a Committee. In Article III of their incorporation articles it is stated:

The Community Partnership Program, Inc will provide the community with sponsored events which will provide scholarships for students pursuing careers in performing arts or the science displine (misspelling is repeated here – Norm).

None of what is cited above is what CM Carson brought to the Council back in January of this year. And a demanding precedent of in-kind services has now been set as it relates to non-profits in DeBary. Just what was the Council asked to support in January and what is it now that they are supporting? It never was clear from the very first meeting that I attended. But if the Council isn’t going to address a lease agreement, then they will be mum about this as well.

The City has given in-kind services to this non-profit organization so any other non-profits in the City may want to ask for their full page announcement on the City’s newsletter as well as a place to meet such as City Hall.

Actually, isn’t that what Rick Dwyer asked of the City concerning an orchestra and he was told to go kiss the ring of the GCA? From Mr. Dwyer’s editorial: “…when I asked to give a performance in the DeBary Town Hall, I was denied the opportunity and was furthermore notified that any performance would have to be given at the Gateway Center for the Arts and for whatever fee the Gateway Center for the Arts chooses to charge.” He just wanted a place to jam for free concerts and was given the run around. Now he’s up in Orange City playing to standing room only audiences – good for you.

I understand why the Mayor, Vice Mayor and CM Carson do not address these issues. CM Koval and Hunt – I’m at a loss.

I’m filling out Articles of Incorporation for DeBaryPOP to become a non-profit as we speak and will soon ask for my in-kind services from the City – I’m sure I’ll be granted every request.

Norm Erickson

 

 

6/17:

From WDBO:

4th of July fireworks could be banned

 

 

6/15: From www.wdbo.com:

Ore. man who quit college in 1932 graduates at 99

 

 

6/8:

 

Don’t ask…they won't tell

MY ONE QUESTION SENT TO CM CARSON concerning the Community Partnership Program in charge of the Fireworks show:

Sat, May 21, 2011 12:56 pm

CM Carson,

Are members of the public allowed to attend board meetings?  If so, when is the next board meeting?

Thank you,

Norm

 

RESPONSES:

FROM CM CARSON:

Tue, May 24, 2011 1:33 am

I will forward this email along to Sue Lombardi who handles the meeting announcements.

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY:

Jun 05, 2011 11:15 am

 

Norm, I am forwarding your email to the contact person for the Freedom and Fireworks event Marcia Steele.  Hopefully she can answer all of your questions.  If she can’t answer them please contact the event advisor Chris Carson for the information. Lorraine

 

Sue Lombardi has yet to email me; my question from May 21 st has yet to be answered about attendance at Board Meetings. No one seems to know. Not the President. Not the Owner - Sue Lombardi - and not the Council member who brought all of this to the Council to sign off on when it was only a Committee.

 

Other questions that have gone unanswered:

 

1.  What is the plan if there are no fireworks?  2.  Is there a rain date?  3.  What agreement was signed with Creative Pyrotechnics and (4) how much was the cost for this fireworks show?  In 2010 in Winter Springs it was 10K for a 15 minute show.

 

RESPONSE FROM CM CARSON:

 

Norm,

Please feel free to contact me via (PHONE NUMBER OMITTED – NORM).  As an advisor to this group, maybe I can paint a better picture for you of this event.

Have a great day,

I appreciate the offer. I do. But I don’t want a picture painted to me, I would like answers to some pretty basic questions. Rain dates, costs, may I attend a board meeting? etc, with less than a month before the event I would think someone would know the answers. There seem to be three layers of “need to know” here: the public meetings, the Board Meetings, and then the very private meetings that Ms. Sipler is left out of that have to do with cutting checks. She tried to talk about this at the last meeting and was shut down by CM Carson, but it was evident what was going on.

The City has been giving in-kind services to this non profit corporation and having the Asst. City Manager attend meetings for this non profit corporation. Will this be done with other non profits as well?

This whole Committee entity was started to put together a calendar of events that already exists on the City’s website. They were to brainstorm all kinds of projects and things to do as if that wasn’t being done by Parks and Rec. This Committee entity should not have been entangled with the City in any way, shape, manner or form.

At the first meeting CM Carson was asked straight out what his vision was for this Committee. He had no answer. And judging by the recent emails to me, he still has no answers about a Committee he initiated. Nor does the President. Nor does the owner.

This just in: I just received my City newsletter and on the full front page is the advertisement for the Freedom and Fireworks show produced and coordinated by the Community Partnership Program (CPP). The Council may want to ask themselves how much they want to get into bed with non profit corporations as perhaps more will step forward and want the City to pay for their advertisement on the City’s newsletter as well. Also, the elementary school is using the phone system to get the word out about an event. I don't agree with this policy as it puts the City in a tough position in the future when approached by other entities.

This is what can happen when private/public entities exist. Team Volusia. And now Deland’s CRA is soliciting potential development partners and the possibility of a private/public partnership. I don't know why this CPP had to involve not only the City Council but its staff and in-kind services. Is this really what the Council gave its support to at the beginning?

 

Norm Erickson

 

 

6/4:

Correcting the Record

On 6/1 when the Council voted to go back to one meeting per month, CM Carson remarked that it was interesting that VM Lenzen who had suggested two meetings a month initially now wanted one meeting a month. That’s not how it happened. Within the first meeting or two that I sat as Council member in 2008, I brought up the issue of going to two meetings per month. Then CM Lenzen said let’s see in a couple of months if we should do that. True to his word, a few months later Mr. Lenzen agreed that two meetings a month would be appropriate; the Council made the change. CM Carson sat on that Council as well.

Norm Erickson

 

6/1:

ARE THESE REALLY THE ISSUES THEY RAN ON FOR OFFICE - not a physical office, a position of authority or responsibility - ?

ISSUES BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE COUNCIL IN THE LAST FIVE MONTHS:

1. Creating a Citizens Events Committee (now it’s a private business: Community Partnership Program) to put together a fireworks show.

2. Getting the property of the old City Hall “jazzed up”. 8 thousand dollars. Phase II will be for budget time. CM Carson (who ran on 12 years experience) couldn’t even make the motion…the Mayor did it for him. Dead grass and dying plants…it’s been addressed. There was a motion on the floor and then it was replaced by CM Carson with a different motion – it doesn’t work that way and Robert’s Rules of Order was molested terribly. Earlier in the meeting a discussion on code enforcement and following the rules was stressed.

3. A Speakers Bureau so citizens can talk to Council members – because, apparently, they can’t now – I thought that’s why they gave the office back.

4. Researching what is going on with having dogs in the yard both in Central Florida, surrounding states, and nationwide.

5. Shrubbery at DGCC. CM Carson was adamant about bringing this non-City issue to the City Council. It’s an HOA issue.

6. Adding to the agenda the very serious issue of whether or not to present a key to the City to Larry the Cable Guy.

7. Adding to the agenda the very serious issue of getting the City of DeBary on Facebook.

8. Going back to one meeting a month.

9. Giving the Mayor his office back but not discussing the other 80% of the issue: Should Council members have offices?

10. When CM Carson voted “No” to the Swallows PUD on 2/16/11, he offered no basis of denial other than the applicant didn’t talk to the neighbors enough; yet he had seconded the motion to pass it on 1/19/11. Lack of communication isn’t a basis of denial. As you can read below, CM Carson actually says the applicant has the “right” to develop the land but CM Carson said “No” because there wasn’t enough talking between the applicant and homeowners. Huh? The applicant has the “right”…the “Right” to develop, but CM Carson said “No” anyway due to lack of communication.

I asked CM Carson about this issue. This was his response:

Friday March 4 th 2011

Mr. Erickson,

As for my reasoning, I do agree that the Swallow PUD ownership group do have rights to develop their land but I was not satisfied with the amount of communication that existed between Saxon Woods and Mr. Williams (applicant). 

Thank you,

Chris Carson

City of DeBary/Council Member

Lack of communication is not a basis of approval or denial as cited by our codes. It is the most capricious and arbitrary of reasons.

Norm Erickson

p.s. the lease agreement with the GCA is still being violated...

 

5/20:

VM Lenzen answered my question: How Did They Decide? (See Below) How was the past election and perhaps all past elections decided?  It was a popularity contest.  This is what VM Lenzen said during the workshop session on perhaps changing the terms of office from 3 years to 4 years.  It's a popularity contest when there is low voter turnout and a thousand or less people vote.  I was put in office with something like 680 votes and I won in the run off against three other people. In actuality, I think people were voting against someone rather than voting for me - either way, is that really a way to decide?  VM Lenzen said we don't really know if a candidate is viable until he/she is on the dais and doing the job.  That's true.  That's sad. 

It's sad we don't have a real vetting system.  But when someone such as myself brings up real issues and a real voting record as I did with CM Carson, I'm attacked for stating truths.  We just want to elect the most popular.  The well known.  The nice one.  The safe one.  No waves.  No tough questions.  No accountability.  Keep us off the front pages of the newspapers that’s how we’ll know if things are working well in the City.  Shhhhhhh.  Go back to sleep now.  Fireworks. Facebook.  Keys to Larry the Cable Guy – that’s gettin’ it done. 

VM Lenzen suggested that we had a large number of individuals run for office years ago because of management issues and but now those issues are resolved and things are really running smoothly.  I sure didn't win any popularity contests in continuing to fight for better management - no one wanted it.  Recently it's been suggested to go back to one meeting a month - what validation that we're back on track and the right person was hired to manage the City.

Make no mistake, I agree with VM Lenzen in his assessment of elections.

Norm Erickson

5/18:

How Did They Decide?

Chris Carson, Bill Long and Lita Handy-Peters.

The experience of Chris Carson didn’t seem to translate for Bill Long who lost to Nick Koval – brand new to politics.  The four months of hard work on the Council by Lita Handy-Peters did not work for her; she lost to Dan Hunt who, by his own admission, didn’t attend City Council meetings yet was elected to the Council – but he urges us to go to Tallahassee to attend legislative meetings, interesting.  Lita Handy-Peters changed her view on the mayor’s office yet all of those people in support of her new position on that issue did not support Mrs. Handy-Peters at the ballot box. 

It doesn’t seem to make sense.  How did people decide?  All three of these people had the biggest signs posted in the City.  They had mailers.  They went to the “Meet and Greet” put on at the Gateway Center – which incidentally violates their lease.  

Do people decide by the number of postcards or signs in the City?  The signs this past election season littered our City and made it look terrible – in my opinion.  Postcards…is that a deal maker/ deal breaker? 

I think citizens make up their minds by talking to their neighbors and friends.  There is a grapevine of talk that runs underground in DeBary.  This is what informs voters more than anything else.

Someone told me that campaigning is the “beauty contest” part of serving in office.  Obviously my being elected explodes that theory, but I think what he/she meant was that the campaigning aspect of elections doesn’t count for much: people are going to vote for whom they want or don't want and I don’t think an appeal of any kind from the candidate changes many minds if any at all. Or citizens vote for whom their friends are voting for. Or, they are simply voting against someone rather than for someone.

People are going to vote how they’re going to vote. I don’t think the “Meet the Candidate” does much to sway opinion. And I’ve hosted two of them myself along with Lenny and John. You go in and come out looking for the best in your candidate. Signs and postcards don’t do anything, in my opinion.

Think about it: Is there anything anyone could have said or printed on a postcard or sign to dissuade them from voting for Chris Carson? Obviously the facts about CM Carson’s voting record and comments did nothing. Was there anything Bill Long could have said to have persuaded people to vote for him rather than against him? I don’t think so; people decide in the aisles of Winn Dixie or at the table of a local restaurant. They listen to their friends or barber shop chit chat, or they are convinced by the mother, father, roommate, sister, or 2nd cousin of a candidate.

I think I’m coming to the conclusion that there is no “running for office” in DeBary or, perhaps, elsewhere.  What was the election about last year?  Just 7 months ago…what was the big issue?  Does anyone really remember?  The Mayor’s office?  Jobs?  What can the Council or the County do about that? Stormwater? We’re finishing up those projects. What has the Council been focusing on the last five months? What have Council members been bringing to the table these last five months? I will have an essay on that question.

There is no debate or discussion or conversation.  There’s a grapevine. Bill Long had much more political experience than Nick Koval – but people were voting against personal experience and past history.

If the people want you back, they’ll vote for you. And if they want you to spend Wednesday nights with your family, they’ll decide that as well – to my way of thinking it’s a win-win either way for the candidate - assuming of course that they want to be with their family.

Unfortunately, the loser could be the City getting the lesser of the qualified candidates. But real qualifications and real abilities, or the lack thereof, never seem to be part of the conversation in public or private.

Norm Erickson

 

 

 

5/9:

On April 20th the DeBary City Council unanimously agreed to become a member of the public-private economic development partnership with Team Volusia committing this Council and the next to fund it at a total of 25,000 dollars.

In addition, there is a committee here in DeBary called a Special Events Committee. I recently asked for a list of supporters of the fireworks show and how much their contributions were; I was told by the president of this committee that they are under no obligation to supply me with this information - this from their legal staff. This is private. What is the Committee actually deciding? Not the location or the budget – I was at the meeting where both were revealed and questions were asked about where this was coming from.

In mixing private and public you get these kinds of responses and only partially answered questions.

These are the kinds of things Team Volusia will do. Governments are interested in mixing private and public so they can have unannounced board meetings where the public does not have to be invited. That part is private. But when they need money or in-kind services, they magically become public - and these in-kind services cost money because staff could be working on other tasks that are truly public issues.

I can admit that the cost to the taxpayer for the Special Events Committee is nominal but will others admit that it isn’t truly costing the City zero dollars? Isn’t time money and aren’t additional duties to this endeavor necessarily taking time away from other City issues? But this isn't actually my real concern at this moment.

Who gets to decide what is private and what is public? Who gets to decide which questions get answered and which ones do not? Where does Sunshine Law start and stop? Is anything really terrible happening here? I doubt it. But why wouldn’t supporters want their name out in public for thanks and to promote more contributions?

My bigger concern is Team Volusia where you have much more at stake. Because if anyone does ask a question that should be answered and they hide behind the “private” part of the public-private relationship, then there is actual taxpayer money at stake.

Norm Erickson

 

4/23:

History and Context

Back in 2004 when I started getting really involved in City issues, the Town Center at Dirkson and 17/92 was discussed quite a bit. The Council at the time, Tillis, Fulton, Coleman, Carson and Lenzen and I think Danny Allen because it split the '04 - '05 year, talked with Mr. Costa about what was going to go on down there and possibly a City Hall. The terms kept changing. No decision was made. The Council could not settle on things and, I believe, the Costa family had some challenges in finalizing some things as well. It was for a town Center not unlike the Winter Springs Town Center that I am very familiar with as it is in front of my High School where I work. Also, Mayor Rosamonda visited the Winter Springs Town Center to get an idea of what it could look like.

Regardless, nothing came of it. The Council and Mr. Costa could not get it done. Whether there was a vote on this or not I do not remember nor have I researched it. My point is this: when the Council voted down the DeBary Downs in 2008, it was not the first time a project at that exact location failed. There was a chance back in 2004. Also, what if the Town Center's construction had started in 2005 and finished in 2006 - what would have happened come the bursting of the bubble in 2007 and with no homes down there to support those businesses as happened at the Winter Springs Town Center? The word "empty" comes to mind. Knowing what we know now, was it better that the Town Center was not built? I don't have an answer - maybe some one else does.

To keep repeating that 2008 was the only time development of businesses and jobs could have come to DeBary is not true. 2004 had its moment. Whether there was a time even before that, I am not aware.

Norm Erickson

 

 

4/21: CM CARSON IS RIGHT: THERE IS MISINFORMATION OUT ON WEBSITES...

“We could not even agree upon a Dollar Store because a former Vice Mayor deemed it a "box store".”

” I just hope that people think with their minds and just do not let the first thing that "POPs" into their heads from individuals who have their own agenda of a " The Sky is Falling" mentality.”

MARK MEISTER

 

I want to thank Mr. Meister for the above words.

Let’s talk Dollar Store: Anita Gonzalez the City Planner at the time told CM Courson that it did not comply with the Comp Plan – you know, the plan that Council members’ decisions have to agree with as stated in the State Statutes and thus the oaths that Council members take. What did CM Courson do? She passed it to the Council to vote on. When I asked her if she took this through the Development Review Committee as demanded by our codes she said “no”. When I asked if it was supposed to her response was, “If the Council wants it to.” Uh, no, it’s in the Codes. So, I said “No” to it because it contravened the Comp Plan and did not go through the REVIEW PROCESS - not because of “big box”, Mr. Meister. This is exactly the kind of misinformation on websites that CM Carson is talking about.

Secondly, when I pointed out these inconsistencies of CM Courson to the Council they didn’t have a problem with the City Manager NOT following the codes and giving the Council something to vote on that she had been told by the City Planner that was not concurrent with the Comp Plan. They didn’t have a problem with that – I did and so did Lenny Marks.

Of course, if the three other Council members wanted to vote through the Dollar Store they could have…they didn’t so it just wasn’t the “Vice Mayor” who killed this as Mr. Meister would have his readers believe – more misinformation that CM Carson has been talking about. CM Carson on his Fox 35 news interview talked about “proper development”. Proper development isn’t violating a City’s Comp Plan and Land Development Codes and a Council member’s oath – yet when exactly that occurred, CM Carson didn’t have any interest in holding anyone accountable for it. But hey, we got Larry the Cable guy his key to the City and now we’re on Facebook…if only I had had those kinds of problems to deal with when I started on the Council.

As for things popping in the head and “the sky is falling”, Mr. Meister and CM Carson both attack and label people who question, dissent, or challenge information. When the Mayor was asked who will pay for the Freedom and Fireworks show, CM Carson called them “naysayers and haters” when they only wanted to know who was paying for it. I think that’s unfortunate. Mr. Meister loves to talk about my agenda and secret agenda. I wish he would tell me what it is. Next, he'll say I'm stealing library books or listening to Glenn Beck - whichever is worse; the reader can decide.

Thank you for bringing this information up, Mr. Meister. It once again shows just how unaware you are on these specific issues and allows me to correct the misinformation on these social networks.

Norm Erickson

4/17:

Food, fun and fireworks on tap for West Volusia's 4th

By Jen Horton
BEACON STAFF WRITER

Jun 28, 2008 - 9:57:17am

Fun, food, festivities and fireworks will be in full swing in Lake Helen, Deltona and Orange City. In DeBary, a private business will bring on the fireworks.

Deanna Hutchinson, of the City of DeBary, said her town has planned two events: a concert and an Old Fashioned Independence Day celebration. Also in DeBary, Swamp House Grill will turn the heat up with a two-day River Blast.

In the wake of government cutbacks, Swamp House owners Dave Blackburn and Matt Fisher decided to make something amazing happen.

Blackburn said the event is something he and Fisher have looked forward to doing since they purchased the restaurant a little more than one year ago.

"We were going to step up, anyway," Blackburn said. "We have a lot of property on the St. Johns River, and the river is the most important feature of Volusia."

River Blast will be a land-and-water event.

"We'll have continuous music. It'll be like a boaters' concert, the stage will be right on the water," Blackburn said.

And, of course, Swamp House will have fireworks. Lots of fireworks.

"We're going to have big fireworks displays," Blackburn said.

 

 

 

4/9:

Asking questions about how your money may or may not be spent? You're a "naysayer" and a "hater"

At the 4/6 Council meeting Mayor Garcia gave CM Carson a chance to clarify the funding of the fireworks show this coming July. The Mayor had been asked questions around town and he did the right thing: bring it out at a meeting to get the right information to the people. The fireworks show is not going to cost taxpayers any of their money. This is a heroic effort being put on by volunteers.

All well and good. CM Carson clarified the issue. However, CM Carson went on to say, "there are always going to be naysayers and haters. But it's a new day." All that was discussed was the source of funding and who is going to pay.

Asking for where the money is coming from and making sure personal pet projects are not being funded by taxpayers' money is not being a "naysayer" or "hater"; it's being a responsible citizen. I really disagree with CM Carson comment and it highlights the repeating theme in DeBary: whether you are on the Council or not, questioning government or asking questions relating to accountability will be responded to with personal attacks and name calling. "Haters"?

And CM Carson is the one who brought up the Speaker's Bureau to have more communication with the people. Why? So if real questions are asked, they can be labeled? Or is an involved citizen in DeBary simply one who goes along and doesn't question...

The Mayor did the right thing - people who know me know that if I thought otherwise, I would say as much. CM Carson's comment was out of line and insulting. I thought CM Carson was going to get away from that kind of thing. CM Carson said it was a "new day". No - not questioning and just going along and dismissing questions regarding accountability...that's not a new day...that's the "old days" of when I first became involved in the City's issues.

Facts are argued against vehemently in this City; unsupported allegations and suppostions are allowed to flow freely from the tap without challenge.

Ironically, later in the meeting when CM Carson proposed taking shrubery out of the DGCC, CM Hunt asked, "who is going to pay for this?" To use CM Carson's own logic, by asking about the funding of pulling out the shrubery as citizens asked about the funding of the fireworks show, CM Hunt was being a naysayer and a hater. Or, possibly, just a responsible elected official as the citizens were who asked the Mayor about the fireworks show. You make your call...I've made mine.

Norm Erickson

 

3/4:

From January of this year:

1/31/11:

Mr. Carson’s #1 priority: FIREWORKS

Various issues facing DeBary: State budget short falls in the billions, water wars that the Mayor has talked about, stormwater issues, TOD Planning to review, LDC to review, issues concerning gambling and horse track racing, Team Volusia issue to deal with, and possibly creating a Land Planning Agency.

Mr. Carson’s first issue: we need a fireworks event.

From "MAC" on Meister's blog:

Lets see Mr.Carson wants a firework event hmm.I think for someone who did not attend the
meetings of late we are like usual without the facts.

And now the update: On 3/3 I attended the Community Events Committee meeting at Swamp House Grill. The only issue discussed was the fireworks even in July. The dozen or so ideas from the first meeting weren't even mentioned. The fireworks event already has a budget put together (19K) and a place (Gemini Springs). This was decided upon inbetween committee meetings. I thougth maybe it would be happening in a City park, but Gemini works out better. It was questioned how 19K dollars would pay for the event - it is enough seemed to be the answer. Fine. It seems there won't be any City money used for this. Sponsors, businesses and whatnot will cover the cost. And volunteers. There was a good turn out of people. CM Koval and CM Carson were both in attendance during the meeting.

And so, it seems that what I stated in January was true and I wish I could claim credit but I can't; all I did was quote CM Carson as to his one stated interest: the fireworks show. I don't know who "mac" is, but he probably wasn't at the meeting at Swamp House or he would be the first to set the record straight. There's been no bad information on POP or misleading information on the websites. In fact, POP is irritating to some because it's too right and too factual - that's what really gets some people.

Perhaps DeBary will finally have the kind of fireworks it prefers

Norm Erickson

 

 

 

 

3/1:

Who gets to decide when following a City Charter is "petty" or not?

The person possibly violating it is one answer.

DELTONA -- What was supposed to be a simple suggestion to recognize employees for good work has turned into a debate.

Mayor John Masiarczyk started his term three months ago with an impetus of unity. But he expressed frustration Monday over an announcement by Commissioner Herb Zischkau over the weekend.

Zischkau said in a news release he will propose a City Commission employee recognition program at the next meeting this coming Monday. Masiarczyk had proposed a similar program at the tail end of a commission meeting Feb. 21, although he had suggested it be a mayor's award.

City Manager Faith Miller said the city already has two employee recognition programs in place. (So, why the need for another one?) One, the employee of the quarter, is reviewed by a committee and receives eight hours of paid leave. The second, a "nice job" recognition, is less formal but allows directors and managers to reward employees, who get their name in a newsletter and are put into a drawing for a $15 gift certificate.

Zischkau and Deltona resident Lonnie Groot, an attorney who represents several cities including Sanford, have weighed in with opinions that Masiarczyk's idea -- while well-meaning -- could violate the city charter separating the powers of its leadership.

Zischkau wrote in his release that while he applauds Masiarczyk's idea, "it is, however, important that all actions be taken within the lawful powers of each member of the City Commission."

Making it a commission award makes it legal, said Zischkau, an attorney himself.

The charter calls each of the six commissioners and the mayor "equal," Groot wrote in a letter last week. "The mayor may have posted himself in City Hall and determined on his own accord to take an active role in the administration of city government, but that is specifically referred to as 'malfeasance' in the city charter," Groot wrote.

The mayor said Monday he is not wedded to a mayor-only recognition. In fact, he said, after speaking with Miller, he agreed to offer his suggestion for an employee who went above and beyond for the manager's program.

"I had a gentleman in the community just really, really express his appreciation for a job well done by one of the employees," Masiarczyk said. (So, it's a Citizens Recognition program not a Mayor's Recognition Program?)

So he suggested a mayor's recognition program.

"What was in my heart is this guy needs to be told he's done a damned good job," Masiarczyk said. "I want to recognize this guy, give him a mayor's award, and right away it's a controversy." (Won't he be recognized by one of the other TWO recognition programs? Isn't that the City Manager's job? Isn't there already something in place? Aren't there other issues to attend to?)

Masiarczyk said commissioners have wasted too much time debating trivial matters such as who should give recognition to city employees, when bigger issues loom -- such as Volusia County's plan to consolidate emergency dispatch services. (The issue isn't who gets to give recognition, but, rather, is the city charter being followed.)

"I'm trying to get past these petty, little things (Like whether or not the City Charter is being followed) that don't make Deltona better," Masiarczyk said. "We're shooting ourselves in the foot every day."

That said, Masiarczyk said he's willing to go along with whatever recognition program the commission decides it wants. (I've heard that one before from another Mayor..let's see what this one does. He's "...willing to go along with"? Question: Does he have a choice not to go along with a Commission's decision?)

 

2/15/11:

Mr. Erickson, welcome to the club. I know the feeling of having Mayor Garcia interrupt you when you are having a meeting with the door closed.

It has happened to me at least five times. Once with the City Manager, twice with the Assistant City Manager and twice with a previous Planner. At least you got knocks, I didn’t get knocks all the time. It’s just RUDE and there are few instances that would allow this to be acceptable. By giving no regard to anything but himself is very RUDE and should never be done. It would not surprise me if City Staff is also subject to this kind of rudeness!

I wonder if the roles were reversed, and I just walked in on him while he was meeting with someone behind closed doors of his office, what his reaction would be. I’m sure I would be told a few things about my actions.

This is stepping out of bounds of what the duties of the Office of Mayor are, as outlined in our Charter. And while I’m on the subject of the physical office of the Mayor, I would like to ask a question: Has the Mayor ever done anything for anyone resulting from a meeting in his office? I venture to say the answer will be no.

Lenny Marks

DeBary

 

 

2/12/11:

"MAYOR CREEP"

Given what Mr. Groot is talking about below in addition to other commentary cited below combined with the Florida League of Mayors, I’m coming to the conclusion that the role of Mayor is morphing into something else. Worse than putting it to a vote of the people, the Mayors are just doing it. Creating expectations where there shouldn’t be any, putting their Councils in compromising situations, and coming right up to the line of violating the Charter.

There is something going on around here. It’s subtle. And I’m going to use the term that County Chairman Bruno used when he referred to the VGMC going beyond their scope of duties as outlined in their Charter and he said it was “mission creep” which occurs. Going beyond written, defined duties.

Well, this is “Mayor Creep”. The limited duties of being a Mayor is creeping into the day to day affairs of the cities reserved only for the Council as a whole or the City Manger individually. It can lead to Cities being put in weak positions in terms of legalities and/or it commits the Council to issues where they feel they have to go along with it and then if they don’t the Mayor looks good because he can blame it on the Council. Or, if after the Council says “no” the Mayor can state, “I’ll work with you.”

Once I was in a closed door conference in the City Manager’s office and Mayor Garcia just walked in as he knocked on the door. Another time he interupted a meeting to bring me into the hallway to talk about how the City was going to help some citizen. It tells me a great deal. It tells me that Mayor Garcia has no problem just opening doors thinking he can go anywhere in City Hall and just interrupt and insert himself into a situation. I wonder if any Council member currently or formerly would corroborate what happened to me also has happened to them. But there are people in this City who actually believe that the Mayor runs the City. They wrote it in letters to me during the office issue. They think he is in a CEO position. This is “Mayor Creep” – getting people to believe that the Mayor is responsible for much more than what is literally outlined in the City Charter.

Read the commentary below taken from various sources and look up the Florida League of Mayors: what Mayors can do to serve their cities. What if a city’s charter doesn’t really agree with what these Mayors want to do? Interestingly and in all fairness, DeBary is not a charter member in this Mayor’s club. Neither is Orange City or Deltona. Mayor Garcia is on record saying he is not a member nor does he want to be and I agree with him and support him in those statements; I hope he continues to hold that thought.

 

DELTONA DÉJÀ VU – SAY IT AINT SO

 

In his prior terms, Deltona Mayor John Masiarczyk acted like a strong mayor in a city that does not have a strong-mayor form of government. 

Masiarczyk promised to correct that mistake of the past. Thus, I had hoped to see Deltona government with all city commissioners hitting on all cylinders within the city charter's mandated form of government. That has not occurred. Promises have been broken.

The words of Ronald Reagan to President Carter in their debate ring in my ears: “There he goes again.” Mayor Masiarczyk has parked himself at City Hall like a Mayor Daley of Chicago. That is wrong and infringes upon the offices of the other city commissioners.

The Deltona City Charter and city code mention the mayor only about 10 times, while the City Commission is mentioned about 90 times. The Deltona charter provides “[t]here shall be a seven-member City Commission, consisting of a Mayor and six Commissioners” and that six commissioners are assigned to districts, while “[t]he remaining Commission seat shall be designated as the ‘Mayor's Seat’." Thus, the mayor is only a commissioner with additional very limited duties.

The charter also provides that all “legislative and police powers of the City shall be vested in the Commission.” The commission is mentioned first in the charter in terms of powers and duties, and the charter provides that it has broad and expansive powers.

If that is not clear enough, the charter states “[t]here shall be a Mayor who shall be elected at large and who shall have the same legislative powers and duties as any other Commissioner” except that the mayor presides at meetings, signs documents, and has a ceremonial function (he has certain obligations in declared emergencies).

The city charter also mandates noninterference by the mayor and other commissioners, and states that “[e]xcept for the purpose of inquiry and information, the Commission(ers) … are expressly prohibited from interfering with the performance of the duties of any City employee who is under the direct or indirect supervision of the City Manager or City Attorney.” 

The mayor and other commissioners are bound by this prohibition. The mayor has no right, duty or responsibility to take a role any larger than any other commissioner at City Hall. For the mayor to post himself in City Hall and act a something more than a commissioner would be malfeasance. All commissioners should have equal access to the city manager and attorney, and the manager should be competent and open and transparent enough to not fear commissioners being well informed by her staff, in order to serve the public who elected the commission.

And, let’s not forget the most important fact. The citizens elect the commission. The commission appoints its attorney and manager. When a mayor seeks to be a strong mayor — have excessive powers, dominate debate, direct staff and the like — he interferes with the public’s choices in electing their commissioners. Likewise, for a mayor to criticize those who interact with elected commissioners would interfere with the basic right of citizenship as set forth in the Florida Constitution, which provides that “[t]he people shall have the right to instruct their representatives.”

Let’s not have what Yogi Berra called “déjà vu all over again” in Deltona. Commissioners, please exercise your office. Mister Mayor, please constrain yourself to yours.

— Groot, an attorney who lives in Deltona, is a Deltona city-government watchdog.

 

Give Deltona commission a chance

posted Feb 7, 2011 - 10:47:41am

Editor, The Beacon:

After reading the commentary by Lonnie Groot in the Weekend Beacon, I wanted to run right over and put a crying towel in his mailbox. The new mayor and commission have only had a couple of meetings, and Groot is already prejudging their work.

His commentary is written out of a dislike for Mayor Masiarczyk that is obvious. (From Norm: Masiarczyk admitted to overstepping as evidenced in Groot’s editorial. So this citizen is doing the typical thing: you’ve used facts against my friend so what Groot is doing must be personal it couldn’t possibly be on principle; but Mr. Edmonds will be the first to argue that what the Mayor of Deltona does is always based on principle and never for political motivations. The performance is always the same – it’s only the actors that change.)

Let's give this new mayor and commission a little time to do the work we all in Deltona want to see done, instead of sticking a knife in that process. (From Norm: we can’t do the job and follow the process…or even the charter? )

Thank you.

Edward Edmonds
Deltona

*********

From the Daytona Beach News Journal

Deltona commissioners air manager complaints

By MARK HARPER, Staff writer

  January 27, 2011

Masiarczyk says the commission workshop was intended to open the lines of communications between commissioners and Miller, as well as clarify his own understanding of the city charter.

That document prohibits commissioners "from interfering with the performance of the duties of any city employee who is under the direct supervision of the city manager or city attorney."

The group talked at length about what's considered interference. Masiarczyk, who spends a lot of time at City Hall, said he regularly talks with Miller and her staff members. But on Wednesday, Commissioner Herb Zischkau said Masiarczyk was attempting to carry on a de facto mayor-run government that had been in place under the previous mayor, Dennis Mulder.

"John is the swing vote," Zischkau said. "He stepped into the system he was bequeathed, and he can tell Faith Miller how high to jump."

Zischkau is the other commissioner, along with Carmolingo, to say he doesn't regularly meet with the manager one on one.

Carmolingo said he still supports Miller as manager because, simply, it's not the right time for a change.

But he called himself "a very unhappy camper" because of his impression that Tuesday's meeting was called because Miller had complained to Masiarczyk about him.

1/27/11:

From MISSIONMAN on Mr. Meister's blog:

If we had a strong Mayor, we would not have two or three bumpkin councilmen trying to take charge of the city and making us look like the laughing stock of Volusia County. We would not have a Mayor that rides around in his own vehicle and conducts city business like it was selling life insurance. He would have hands on with the city staff on all matters that pertain to the city. The heck with this one individual that was not voted by the people having this much control. I voted for the Mayor and he should run the affairs of the city.

The Council would have the same control as they do now but instead of reporting to this city manager, they would have to report to the one that should be running our city, the Mayor!

 

2/9/11:

Blogger Mac:

How Discourse is Lost in DeBary

When I wrote my essay on Mr. Carson wanting a fireworks show it was met with criticism by “Mac” on Meister’s blog. Mac tried to say that I didn’t hear what I heard. That Mr. Carson didn’t say what he said. Or, more likely, I shouldn’t be critical of someone who has lived in DeBary this long – it’s off limits. This goes back to the core group of people who ran DeBary before it was a city, ran it while it was a City, and are trying like hell to hold on to running it as we grow beyond the tether of just a few people wagging the dog.

It’s the same attack tactic that’s used over and over but only on some individuals. It sums up my three years on the Council for just a few issues that struck a friendship nerve. Mac’s attack is the one representing the many that have come before and the many that will be coming. It’s the template. The archetype – oh god, a three syllable, SAT word…now you’ve gone too far, Erickson.

The repeating theme goes like this:

I quote facts like Mr. Carson’s only mentioned event is fireworks. Mr. Koval asked this at the 1/19/11 meeting and Carson’s only reply was a fireworks display that has not happened in the 36 years he’s been in DeBary. He didn’t know the cost for a fireworks display. Mr. Carson asked why haven’t we been doing this as a City? He was NOT outraged by this, but incredulous might fit the bill. He didn’t offer any other example asked for by Mr. Koval. One example is all he brought to the table. This is his most pressing concern given the state of the state, county and city are in. This is something you can watch from 14:45-15:45 of the meeting. Watch it for yourself.

To this, Mac, the blogger from Meister’s blog wrote:

“Lets see Mr.Carson wants a firework event hmm.I think for someone who did not attend the meetings of late we are like usual without the facts.I believe we are still caught up in the Mary Ann issue. When will you grow up?”

This is what passes for discourse in DeBary – not just Meister’s blog. This is what passes for argument at the podium and in conversations in the streets and the aisles of Winn Dixie and restaurant booths. I never mentioned Maryann; it has nothing to do with it. But in the past when I brought her up I was met with the same inane arguments and attacks. It looks like Mac, he was at the meeting but wasn’t paying attention. I watched on the computer and did understand it. I’ve cited my evidence. It’s on the record. Mac doesn’t like it so he says it’s not true, when it is, and that I should “grow up”. Now there’s an intelligent remark.

Mac provides the best example of what happens in this town to anyone when they cite facts with some commentary that cuts against a friend or perhaps someone providing some benefit or perceived benefit to them or another friend: they get attacked not on the facts which are unassailable but personally.

Also, I said that the Mayor had been working on this Committee that Mr. Carson put forward for 6 months. I was WRONG – and I admit it. The Mayor stated at the 2/2 meeting starting at 1:53:04 that he had been working on this for 6 or 7 months with Asst. City Manager Blissett and he, the Mayor, was happy Mr. Carson “you stepped forward to do this.” The Mayor was thanking Mr. Carson for taking up where the Mayor left off with names of businesses to help Mr. Carson.

This is all stated on the record. This wasn’t even Mr. Carson’s brain child. It’s a non-committee. No appointments but noticed like every other committee the City has created. “Ad hoc” committee. That means no rules. No procedures. There’s nothing that can’t do that’s wrong. This is Team Volusia: a mix of private and public. This is the Mayor collecting money to fund the Strategic Planning Committee to give us items to vote upon. Public to say everyone is involved and it’s democratic; private so there are no Sunshine Laws, process or procedures to gum up the works. It’s a non-committee, committee with members that aren’t appointed members but raise money from private donors for – the City to spend? I’m not sure. I’m not sure the one(s) who came up with this are sure. They’ll make it up as they go along and if there’s a snag – when there are no rules, then there are no rules to break.

As an aside, after watching two City Council meetings, the two Council members with 11 years experience between them (Mr. Lenzen and Mr. Carson) need to take the lead to run the meetings with motions and seconds; Mr. Mayor, make a motion - it's allowed for by the Robert's Rules of Order resolution - take the leadership position that you are in to make motions and get it going.

The meetings are not running as they should; adding the Mayor's office to the agenda was fumbled. Making a motion generally speaking is fumbled and this where only one CM is actually new: Mr. Koval. All the others have been there. CM's need to go to the meeting attempting to know more than anyone else in the room about what is being discussed; how else are they to really evaluate the CM and City Attorneys? Also, I don't elect people to be at every City event in the City; I want officials on the dais who can read, discuss, debate, parse, and read all the codes and understand them as well or better than the individuals who, on the organizational chart at least, are below them. But I'm in the minority. Showhorses and workhorses...we each have our own preferences.

Norm Erickson

 

2/8/11:

From "MAC" on Meister's blog:

Lets see Mr.Carson wants a firework event hmm.I think for someone who did not attend the
meetings of late we are like usual without the facts.

Thank you for reading POP, MAC. I remember you're the one who brought my wife and kid into the issue on Meister's blog.

2/5/11:

 

 

1/31/11:

Mr. Carson’s #1 priority: FIREWORKS

Various issues facing DeBary: State budget short falls in the billions, water wars that the Mayor has talked about, stormwater issues, TOD Planning to review, LDC to review, issues concerning gambling and horse track racing, Team Volusia issue to deal with, and possibly creating a Land Planning Agency.

Mr. Carson’s first issue: we need a fireworks event.

This is his first order of business. He also will take the lead in creating another committee called the Community Event Committee to brainstorm more events for someone to pay for. CM Carson will be chairing first meeting on 2/17, but I'm not sure that CM can be on Council and on a Committee at the same time.

Look around the country and you’ll see what most already know:

Clayton's fireworks were snuffed out this year because of budget cuts, Harding told ABCNews.com. Many towns can't afford the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for fireworks and the necessary security and safety costs.

Harding said the town has had to lay people off and could not justify spending the $12,000 on a fireworks celebration when every dollar counts. People seem to understand.

"My constituents are actually happy and think it was a fiscally good and responsible decision," Harding said.

Here are five stories all from summer of 2010 from around the country talking about cutting what Mr. Carson is proposing.

1. http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/Politics/july-4th-fireworks-celebrations-canceled-budget-cuts/story?id=11053613
2. http://www.akron.com/pages.asp?aID=7713
3. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/06/13/opinion/doc4c13732f06191468001055.txt
4. http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2010/07/02/budget-cuts-fireworks-and-the-4th-of-july/
5. http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/politics/budget-woes-fizzle-firework-shows

Businesses sponsoring the fireworks need to consider insurance, security, and liability issues which the articles above cited.

On Wednesday the Council will probably create a Community Events Committee.

Norm Erickson

 

 

1/29/11:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mayor Garcia, Council Members Hunt, Lenzen and Koval who answered a question I e-mailed them. I did not receive a reply from Council Member Carson.

I did send him two e-mails: the first on 1/13/11 and the second on 1/21/11 with no reply. Councilman Carson if you remember the oath of office you swore to on 1/5/11, whether you like it or not, I am now a citizen and I am a part of this great City.

Here is the question that I asked to the Mayor and Council Members: have you ever met with Mr. Steve Costa or any of his attorneys to reintroduce discussion concerning the implementation of a race track/card room in DeBary?

I am wishing you all the success in the continued upward direction of the City of DeBary. 

Lenny Marks

DeBary

1/28/11:

THE NEXT STEP?

 

 

1/27/11:

From MISSIONMAN on Mr. Meister's blog:

I know everyone will get their panties all bunched up in a wad and we shall repeat over and over again that this is not in the City Charter that was brought down from a mountain by George Coleman, but I think it is time to explore the idea of having a strong Mayor type of government in DeBary. I am sick and tired of spending so much money on an individual that may last 3-5 years and then walk away with a monster severance pay off. Give me a break.

If we had a strong Mayor, we would not have two or three bumpkin councilmen trying to take charge of the city and making us look like the laughing stock of Volusia County. We would not have a Mayor that rides around in his own vehicle and conducts city business like it was selling life insurance. He would have hands on with the city staff on all matters that pertain to the city. The heck with this one individual that was not voted by the people having this much control. I voted for the Mayor and he should run the affairs of the city.

The Council would have the same control as they do now but instead of reporting to this city manager, they would have to report to the one that should be running our city, the Mayor!

We have been very fortunate to have a strong Mayor now that did not back down from those certain individuals that tried to get him out of office. He was able to retrieve some of the money that the government owed the city according to some of the publications (From Norm: No, Mr. Seelbinder did this - it was testified to under oath at the Public Hearing. The Mayor had nothing to do with getting that money - it was the City Manager) Yet we pay good money for two people ( manager and assistant) to run the city. This makes no sense whatsoever. If we had a strong Mayor, maybe we could keep down the money paid to the law firm that works for the city. Seems like they make a killing off of us TWICE A MONTH instead of once. This is another argument I will pursue.

 

FROM LENNY MARKS POSTED ON POP IN 11/19/10:

When Mayor Garcia makes statements that “The form of government 5-10 years ago was good – but nowadays its not.” or “The idea of running this government nowadays can’t be run under the principles…of a weak mayor – the mayor must be proactive.” What I don’t know is why the Mayor is going down the road to change our form of government without citizen approval.

From Norm: No comment is necessary...the writing is on the wall in the Mayor's office. Why is Mr. Meister allowing anonymous posts when he despised it when it was on POP?

 

 

 

1/19/11:

APATHY: THE BIGGEST THIEF OF ALL

WHY SO FEW PEOPLE RUN FOR OFFICE

“Our current political system ensures not that the worst will get on top--though they often do--but the best will never even apply” Paul Jacob

Why do so few people run for office and can anything be done about it? Those are not hard questions to answer. There is enough blame to go around. From government wanting to have total control of all decisions to elected officials, who mean well, but do not have a clue as to how the system works. They just wanted to run to make a difference but ended up getting manipulated by special interest groups, developers, and lawyers.

Then you must ask yourself: is the challenge worth it; can you make the difference you believe you can? Can you deal with the individual cost of running? Can you handle the disrespect you will receive?

I’ve put together a list of some of the not-so-nice things that a candidate or incumbent will have to deal with and the consequences they will pay:

• Political Scandal
• Blogs (nasty things written about you and/or your family and of course the cowards won’t even sign their name)
• Piled On
• Hammered On
• Threats (to you and/ or your family)
• Rumors
• Innuendos
• Jokes
• Mocking
• Marginalized
• Baited

Then there is the financial costs (fund raising). The large amount of money a challenger has to raise the better he/she will do. But remember the incumbent has set up his network of donators years in advance. You can come up against the big political machine candidate that can raise a lot more money than you can, period. More money means being able to get their message out to more people (mailers, signs, newspapers, etc). Some politicians understand the only way to get re-elected is by giving in to their constituent’s requests. Right or wrong! If you are serious about campaigning, you will go door to door explaining your platform. This takes a considerable amount of time to accomplish. And if you should win, the work load is tremendous and places an enormous amount of stress on both you and your family. Then the incredible amount of time you will spend away from your family, and lastly, the giving up of your personal time.

You can lose good friends if you do not agree on some issues. It’s an ongoing situation where people just don’t understand how the system works. You are guided by rules and laws, you take an oath to uphold these rules and laws, yet there are some who will be angry with you if you do not support their position. When you are in front of your constituents, you feel their demands at all times to deliver. This causes a tremendous amount of pressure because there are things that just can’t be addressed because of those nasty rules and laws. Now the rub comes in, do council members go by the rules or laws, or appease their constituents or some other special interest group by allowing a vote that is against said rules or laws? Good-bye friend!

One of the most misunderstood situations I had to deal with while sitting on the Council, was to vote “NO” on an item that came up for a vote that was not permitted by codes, City ordinances or State statures. To vote “Yes” was not an option. Many times an agenda item came before council that by the rules and laws “NO” is the only option that is allowed. But many feel that you should say “Yes” even if it’s wrong because it affects them directly so to hell with the rules and laws! You just can’t have it both ways.

If good has been done, certain groups will accuse you of selfish hidden motives. Do well anyway. Then, the name calling starts by certain groups, especially on the blogs. This is when the cowards go to town and write whatever negative, degrading, inhuman, bullshit they can come up. Writing all the bullshit they can and not having the courage to sign their names to the end of their tirades. Are you proud of yourselves?

DeBary has had a high percentage of uncontested political races. This is not something new; this has been going on for a long time, not only in DeBary, but throughout the Country, and this is why apathy is so thick. This is another reason why people don’t run for office and people don’t go out to vote. There is no interest in running, and the voter feels their vote means very little. This is caused in large part by uncontested elections. Voters should have choices when they vote and this is the way democracy should be. Democracy is better served when the people have more and better choices at the polls. I would speculate that there is a larger voter turn out in DeBary whenever we see multi-candidates in each race. This alone will bring about a heavier turn out at the voting precincts. When there are more choices, more debates, the voter’s knowledge on the issues increase and democracy operates at a higher standard.

What has gotten us to this dismal state of political competition? It can be summed up in one word: APATHY!

The questions you have to answer when you consider something like this are: do you think you can make a difference? Is it going to matter? If you are considering about running for political office, what you must ask yourself is, will anything I do make a difference? If someone decides to run for office, there is a good chance they will have a problem with this question, and do not know how to respond. I’m sure we all believe in our hearts, if we run that we will make a difference and bring change for the better. If someone decides to run and truly feels that he/she can make a difference, don’t feel bad when the reality sets in that you are held up by rules and laws. Then, there is the political machine that will undermine you if you are not in agreement with their visions. It’s not easy to make the right decisions when pressures are applied, and when some are not willing to abide by the codes.

I ran in 2007 for City Council because I thought I could make a difference. The fact is, if I had known more about the dark side of DeBary city politics (believe me it exists) I probably would have thought twice about running. I am glad I ran and won. I was optimistic enough to believe I would make a difference and I did. As tough as it became at times, I feel I did accomplish a lot of good for the City and its people. I know I left the City in much better condition than when I first started.

It's a difficult task from start to finish. Don’t get me wrong, there are some rewarding times, which are great little breaks, but few and far between. You must be willing to put in the time, take your lumps, do your homework and hold the line on right and wrong. If you can do all this, then go for it, you have a good chance of being successful.

Lenny Marks

DeBary

 

1/16/11:

I remember Mr. Conoley saying many times to people at the podium: "Say what you mean and mean what you say."

In May of 2010 Mr. Conoley called every Council member "incompetent and corrupt"; he used this as his excuse for quitting.

Yet here is the latest from his website: "The Honorable Jack Lenzen will finish his second term in December, 2011, and he is not allowed to seek re-election. "

The "honorable"? What happened to "incompetent and corrupt"?

I'm glad Mr. Conoley has, apparently, changed his mind...

Norm Erickson

p.s. Interestingly, in the same article Mr. Conoley writes the following: "Also, Mayor Robert Garcia will finish his  term in December, 2011." Given a few more months, perhaps Mr. Conoley will deem the Mayor will be "Honorable" as well.

 

1/15/11:

LESSONS LEARNED

PART II:

UNWELCOME TRUTHS

 

A 19th Century Arctic Explorer and DeBary

John Rae’s accomplishments surpassed all 19 th Century Arctic explorers yet he was denied fair recognition because he uttered the truth about the fate of Sir John Franklin and his crew. Rae found the last link in the long-sought Northwest Passage and uncovered the grisly truth about the last days of Franklin’s expedition. In was in just these unwelcome truths that Rae’s problems began and enemies acted against him to ruin his established reputation. The citations below are from an amazing book Fatal Passage: The Story of John Rae, The Arctic Hero Time Forgot by Ken McGoogan. In reading this book the parallels of uttering unwelcome truths easily overlapped with my experiences on the Council.

John Rae offers an early example “…of an explorer shunned for presenting facts with which the establishment, the public or the press were not pleased” (pg. 259).

By openly voicing his contempt for the opinions and accomplishments of men like Kennedy and Richard King, Rae made bitter enemies. When he later became vulnerable by defending unwelcome truths…his enemies would jump at the opportunity to destroy his good name (pg. 159).

Privately, Arctic veterans such as Sir John Richardson, Sir John Ross, and Leopold McClintock accepted the truth of Rae’s report. Publicly, the explorer stood alone (pg. 214).

My three years can be summed up in two words: unwelcome truths. It’s what people just didn’t want to hear because it went against their friend or special interest. “…presenting facts with which the establishment, the public or the press were not pleased” (pg. 259). Or it went against such a long held belief that the truth was simply not welcomed. Or people simply didn’t want change.

Interesting how with SunRail or Smart Growth policies, “change” is a positive thing – that type of change is difficult but necessary and that’s all ok. We’re told to accept that change. But change for the better when it goes against friendship and/or the “good ole’ boy” system and/or other special interests of developers/applicants that’s bad change. Or as the herd likes to bleat, “Baaaaaaad Change.”

Lastly, it surprised me that I had something else in common with a 19th Century Arctic explorer: ice holes. Ice holes are just part of the landscape which, for the most part, is devoid of such entities. John Rae came to the conclusion that if one spent too much time looking for and paying attention to ice holes, they would miss the beauty of the surrounding landscape and the real issues of the day – it’s amazing how the same lesson can be applied even in a sub-tropic environment.

Norm Erickson

 

 

 

1/14/11:

Will Mr. Meister Apologize to Ms. Emerson?

Below is an email to me from Ms. Emerson:

"...was surprised to see my name in the Mark Miester one way attack…piece….i have been trying to determine what exactly my part in this story is and cannot find the beacon blog or whatever format used to tie in my name.  Could you please tell me exactly what details are associated with my name in this piece….and you would have guessed correct mark meister never called to confirm anything with me…therefore..i want to know exactly what prompted the addition of my name….thanks…val"

 

 

 

1/13/11:

LESSONS LEARNED

PART I

The question I’m asked the most about being on the Council is “What did you learn?” My response: quite a bit…

People like to refer to DeBary as a gem; “…a gem can’t be polished without friction, nor man perfected without trials…” – Leonard Marks.

Over the last three years I’m glad I was on the Council to see Robert’s Rules of Order adopted, two meetings a month adopted and actual procedures adopted for Public Hearings so that they are all run consistently and fairly. I didn’t do any of these things; the Council did. But I was an advocate for them all. Taxes were modestly raised once to pay for some safety items under capital improvements as well as starting the paving of Ft. Florida Road – thank you City Manager Parrott for bringing this back to Council’s attention. The issues I ran on were addressed and corrected. The Council did it. I’m glad they did because in the summer of 2007 I was really concerned about who was managing this City; I no longer have that concern.

I said “Yes” to some growth and “No” to others…but the Council as a whole decided. This notion that “I” or “Lenny and Norm” passed policy is humbug and just goes to show the personal attacks once again. This idea back in 2007 of “we can’t say no” to growth just meant that some individuals didn’t know how to say “no” so that it would hold up under the scrutiny from a higher court. Now we know better.

A competent City Manager and Assistant City Manager were hired and I didn’t do this, but the Council and City Manager did. I was a strong advocate for new management from the beginning. I’m glad I didn’t quit after that first loss, but, rather, stayed in it and eventually was able to work with the Council to bring in a new City Manager.

I did read my packet, I did call out humbug when I heard it, and I did read the codes, comp plan, articles, books, and researched issues coming before the City. I gave two power point presentations to the Council on the Comp Plan and Smart Growth. I read, read, read, and read. Being on the Council is really all about reading.

I’m glad there was a change in focus on stormwater: we started to focus more on the center of the city and move outward rather than the end points and work backwards. I think this was a better way to go and more citizens were served by it. It was the Council that did it.

I’ve learned a lot and I’ve made any number of mistakes. Here are some that come to mind:

 

Fiction is preferred over facts; I thought it was going to be the other way around; I was wrong.

People will say anything regardless of history, facts, or the record. They will just say it. The sun came up in the west today…people nod their heads in agreement…

I learned that in DeBary we don’t talk about things publicly even if we all realize it privately. So I broke that taboo. I will continue to do so.

Some people are invulnerable to facts.

Friendships are preferred over facts.

People saying they stand on principle only do so because it impacts their friend or themselves…if the same inappropriateness happens on a different issue not impacting them or their friends, they couldn’t care less.

Too few citizens are involved in their City’s issues.

When convenient Norm and Lenny were often cited with the power to pass items all by themselves, as if there weren’t three other Council members.

The media couldn’t care less about DeBary…until there is a story that they can misconstrue. The exception is Pat Hatfield from the Deland-Beacon and I already have an editorial in the hopper for this issue.

I learned that I can be interpreted as an “egotistical asshole”…because that is what someone left on my answering machine – surprisingly only once. If that’s how they feel…who am I to argue? Angie Dobies and many, many others will re-read this paragraph over and over…probably with a smile…perhaps they’re even dialing my number.

It’s nearly impossible to find citizens interested in the common good…and when they appear, it is so foreign that it seems impossible that they could govern only for the reason of the common good. So a narrative is started that they are doing it for ego…for political power…for something other than they want competent management of the city. But other individuals…ahhh…yes…they are doing what they are doing because they actually care about this city…they aren’t amassing power or pulling strings. But Erickson…Marks…don’t trust them. The one was a firefighter and the other is a teacher in the public schools….if that doesn’t scream egotistical power hungry individuals who want to rule the world – or at least DeBary, I don’t know what does. You’ve got to watch tricky people like Erickson and Marks.

I learned what the art of bullshitting really is and how it works. Thank you, Professor Frankfurt for your book “On Bullshit”…it led to the writing of one of my favorite essays.

I learned that Barbara Poulton reads more books than I do; she probably understands them better, too.

I learned that DeBary isn’t “12 Angry Men” but, rather, “To Kill A Mockingbird”. Go watch both films or read the play and the book at the library.

I learned that I can make a lot of motions and Lenny can second a lot of motions. I made so many motions, I became addicted to Dramamine. I also learned that if we didn’t do that, I heard crickets.

I learned that I can be interpreted as an “egotistical asshole”…I repeated this just for your enjoyment, Angie.

I learned that I was supported privately but rarely publicly.

And lastly, I learned again that my wife really does love me – she’d have to in order to put up with all the ballyhoo for the past three years. She is all at once my escape from life and the antidote for it. How she is going to put up with me running for office again and perhaps winning, I’ll never know. But that’s another essay for another time.

LESSONS LEARNED PART II WILL DEAL WITH ARCTIC EXPLORATION AND DEBARY…NO, IT’S NOT A TYPO.

Norm Erickson

 

 

 

1/7/11:

When Mr. Meister posited that Lenny or I had changed the language in the business tax ordinance, I suggested he provide the original language, our changes, and how it moved the ordinance to a more controlling document for businesses. Below is what he posted. My response is in blue - Norm.

If you look at all that has happened in the last three years, it tends to want to make your head spin. Lets look at the issues that have happened:

1. Lets Fire Maryann Campaign Promise. The Council did this not Norm.

2. The Anti- Horse Track Campaign. Council voted against it not Norm. I’m not anti-track…just anti-bad contract and anti-this doesn’t agree with our Comp Plan. Did anyone wanting the Track actually read the full packet?

3. DeBary Pop using false names to get points acrossed. ( NEVER REALLY PROVEN BUT THESE PEOPLE NEVER WROTE AGAIN ON POP ). I’ve fully dealt with this in Surveying the Electronic Landscape Part I.


4. Trying to remove the Mayor from his elected office. Mayor proved his case was unfounded. Legal wins again!! The Council did this not Norm. And it all comes down to whether or not the Council wants to follow the Charter or not. If a Council member misses more than three meetings without a reason, it triggers a public hearing. If that were to happen, would we NOT want the Council to follow the Charter? I’m sure Mr. Meister WOULD want the Council to follow the charter in that circumstance - had it been Lenny or Norm missing the meetings that is. Someone else…well…they had a good reason and we can’t hold that against him/her so stopping attacking that person.

5. The Mayor was removed from his physical office and now conducts business in his personal vehicle in parking lots and business establishments throughout the City. Good fodder for jokes county wide. That’s the Mayor’s choice. I read my packet at home where I have two teenage step-daughters and a newborn. I met residents in one of the three conference rooms.

6. Mr. Erickson using DeBary Pop to get his own personal messages out WHILE he still is an elected official. He chastized Vice- Mayor Patrick Fulton for his weekly report while Fulton served. I have First Amendment rights and Mr. Fulton passed off the weekly reports as his own. Why is this brought up since it happened six years ago? The fact that Mr. Meister didn't criticize Mr. Fulton for what he is now criticing me for says it all.

7. Mr. Marks asks Council to disband Economic Development and Advisory Committee saying that the committee was too powerful and not listening to Council's direction while no direction was given. The EDAC was being used improperly at the time and Mr. Watts was actually making motions for the EDAC. Regardless, the COUNCIL made this decision not Mr. Marks…does “majority vote” not mean anything to you, Mr. Meister?

 

8. Weaver and lack of a proper background check. Ah, the best for last. Lenny asked Anthony Gonzalez about the background check and everything that had come in was clean. It was stopped because Mr. Weaver declined the position. Why did he decline? According to the ICMA Ethics Committee it was because the Mayor and citizens had so poisoned the atmosphere it was impossible for Mr. Weaver to work here. All facts. And now, let us remember what Mr. Carson said of Ms. Courson: “…nothing illegal was found or she would be in jail .” (SOURCE: 10/13/10: From the Bob in DeBary Radio Show). Those pesky facts and quotes on the record. So, using the recently re-elected Mr. Carson’s philosophy and reasoning, Mr. Weaver must have been a great City Manager that the Mayor and citizens ran off because he did nothing illegal or he would have been in jail; he was not; ipso facto he was a great City Manager – to use the reasoning of Mr. Carson.

I have no doubt that I missed something in this list. Do not get me wrong, this council did a great job on the TOD and The Comp Plan. The question I ask is whether all the bad press was worth it all in the end and how much damage was done that legit businesses would be discouraged to come to DeBary.

It was worth it to have a competent City Manager, Asst. City Manager and City Planner installed. We now know how much cash we have and things are being run in a professional manner. This is my opinion. If you want to go back to sticking your head in the ground…I can’t help you. Also, you’re left with six issues total after you deduct the POP items. Six items in three years and you’re talking about Council decisions. The office issue and Weaver issue were exploded not by Norm or Lenny but by other people. The public hearing…all depends on whether or not you want to follow the Charter. No one had a problem with Mr. Chapman calling for a public hearing on Mr. Conoley with NO evidence; but with the Mayor’s own words tripping the hearing…oh god no…things got more unhinged that a cellar door in a Cat 5 hurricane.

I can't wait to see the negative editorial that will be produced within a 24 hour period. Couldn’t do it in a 24 hour period…I’m good…but not that good.

Any criticism based on facts is construed as negative by Mr. Meister and many other people. I can’t help that.

I'm still waiting for that language you said on your blog that I introduced or Lenny introduced to change that ordinance.

Norm Erickson

 

1/3/11:

Surveying the Electronic Landscape: Part I

 

To begin, you’re welcome Mr. Meister for giving you something to finally talk about on your blog.

This essay has at its core three aspects: the first two are Mr. Meister’s criticism of DeBary POP as it relates to negativity and pseudonyms; both of these are present on Mr. Meister’s blog which makes him a hypocrite to allow what he says he detests. If his response is “freedom of speech” then why doesn’t POP get that pass? But then again, having two sets of rules is what DeBary is all about. Thirdly, is the irony of Mr. Meister and his sort that hold POP to a standard to which they never held previous city management.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. Mr. Meister started his website in response to POP. By that reckoning, DeBaryPOP is the father of debarydialog.com and given some recent behavior, it is time for the father to give the son a stern talking to, a slap on the fannie and send him to the corner.

From the Daytona Beach News Journal, Nov. 8th 2010 written by Mark Harper:

“ Meister said sometimes the DeBary POP has too much criticism for his liking.”

"I wanted a site in which people could open up and talk rather than blogging you to death," he (Mark Meister) said.

But when asked whether his decision to start DeBary Dialogue was personal, Meister responded: "Oh, buddy, is it ever. It's personal."

From Mr. Meister's website 12/18: “I take responsibility for everything that goes on with this site.”

Here are some posts from Mr. Meister’s website in the first two or three weeks of being online:

Nelson YOU are a RACIST!!!!!!! I can not believe Mark let you become a global Moderator after your remarks on the yahoo group I quit visiting the site,but now that your vulgar mouth with a smeared finger to insult who ever you feel. Stand down who do you think you are???

I would love to see you on the streets a**h***!

-----Angie Dobies

From Norm: Update: Fact: Nelson is no longer a global moderator.

******************************************

From Younggun:

Lenin Marks and his co-conspirtor Norman the King (blown away like a Leaf Erickson) need to be upset by losing control about their past attempts of controlling the media.

*************************************************

Re: Mayor Garcia
« Result #2 Yesterday at 11:15pm »

From : seikfan: Nelson, Mark was cautioning YOU. You're a bigot and an idiot. You're so useless, you don't warrant my time or energy.

From: hamandegger:

I think he (Norm Erickson) should now be referred to as abnorm instead of norm since he is quite abnormal.

***********************************************************

Again, from Daytona Beach News Journal, Nov. 8 th 2010 written by Mark Harper:

“Meister said sometimes the DeBary POP has too much criticism for his liking.”

Here is the latest on Mr. Meister’s blog from “Mac”:

Re: A Statement about Last Nights Council Meeting
« Result #3 on Dec 31, 2010, 9:12pm »

Just visited DeBary Pop and was totally disgusted on how our departing Mayor could speak in such vulgar undertones your wife and little daughter really have someone in their lives to be proud of.
************************************************************

“Mac” brings my wife and infant daughter into the conversation? And Mr. Meister allows this on his website? Say anything you want about me…but my wife and 11 month old infant? Really? When you can’t fight the facts, attack the person and their family. And by the way, I couldn’t find “Mac” on the Volusia County Appraiser’s website nor is he a registered voter. Also, I wasn't the "Mayor" but "Vice-Mayor", and you left out a period at the end of your sentence; I notice that the angrier people get, the worse their spelling gets.

Again, from Daytona Beach News Journal, Nov. 8 th 2010 written by Mark Harper:

"I wanted a site in which people could open up and talk rather than blogging you to death.” Mark Meister.

I wonder if Nelson feels he was “blogged”?

Mr. Meister always says people just can’t stick to the facts – they have to personally attack people. Mr. Meister always hopes the campaigning for public office will occur without any mud being thrown. Mr. Meister always criticized DeBaryPOP for being so mean spirited. For being so negative. Ok, but..well…why would Mr. Meister allow these comments on his website then?

I could quote more from Mr. Meister’s blog but I think you get the idea. So, if Mr. Meister had a problem with POP’s content why would he, as the moderator, allow the above commentary on his website? Calling someone an “asshole”? Really? "I would love to see you on the streets..."? Why would you allow on your website that which you criticize on POP?

It’s phony and insincere of Mr. Meister to allow on his website the same activities that he continues to criticize on DeBary POP.

Before moving on, consider this fact:

From Mark Meister on a Yahoo Blog from 9/19/2009 talking about POP:

“I have done background checks on such wonderful names as Sanford Greenberg, Rodrick Jones ESQ?, Richard Pressler MD who lives in the Midwestern states. It is shameful that these individuals can go after the Mayor or even private citizens and not have the kahunas to use their real names.”

From Norm: Ok, what about “hamandegger”, “youngguns” and “seikfan” on Mr. Meister’s website? What about "Mac" bringing my wife and daughter into the mix? There are a whole host of other pseudonyms on Mr. Meister’s blog.

Is it shameful for them to go after Lenny and Norm and not use their real names? If they continue to insult Lenny and Norm now that we’re private citizens (as of 12:01 AM 1/1/11), will Mr. Meister still post their comments? Or is it OK because it’s Lenny and Norm and not the Mayor? Again, why would Mr. Meister allow on his blog, what he says POP should not do?

What a wonderful transition sentence to my next topic:

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

Mr. Meister has often commented that some names on DeBaryPOP are not found on the Volusia County Appraiser’s website owning property nor are they registered voters. Ok. Look at the names above: “hamandegger”, “seikfan”, and “Younggun”. Guess what, I couldn’t find these on the Appraiser’s website nor as registered voters either. So why has Mr. Meister allowed his website to duplicate the criticism he directed at DeBary POP?

In any event, whether it is a name or generic signature, Mr. Meister is rarely able to comprehend the content and responds off topic – always. Quite simply, he is doing what he criticized DeBary POP for doing.

THE SAD IRONY IS AND THIS IS MY REAL POINT:

For the last five years - two years before being on the Council - DeBary POP, Norm, Lenny, and John Likakis have been held to a higher standard, a higher level of scrutiny by a whole host of individuals, who said they were concerned with the City, than past City Management was in general and City Manager Courson specifically.

Think about it: It appears that three citizens and a website received more examination, criticism and contempt than the City's former manager, former city planner (GAI), our finances, etc,.

That’s because it’s personal issues and not issues of principle guiding the attacks. When I raise particular facts, individuals attack me as a teacher or call me racist or as the latest proves, they bring my wife and daughter into it because they can’t rebut the facts except with personal attacks and misconstrued information - intentionally or not.

Yet when I raise an actual issue based on a principle or point of view that I hold, I'm met with the response that I'm personally attacking someone. I can't possibly be against offices in City Hall for reasons of principle or to protect our form of government...it's not possible. It's a personal attack against Mayor Bob Garcia...yes...and a racist attack at that...yes... But when Mr. Meister wants emails from Council members or Doll DiSantis wants to see if the POP website is allowed under law, that's for principle...that is looking out for the City. Or running off Ken Weaver with wrong information...unsupported allegations...that's on principle and not personal in anyway.

Every so often a father has to spank the son to get him back in line in the hopes of the son finally learning; it’s clear to me that I’m going to have a very sore hand. You’ve become what you said you despised, Mr. Meister.

I write essays for POP that are factual, reflective, and, at times, humorous. The writings on debarydialog are, in the main, slovenly written and, for the most part, glib. There is little if any proofreading so meaning and clarity are lost, and what is left is more indecipherable than George the Animal Steele singing "Louie Louie" in Farsi while on amyl nitrate.

As for Mr. Conoley’s website I find it worthy of note that a man who ran twice for City Council and served almost half a term on the Council has literally nothing to say about DeBary issues in any of the dozens and dozens of editorials on his site. In addition, many of his editorials are word for word the same editorials that he put on DeBary POP more than four years ago but are passed off now as brand new.

Lastly and as an aside only to the orchestra pit, where is Mr. Chapman? At one time he came to every meeting to criticize Mr. Conoley…er…I mean to say he cared about the City. After Mr. Conoley quit, I never saw Mr. Chapman again save for the office issue. After Mr. Conoley quit, Mr. Chapman’s real reason for being at meetings disappeared; he no longer cares about DeBary because Mr. Conoley isn’t there for Mr. Chapman to berate.

In that respect, I suppose, the case could be made that Mr. Chapman won without having that public hearing or recall vote on Mr. Conoley.

Part II of this essay will deal further with pseudonyms and Mr. Conoley…check back regularly for its posting.

Norm Erickson 

 

1/1/11:

Mr. Meister: One-Way Attacks Only, Please.

This was posted by Mr. Meister on the Beacon blog:

Mark Meister | posted Dec 14, 2010 - 4:05:31am

Anyone that really knows me would know that what I wrote was not to promote my website. Certain individuals decided to turn it against me but I was backing up my point. Its a shame that people would use this moment and what I wrote about it to form an attack on me. I have other ways to promote and it has been working rather well. I will not capitalize on a trajedy and I resent anyone for saying so.

**************************************************

My response:

When I was trying to have a civil discussion about our form of government and the presence of offices, it was inferred I was racist. 

When I was working hard to bring competent management to the City, I was called any number of names in trying to make my point. Mr. Meister was most vocal in these attacks saying I was doing it for power and ego. 

When I was trying to follow the charter as it related to the Mayor possibly violating it, I was attacked by any number of individuals - Mr. Meister being chief among them saying that it was a power play and personal. I was doing it for my ego.

But now someone is conferring motivations on Mr. Meister that he is using the circumstances of Capt. Osowski for promoting his website. And Mr. Meister doesn’t like that…it’s not right to say someone is doing something for unfounded reasons or motivations…is it?

Like Mr. Meister, anyone who knows me knows that I’m not about power or ego or anything of the kind.  I just wanted competent management.  But Mr. Meister attacked me saying that it was personal against Ms. Courson.  It couldn’t possibly be on principle as Mr. Meister was attempting to do with this Osowski matter.  I know what it is to have “… . Certain individuals… turn it against me” as they have against Mr. Meister. Mr. Meister construes motivations for people all the time - without taking that pesky step of even asking the person.  But now he's put off when others attach wrong motivations to his words. Someone is conferring false motivations on someone...but not just someone...Mr. Meister.  This is bizarre because usually it is Mr. Meister conferring the false motivations on...not others...just Lenny and Norm.

I also find it amazing that on your website you detect Val Emerson on the Beacon blog while being so blind to the mismanagement of the City years ago.  And…of course… you’ve called Val to confirm with her, right? You wouldn’t be conferring motivations and published comments about HER without checking…just like people on the blog are conferring motivations on YOU without really checking with you.

You wouldn’t be doing to Val, what you dislike others doing to you, right? And during the high Holy days? For shame!

Mr. Meister wants it only one way. Only he can attack with no truths, half-truths and/or erroneous motivations…but please don’t attack him with the same ammo - or worse with the facts…he really hates that. If Mr. Meister does it, it is ok…but if others do it to him…that is a big no-no.

Norm Erickson

 

12/29:

Below is a posting from Mark Meister:

Mark Meister
Administrator

	Re: DeBary Adds Business Tax « Reply #4 on Nov 30, 2010, 4:00pm »
It was unaminous and I was there for the end conversations. I would have hoped that the ordinance would have been for revenue and not for control of DeBary business. This would have been much better to stomach if this was the case. Mr. Erickson and Marks were the ones that changed the wording of the ordinance at the workshop, making it sound more in line of the control of businesses. The only thing this will help in is by stopping the internet cafe's. Unfortunately the other businesses will have to suffer because of this action.

From Norm: What language changes did we make? Because the only changes I made were grammatical and not to the content and I don’t think Lenny made any changes.

The resolution contains references to both revenue and to control businesses in the sense that if you are not allowed to open that kind of business in that area of the City, DeBary can now say “No” instead of the County saying “Yes” because they did not check what was allowed and made it difficult for us to control what we have on the books.

So, Mr. Meister, please give the language that was originally in the resolution, what changes I and/or Lenny made, and how those changes “made it sound more in line of the control of businesses” as you claim in your posting.

Thank you,

Norm Erickson

 

 

 

 

BACK TO TOP