Light-up McIntosh December 15
Light-up McIntosh will begin at the Civic Center at 6:30 p.m. The event will host Santa Clause and an area choir from six local churches will sing.
03.16.07 -- EDITORIAL: Be angry with me, but don't be thrown asunder
Friday, March 16, 2007
By CHER PHILLIPS
If you didn't notice, I touched a nerve this week, unleashing a literal firestorm in the forums denouncing me and the blog. Since a couple people I talked to were unsure about what one or two of the points in Tuesday's story meant, I'd like to recap and clarify.
See, I think this is pretty important stuff. Other people must too, or they wouldn't be so mad at me for pointing it out. And frankly, it's crossed my mind that all the hollering at me is meant to distract readers from the questions the reporting uncovered.
Florida's ethics laws and the January meetings:
Background: Florida statutes (112.3143) prohibit a municipal official from voting on an issue which might benefit him, or his family, with a special private gain or loss. When something like this comes before a board, a procedure has to be followed in which a statement is read into the record before voting and forms should be filed within 15 days.
In January, Council Vice President Howard Walkup put the issue of rezoning his land, as well as the Stranges and the Glasses on the agenda, and then he voted with the council to send rezoning these three parcels of land to the LPA, on which his brother Jim Walkup is a member. The procedure spelled out in Florida statutes was not followed during the January council and the LPA meetings.
Discussion: For all practical purposes, the January meetings regarding zoning were used to "feel out" the mood of the council and the LPA to see if this rezone would fly. If either Walkup had followed the procedure in statutes, the final decisions on those first votes would have gone the same way. Further, the current council has been open to land owners exercising their property rights.
By not following procedure, this process is into a questionable light. Walkup's rezoning had been voted down by a previous council in 2005. There was personal gain involved in the January votes, even if the meeting just served to test the waters.
The key question in this part of the rezoning issue isn't "Should Howard get his land rezoned?" -- but "Should a councilman use his elected seat to accomplish this?"
Need I mention that the penalties by Florida statute range from removal from office to a $10,000 penalty? Not to mention, the waters are further muddied by the fact that the rezoning process left other land owners, the Wrights, out in the beginning stages.
Going against the will of the council:
Background: In February, the council heard the LPA recommendation and voted to table the issue of rezoning to either a later meeting or a special meeting. The reasons given were that this is an important issue, and people will want to know about it. After the vote, Councilman Lee Deaderick told the land owners to see him if they wanted a special meeting called. The council tossed around the idea of paying for the rezoning of these parcels of McIntosh's agriculture land to residential. To her credit, Mayor Marsha Strange suggested that land owners pay for their own rezoning. Although, she suggested that Walkup not have to pay for his since he's pursued the process already. Nothing in February was decided by the council other than this was an issue that needed to come up with time enough to discuss it.
But by the March council meeting, applications had been filed and planning reports had already been finished by a regional planner, on the town's payroll.
Discussion: As someone pointed out in the forum, land owners can file for zoning changes if they want. I agree. They sure can. But don't expect the town and the taxpayers to pay for something if you aren't going to honor the wishes of a council that was both willing to hear the issue but wanted to do it when residents could be more informed about it.
By pushing this issue through, the residents were put at a disadvantage. Rezoning 20 acres of land in McIntosh is a HUGE issue. It's the tip of the iceberg. Rezoning was contentious for a long time, and rushing it isn't going to change the issues that were at hand in 2005 when Walkup's request was previously turned down.
My other concern is that ignoring the will of the council could become a trend. I look back to the repeal of the historic ordinance and see this is the second time inside a two-month period that this has happened. I've never been a fan of Historic Ordinance 151. But the fact is the council wanted the LPA and the Historic Preservation Board to work on 151 together, not for the LPA to repeal it the first time they met -- without even going through it as a board and addressing the concerns spelled out by council member. Especially since that was specifically stated in a February vote, making it the will of the council.
(I didn't mention this in my report (there is only so much space and story people will read), but Councilwoman Eva Jo Callahan did an excellent job of mediating by asking committees to at least try to work together before the public hearing March 27 to repeal the ordinance altogether.)
Public need versus private need, and future development:
Background: The McIntosh codes say that a public need should be justified to change agricultural zoning.
The other night, the LPA decided that the land owners stated need was sufficient for rezoning the Strange's and Walkup's agriculture land to residential. One board member said need was fulfilled because it was Walkup's need to have his family living close to him.
Discussion: One or two land owners' desires, or even needs, are not necessarily the same thing as the public need-- even if we really like those land owners. And let's face it, we do. They're good people who've given a great deal of service to this town.
But together, this is a whopping chunk of land we're talking about opening up for development.
And that brings me to the final question that I have not seen adequately addressed yet: What EXACTLY is going to go on this land after it's rezoned? A rezoning process should make this clear to a community, or public need can, in no way, be properly determined.
The planning reports show a potential for 36 homes. The 2000 Census reports show there are only 279 housing units in town. It doesn't take very many new homes to significantly increase this community. Does anyone else think that adding even the potential for 36 is something that McIntosh should seriously consider?
While building 36 homes may or may not be the land owners' actual intentions, if the land is zoned for that many homes, that kind of development would be possible.
However, if Walkup and the Stranges just want some land zoned for the purpose of building a few homes for their families, then why not create a zoning classification for that? Or, as Danaya Wright suggested the other night, why not rezone just enough land to allow them to do what they want and need to do?
Another thing that hasn't been considered is that these are only two of six large parcels of land on the southeast end of McIntosh. What happens if these two parcels are zoned at R1, allowing two houses per acre, and then the Burry's, the Glasses and the Wrights decide they'd also like to rezone their land to the same classification? Can the town's facilities really accommodate all six parcels? Or, what if they decide they oppose it? What will the other homeowners on Avenue H think of the kind of traffic that intensive development would bring to that end of town? Nobody polled those folks when they "tested the waters" in January.
It comes down to this: What does McIntosh want future development in the southeastern part of town to be like? I'm just not seeing that question seriously considered in this process.
And, folks, that's the key question residents in this town need to consider. Be angry at me for asking it, if you want. But don't let yourselves be thrown asunder.
Labels: editorial, Historic Ordinance 151, LPA, rezoning
posted by Cher @ 7:08 PM,
,
03.15.07 -- EDITORIAL: Nothing like a good example...
Thursday, March 15, 2007
I was reading an AP Wire story about Gov. Charlie Crist in the Gainesville Sun today, and I thought of McIntosh.
Some of you who attended the Sunshine Seminar in McIntosh last December will remember Adria Harper, who is quoted in the story.
It's about that time of year for Sunshine Law week. The Sunshine Law concerns the state laws that govern open records and open meetings in Florida. Every year around this time, newspapers across Florida print stories about the Sunshine Law and it's role and importance to raise awareness with Florida's residents.
According to this story, Crist created an Office for Open Government to train state officials and employees about the Sunshine Law. The idea behind creating is office is that this law tends to be broken out of ignorance.
I've heard a number of politicians argue against the restrictions created by the Sunshine Law, both here in McIntosh and covering other beats. This quote struck me as an exceptional stance for a politician to take when explaining the importance of the Sunshine Law to Florida residents.
"I feel very strongly about it because it is their government. They paid for it, they elected it, they supported it and they have a right to know how it's working for them," Crist said. "Florida's the national leader with this stuff. It's great. We are the Sunshine State and we let the sunshine in to our government like no other state in our country." (From AP story, Gainesville Sun)
Labels: editorial, office for open government, Sunshine law
posted by Cher @ 1:43 PM,
,
03.08.07 -- EDITORIAL: The fine print will get you every time
Thursday, March 08, 2007
By CHER PHILLIPS
I owe our town clerk Debbie Miller an apology.
And I offer it to her here, publicly and willingly, but I have to caution you that I do it with great reticence. Not because the apology isn't genuine. When I am wrong, (and I know of it) I say that I am wrong. My reticence is due to the fact that McIntosh has been sliding in a scary direction lately.
Miller contended during tonight's town council meeting that the LPA notices posted had agendas on them. I said they didn't. She said they did. She was right.
The notices do contain some info. And this is why I give her this apology with a caveat. The info is just really hard to read. So hard to read that I missed the details after repeatedly looking at them. So hard to read that I missed the fine print even after I took a picture of the bulletin board.
See, I have this habit. I drive past the office on my way home from work every day. Every day. I pull in and flash my brights at the sign so I can see if there's a meeting agenda posted.
I'll be honest. I was pretty bothered after the LPA meeting last week when the Historic Board was left out. I'd gone to the meeting and written down every word as Lee Deaderick motioned for a workshop meeting between the two boards to hash out the Historic Ordinance 151. Shoot, I'm not even a fan of historic ordinance 151.
But I get annoyed when people are left out.
That's my pet peeve, and I've never made a secret of it here. The purpose of open government is to allow everyone a part in it. It's so one groups doesn't get to just leave people out because they don't like them, or because they don't agree with them, or because someone new is holding the powerstick this time around the meeting circle.
So after the LPA meeting, I drove by the office and took a picture of the LPA meeting notice. And you know, I *still* missed the fine print underneath the posting.
The day following the meeting, I asked around to the usual suspects -- proponents of the historic ordinance -- where were you? Those folks had no idea the February 27 LPA meeting was *the* joint meeting, either. I take some solace in the fact that I am not the only person in town who can't read small type. But, like them, I was expecting to see words like "WORKSHOP" and "the LPA and the Historic Board."
During citizen comments at tonight's meeting, I asked the council if we could have agendas posted with our public notices. I stand by this request. But I'd like to amend it so I don't have to make a fool of myself again. (Because, folks, I did a fine job of it.)
My amendment is simple: I ask that we not only have agendas, but that we legible agendas. I know, I know. I am asking for the moon.
But I feel like an agenda for a public meeting should not be the fine print. It's the meat and potatoes of the business of a town. Just look at this picture here. If you can read the fine print (I had to use Photoshop to enlarge this posting to see the agenda line), the next LPA meeting deals with rezoning requests being considered in town. Did you know that was happening? No, me either. Rezoning, like the historic ordinance, is the kind of thing you PUT IN BLOCK LETTERS so people can check in on those issues.
These are the things that we should be putting up front, in bold, readable typeface.
As a footnote, I went to the Historic Preservation Board meeting this week and asked them why they didn't come to the meeting. Two of the board members didn't read their e-mail in time to attend. One board member forgot. But Tammy Flagg had a lot to say about it. She said that she went to joint meetings over this ordinance with the LPA when she was drafting it last spring, and no one showed up. She said people only came out in force when the council was passing it. She said they missed all the of the smaller meetings when they could have offered input.
See, it saves the town money for people to have detailed agendas for every meeting. If people can be made aware and get involved in the planning meetings, then they aren't going to protest ordinances in the last stages, after the town has invested money in publicly advertising ordinances and sending it through the town attorney or a planner for an opinion.
I'll leave you with this question: If those joint meetings the first time around for Historic Ordinance 151 had been posted in a manner with detailed agendas, or talked about here on the blog so people can get information and dig into the issue if they want to, do you think McIntosh would be repealing this ordinance now?
Labels: agendas, Debbie Miller, editorial, public notices, public records, Sunshine law
posted by Cher @ 10:29 PM,
,
Editor
Editor and Publisher:
I'm Cher From McIntosh, FL I'm a graduate student at the University of Florida working on a master's degree in Mass Communication. While I was finishing my undergrad degree in journalism last year, I reported on McIntosh, Fla. for an in-depth reporting class. I figured that the reporting and the public record files should go somewhere people can access them. Reporters don't report to keep the information they find to themselves. Some of that reporting is included here in a forum that allows response. McIntosh suffers because with no news coverage, the local government and the rumor mill have too much potential to run rampant over residents. I moved to McIntosh in the fall of 1999. My profile
About This Blog
The primary purpose of this blog is to accurately reflect what happens in town public meetings and dispel rumors. I record the meetings and make them available for download. One of the goals of this blog is to offer residents a place to voice opinions. The comments, views and opinions expressed there are not necessarily those of the editor.
