NOTICE OF BLOG-POLICE ACTION! -- O.K. bloggers, you've blown up the civility code. I've deleted a number of posts that were personal rather than issue related. And it does not work to say that it's about the issue while you call someone names.
For C. Johnson who said "It is hollow and McNees should be smarter than allowing this false dialog. Perhaps it serves his purpose?", don't worry, you can still attack me if you want. I've left your post up.
Now can we please clean it up and advance the discussion, not the attacks?
For C. Johnson who said "It is hollow and McNees should be smarter than allowing this false dialog. Perhaps it serves his purpose?", don't worry, you can still attack me if you want. I've left your post up.
Now can we please clean it up and advance the discussion, not the attacks?
posted by Michael McNees at 11:09 AM
41 Comments:
It's time to delete this whole blog from the city's web site. It was a public relations effort for the City Manager from the start. When it took on a life of it's own, the promise not to edit was retracted. You should not be the arbiter of civility, Mr. McNees. You have allowed open criticism of commissioners on this blog in the past. Those commissioners were the ones who sought your resignation. When criticism is leveled at your "friends" on the commission, you delete the comments as "uncivil." If you intend to pick and choose comments, it is time for you to end this public relations effort, Mr. McNees. Your actions constitute prior restraint of free expression by a government entity. Someone should call the ACLU.
This is a great opportunity for the public to be involved in many critical decisions the Commissioners are making as well as the types of things we want to discuss about staff and the manager.
I do not see any of the comments being "bad". Some do seem critical of different people at different times, like police officers, the public works department and the staff and of course the City Commissioners. They are not leaders under a dictatorship who we dare not speak against. This is our city and we have a right to discuss the way we see things. It is great to get perspective from the experts such as the Mayor, Manager or whoever.
There are legitimate claims and questions made that could use some explanation. I hope the questions get answered.
We thank you Mr. McNees for allowing this dialog because last I knew we lived in a democracy.
The first post has to be kidding!!
First time in Sarasota history we have a venue to ask questions directly to the city manager and amazingly we get answers most of the time. That is really worth a lot to the city. This is not just to benefit him because from what I have read, many of the comments are attacking him but he still leaves them on to open up the conversations. Important to have the opportunity to speak you mind and debate issues.
Great job to the city to have this Blog!!
Thank you Mr. McNees for cleaning up the thread.
11:32 are you kidding me? It is my understanding that this was put here as a way for the public to communicate with our City Manager. There are some posts that completely ignore the assumption of civility and respect. I see this as the CM's personal blog that happens to be a way for the public to hold a dialogue with him, not a government sanctioned attempt at censorship. If everyone (I know this is asking a LOT) would approach these threads with logic and a tad bit of understanding instead of pure emotion, they have great amount of potential to provide some insight and understanding. This is also assuming that you really are after some understanding instead of just attracting attention.
Your calls for the ACLU and this nonsense about "restraint of free speech by a government entity" hold as much water as conspiracy theorists calling for the federal government to release their hidden information about UFOs. Let us continue these discussions in a productive manner without all the charged emotions.
The Commissioners need to stop micro managing even us the citizens!! We now should stop discussing our disappointment over a decision the Commissioners made to give away millions of dollars of our tax money and land without more dialog, they deserve this input.
Just as the one person noted, that the CRA did not hear anything about money and exchanges or incentives to the developer but the person that acted like so much time as passed and us the public are misinformed.
No, we will not accept that we, the public have been stupid in this deal and did not pay attention.
The developer did a superb job with their PR campaign and sold the project before it went into delivering a proposal. The City Commission was irresponsible and should be held accountable for not negotiating this deal a bit longer.
Like, staff obviously was giving so little time that they just realized the property may not be able to be given away, just like that because of the bonds issued. That was just in the paper.
So, really, who is kidding who? This was pushed upon us by the developer by encouraging the City Commission to push it through.
These issues deserve a comment by the commissioners. When did the public know of a deal?
Dear Mr. McNees:
A poster (most likely a commissioner), several comments back stated: "1st, the project has been under review since April, 2005". Can you state what had been under review and if the details of the money and land exchanges were in those reviews?
Poster stated: "2nd the Commissioners met in Sept 05 & heard facts presented by the Staff recommending the project & moving forward finish financial terms". Did the city know the details of the money and land exchanges were available at this point?
Poster stated: "3rd the developer presented the project to the CRA advisory board in late Sept. 05". Again, did the develper present details of the money and land exchanges at that time?
Poster stated: "lastly, four more months and two appraisals later, the staff still could not, and did not make any final recommendations". At what time was the proposal by the Isaac Group presented to the city? Is it true that staff could not and did not make any final recommendations?
Poster stated: "so the Commission simply had the insight to understand that conclusions, one way or another, had to be reached". What "insight" did the commission have that was not public information? Could the commission concluded that more negotiation is needed to balance the scales a little?
9/2/06 9:51 AM
I was told that I just had to read what was being said on this blog because so many people share the view the recent decision by the commission was a bad one.
Kudos to those asking questions and I second all those being asked!!
I look forward to reading the answers.
At issue is Management performance . Karin Murphy of the Planning Department was the sole negotiator on behalf of the City in dealing with the Issacs.There was no negotiation that included the City Manager, Finance Director, City Attorney, and or building and engineering. By herself she negotiated this deal, and under the circumstances she did a great job. At the public hearing it became evident that there were too many unanswered questions to allow the Commission to make an informed decision.No coordination of staff on so many of the issues. City Manager needed to take charge.
It would be the City Manager's Personal blog if it did not appear as a link on the "official" city web site. That takes it beyond the personal to the level of government action. The comments he deleted were not uncivil. They just talked about a subject that made the City Manager uncomfortable. One comment deleted was that the City Commission should be held accountable at election time if they use poor judgment.
3:24 - I don't know where you got your information, but you're pretty far off base, except for the part about Karin Murphy doing a great job, which she definitely did.
Thanks to you all for bringing the discussion back to issues. There have been a number of other questions asked, I will wade through them when I get time, some will have to be asnwered in a better format than this blog given some of the complexity.
As so many things change around here, it's comforting to know that some things remain constant, i.e. the "It's the City Manager's Fault!" contingency is alive and well. Welcome back to the conversation!
Finally, everything I deleted contained personal attacks, and yes, that's by my standard.
This is in response to the person that believes that I "negotiated this deal alone", what staff in fact did was analyize a submittal from an applicant.
It is important that the community know that there were many people that participated and were kept informed throughout the process including the City Manager, and Planning Director. In fact, Mr. McNees attended numerous meetings with both myself and the developer. The applicants submittal was distributed to many departments from the beginning including the finance department.
Personally, I would like to thank Mr. McNees for being accessible throughout the analysis of the submittal, and providing guidance during this process.
I would be happy if Karen Murphy was the negotiator but she nor did any city staff or charter official have an opportunity. The City Commissioners let the Isaac Group know they supported their project way before staff had a chance. This is why our tax money and city land should not be given away without competition and a fair game between interested parties. I am sure there are many that would have liked the opportunity. Just like we did with the Palm Avenue lots. The Commission should be held accountable for not negotiating a better deal.
The four commissioners should be ashamed of themselves for not allowing some of the process to work our a better deal. Mostly the blame has to go to Servian and Shelin because they so supported this project and let the developer know that. I would never vote for Servian again and she should be held accountable for this disaster to our money and land. Nobody doubts the project will be interesting and will change our downtown but at what cost? The cost was too high and given away too easy. Accountability? I guess only when it is not a commissioner!
Ms. Servian:
You were quoted in the October 2004 issue of SRQ magazine when asked actions you would like to revisit:
"I would have wanted better economic analysis of the TIF dollars given to developers, particularly regarding Whole Foods. If I'm truly honest with myself, I was probably more concerned about fulfilling the goal of the master plan in getting a grocery downtown and securing a quality project from Casto. In retrospect, I would have demanded more information. We probably still would have given Whole Foods TIF dollars, but maybe not as much. Since then, we have hired a financial consultant to help us analyze the TIF dollar requests."
Funny how you did not seem to learn from you own self realization! Any comment?
How could it be allowed for a developer to wine and dine Commissioners before entering into a contract with them? This seems so illegal. So, the commissioners did behind the scene deals, each and every one of them and then had very little public discussion and pushed it onto us. The public deserves better. The public should have had more disclosure and time to give input. And it was so much money!
Mike: Perhaps this public blog is not the proper forum to talk about the planning process, in light of recent controversies. I have a growing concern about the timing of elements within the planning process that seem to work against citizen and neighborhood scrutiny, deliberation and reasoned input.
I received in the mail this afternoon an invitation to attend a “neighborhood workshop” and discuss a “conditional use” in my neighborhood. Today is the 9th of February; the meeting is scheduled for the 22nd of February. Our monthly neighborhood association meeting is scheduled for the 23nd.
I’ll be good humored and chalk that up the date to happenstance, not malevolence. However the timing raises a valid point…neighborhood meetings are monthly. Yet these “snap neighborhood workshops” often give less than one month’s notice. Meaning neighborhood associations seldom can weigh the issues before going to the one-and-only public discussion before the matter goes before the Planning Board and City Commission for their respective votes.
That means the neighborhood “input” at the neighborhood workshop is fragmented at best, with individuals raising individual concerns (if they attend), and before any neighborhood conversation begins to distill opinion. The “short fuse workshop” promotes NIMBY-ism in neighborhood self-defense. It certainly does not promote serious discussion or dialogue.
I’ve never been a student of land use (and am poor because of it). As our neighborhood struggles with multiple and significant proposed changes in land-use and density, we’ve been forced to learn fast. It’s been “sink or swim” for our neighborhood. So far, we’re still swimming but I can feel a tide working against us.
These “snap neighborhood workshops” are part of that tide. Their timing works fine, I’m sure, for City staffers and land developers. But in our working-class neighborhood, a 5:30pm meeting conflicts with daily life. Parents with children are busy at that hour, and many of our working men and women are barely home from work and looking forward to dinner. The timing of the meeting – by itself – mitigates against neighborhood participation. Are we expected to attend two meetings in two days? Between 24 January and 2 February, we as a neighborhood assembled four times – two planning board meetings, our monthly meet, and a Neighborhood Action Strategy kick-off. Should you put us on the payroll? We are working as hard as we can for the benefit of our neighborhood, and trying to cast an eye towards our city’s future.
Having attended a couple of these neighborhood workshops, I know they are little more than a developer spinning out his latest plan, and a city staffer taking notes to satisfy statutory requirements (on the clock). Reaction is little more than knee-jerk, and thus easily refuted at the Planning Board and City Commission levels.
It is too strong to say the deck is stacked. The pace, however, is grueling. We have lives to live, children to raise, work to do. The velocity of change we face is daunting. Many of us will rise to the occasion, but many others will fall by the wayside in exhaustion.
Give us pause, Mike. Give us an opportunity to gather our thoughts to share with you, staff and the development community. If you push us too hard, we will reject your collective visions at the ballot box. Must our neighborhood, our community, our city be built overnight? What’s the rush? s/Stan Zimmerman
In the past, I often visited this site to develop an understanding of local issues. No longer.
I accept that a blogger has the right to manage their blog site as they see fit. However, once a blogger admits to selectively censoring comments, how do we know if the site continues to represent a forum for open dialog, or is simply a public relations tool of the author that "selectively" screens out any opposing views.
Shame on you, Mr. McNees. You were on the right track in your efforts to develop a more "open" communications style.
Good bye.
Stan - Many of the things that are being asked can't really be answered in the blog, I agree. All of the information about P.S. is in the public record. I will have to suggest a way for people to get to the answers they want.
Now, to your request for me to "give us pause"; much of what you've described is the pace of life we as Americans seem to be choosing, and I don't see how I possibly have the power or authority to change that. We can look at notification deadlines, (what time do you think they should start?) but we don't decide here at the city when a given property owner will exercise his constitutional right to develop or redevelop his land, and the State of Florida, for similar reasons, does not allow for moratoriums that just stop development. Believe me, after weeks like the last few around here we would all like for things to slow down for a few weeks as well, even if we are getting paid to be here.
I've never heard the Neighborhoood Action Strategy opportunity described as a burden before, but if your neighborhood wants that process to slow down it can. Typically neighborhoods want it to proceed as soon and as quickly as it can, but I've spoken to the NPO people and they will be happy to follow your lead on that.
Interesting reference to the article in SRQ. After the Whole Foods was complete, and they "saw" what they actually bought into, many of the sitting Commissioners voiced their concern that they shouldn't rush projects like these in the future and that they had learned a few things and wouldn't make the smae mistake again. It is not the presence of the grocery store, rather the finished, built product that many wished they could revisit because of the lack of information- darwings and otherwise.
Now it is happening once again- but with even more at stake and little heed for caution. These Commissioners would do well to listen to their staff, consultants, and their advisory board (the ones that were not permitted to review the deal and provide input), and yet they seem to become puppets of the developers instead of effective and objective leaders of our collective interests.
Pineapple Square has too many unanswered questions, and this rush to approve the project is onlt playing into the hands of those that will benefit most from it. The City leaders have let us down by kow towing to these people, and the other business leaders of the community that parotted the developer's message. I am not against development that is responsible and in the best interests of the City- but that doesn't mean that all development is good, as some in town seem to believe.
Discussion of the developer building a model by citizens in the community of their proposed development with the other city buildings around it was met with blank stares from the very Commissioners that previously expressed a desire for more definitive detail for projects like this in the future, and yet when some when questioned about it, sided with the developer that is was much too expensive to present one-keep in mind this is from a developer that doesn't want anyone to see how massive it is going to be until it is too late to do anything about it.
Disappointment in the Commissioner's complete disregard from the consultants they swore would assist them in not making future decisons that they may regret is an understatement. This was a railroad job. Business as usual....
To 8:44 a.m. - I guess you won't read this since you're gone, but I will respond for the benefit of other readers.
Until this week I had deleted one comment, and had posted a clear explanation as to why. As for this week, I deleted nothing based on point of view, only for disrespect and lack of civility, and again I explained why. Many other posts expressing similar points of view in a civil manner remain.
I will not apologize for setting some standards. Frankly, if you believe all of the things that were posted pass the civility test, the discussion here in the future will be all the better for your absence.
The paper this morning painted another picture explaining even more the controversy surrounding the Pineapple Square project. I could not understand why so many people that should be "smart" would support the proposal the Isaac Group gave to the city. Now it makes a little more sense that most of them are on the Isaac Brothers payroll in one way or another. I also wonder how much money is donated to the different organizations that spoke.
It appears from the discussions around town that most do not want to go against such a big giant therefore many are staying silent in their disappointment in the decision the City Commission has made. It also is being voiced by many of the people who supported the project that they just did not understand the amount the Isaac Group was asking for and not happy to be fully understanding it now.
This is one of the key problems with this deal. No proposal for the terms the Isaac Group wanted was available until a few months ago. Nobody had time to review or digest the huge incentives and space the city was giving to the developers.
Ironically, Mr. Stan Zimmerman asked the City Manager to slow down on his neighborhood action strategy so the neighborhood could have time to understand what is going on. Now this is a neighborhood asking to slow down but the city in two short months, gets a proposal from the developer and accepts it. This is a very big deal and we accept the deal in two months?
How come the City Manager allowed the Commission to make such a big decision in such a short time period. How can the commissioners state they wanted more time to study Whole Foods that took way longer but pass this deal that comes in two months ago?
Okay, yes, John Simon has been running around town for years selling this project. But what he has not been discussing in those meetings with the public is the cost to the city and the amount he was requesting. Nor did he state what he was holding over the commissioners heads, such as, the project will not work unless we get our requests or we will not build if you do not give us what we want. How else can it be explained? There was no loss to the city to negotiate and get a better deal for us, as so eloquently said by Maryanne Servian in the SRQ article about Whole Foods.
Why did we not ask for 1.5 million at least? That would have been an extra 500,000.00 to the city and it's tax payers.
How do we as citizens get this type of deal making stopped or slowed down so that we can give more to the process?
I want to thank the City and the City Manager for having this blog. It is very helpful to see others points of views and learn facts surrounding city business. It is the only and the first time the public and staff have had a place to go and debate issues without being worried about being critisized or punished for being honest. This site should win an award for being so progressive and helpful.
I too thought the newspaper article this morning was telling. As a member of the CRA Advisory Board I had sent a letter to the Commissioners Monday urging them to have the developers construct a scale model of the project so the Commissioners would fully understand the size and mass of this project relative to the surrounding buildings and streets. Previously, I understand John Simons had insisted such a model would cost thousands of dollars to build. As an architect that works on many different size projects, I know this is not the truth- but I did find a certain irony to the newspaper piece that Simons would throw thousands of dollars of seed money around the community, including $50,000 dollars to the Sarasota Film Festival. While I may applaud his philanthropic actions to assist in community activities, it strikes me a little odd that such a generous man would be unwilling to expend even a fraction of what has been spent garnering support in the community to show the the city, and especially the city leaders what this project will ultimately look like.
The CRA Advisory Board was not involved in the discussions of this project other than being given a cursory review a few months back when there were no specifics on the table. It appeared from the comments made at at the September CRA/City Commission meetings that our participation was being purposely excluded by some of the Commissioners.
Dale: Thank you for speaking up on the role the Advisory Board had on this important issue the city just entered into. So many steps were skipped and it is really sad such a large project did not get any input from the CRA Advisory Board. What was it about this deal that got the commission to push it so quickly? Do they not see how they were puppets?
I see on your girlfriends blog, Burnssquare.blogspot.com that she is refusing to answer questions about the Pineapple Square Project. Was the Burns Square Association another recipient of contributions by the Isaac Brothers?
Now, Mr. McNees, you are calling your censoring "a police action." This is more proof that this is no private web site. It is government action. This has never been an open forum for a free exchange of ideas, as you have always had your core group weigh in to attack your detractors. This has always been your bully pulpit. Now that the discussions are not progressing according to your plan you start deleting comments. How revealing!
I think what has been revealed is that we've fully completed the leap from the sublime to the ridiculous. The phrase I used was "Blog-Police Action", which was at least to me slightly humorous. If you look a little further, there are links on the city website to the Chamber of Commerce and the Convention and Visitor's Bureau, and I'm reasonably certain that doesn't make anything that happens on those sites "Government Action".
I don't know how to respond to the accusation that people have posted comments on this blog that have been supportive of my work, except to say that's OK with me, and greatly appreciated. Thank you for providing balance.
As for the Burns Square Association, I'm not a member, but as far as I know they've had nothing at all to do with the proposed development. Perhaps you should ask your questions of the association, I bet with one phone call you could find out everything you want to know. Then again it's much easier to make anonymous accusations than engage in human-to-human dialogue, isn't it?
Which brings me to my final point, which is to say THANK YOU!! to our batch of named posters. I hope you've started a trend.
Mike, there you go again! All other links on the City's home page are to city sites. The link on the home page to this blog refers to talking to the "City Manager." You always make light of issues that hit home. That is your technique. By the way, the serious issue of the city's policy on conflicts of interest should be addressed.
I would like to know exactly the first time the developer submitted their proposal to the city.
Is their vote to approve this project mean that no more negotiations over the money can take place?
Also, for all those that seem to feel it is so shameful that the city manager removed some posts that may have been over the line, I say "so what?" If it was your post and you felt you could say it, but say it better and not be deleted, then do so. Otherwise, whatever!
There seems to be a lot of meaningful dialog being had with this venue and that is a wonderful thing in our society. I greatly appreciate this opportunity and find it a very valuable asset to the city.
I am very confused on how the Commission and/or developer has said that no city funds or TIF dollars are being asked for by the developer. Can you explain how that can be.
Okay, I can see how the land is not money or TIF dollars but it is value so you do not need to explain this one. We already heard from the appraiser the land was worth around 10 million dollars and the developer is giving us 1 million for it.
But the parking spaces the city will pay for is being paid how?
Come on Ronald, lighten up! Yes, I try to use humor, and wrote about that on this blog a couple of months ago. Come down to City Hall and hang around a while, and you'll find that's what I do all day. As for the links, you're correct about the home page and I'm correct about the other links.
Can you clarify for me your point about the city's "policy on conflicts of interest"? Other than the question about my DTP board seat, which I've already addressed, I don't get the reference.
Obviously there is a theme here centered around the request for more information about the details of the Pineapple Square proposal. What I will try to do is have some of the documents put up on the website so you can read them directly, rather than try to explain it all here. Forgive me if that doesn't happen today, we will work on that next week.
Lest I be accused of being one of your “core group who weighs in to attack your detractors,” let me say that I was part of the anti-arcade brigade and I also was disappointed with the Pineapple Square decision for many of the reasons previous posters have discussed.
I continue to applaud you for having the courage to create and continue this blog. Many people feel we are losing the struggle to maintain a town of “big city amenities and small town feeling,” but the blog is an incredible connection to the community. There are not many places where you have the opportunity to ask a question of a city manager and get a response…and a quick response.
I do not believe deletion of uncivil, ANONYMOUS posts is a breach of free speech. Perhaps a useful policy would be: in each case there is a deletion, it be indicated on the blog with an invitation to post the same points phrased more civilly. Or if the person wishes to have the original posted, that his/her REAL name be signed. (Newspapers will not publish letters that have not been signed.)
I truly understand why some people wish to be anonymous. ..whistle blowers, those who do business with the city, citizens who will appear before the commission, etc. It is hard and sometimes dangerous to speak to power. Without anonymity, all of our local blogs would certainly be less lively and host less frank discussions. However, and this is a criticism of only a very few of the posts, it would be nice if just before an anonymous posting, everyone asked themselves how they would have phrased their comments if they had intended to sign their name. No need to sign a name, just a moment of reflection.
Thought I had signed my name to my post and it appeared as anonymous. So consider this the signature to the previous post (4:48)
Mr. McNees: I think it would be great to have a link to the proposal by the Pineapple Square people but I have to say, many of will get lost in the wording and do not understand all that detail.
Many questions also do not have to do with the contract. Many questions are about timing too.
Please take some time and read through the questions and answer the ones you can. If you want to say refer to the contract for the exact wording then that would be good.
This is an important issue and maybe someone like Pete Snyder or Karen Murphy could answer the questions if you do not have the time or some other staff member.
This blog is great and many appreciate you having it and taking time to speak on it.
How do you know that we are truly "discussing our differences" when the City Manager acknowledges selectively deleting things he personally might find offensive (counter to his point of view)?
For 8:06 a.m. - I've never used the word "offensive"; my criteria are respectful and civil, and until this week that had very rarely been an issue. Seeking different points of view has always been the purpose of the blog, that's the fun part, because if someone disagrees with me I get the chance to speak for myself, which I don't get in any other medium.
My suggestion is that if you wish to participate in an un-moderated blog where anything goes, then you should find one, or create one - it's very easy. From my very first post I have made it clear this would not be such a place.
Charles Senf here to comment on anonymity, public notice and the "pace of life "we" Americans seem to be choosing."
Anonymity is a good thing. It affords the reader an opportunity to evaluate the ideas and concepts presented absent preconceived opinions relating to the person or personality of the messenger sort of a meritocracy where the best ideas rise from the grass roots.
Rudeness and unfounded ad hominid attacks on others in or out of public life would seem sufficient to detract from the authors point(s). And enough to condemn his concept or idea to oblivion without the intervention of a censor be he blog host or victim. Surely we can trust the reader to sort the written wheat from the chaff.
Mr. McNees’ blog is a curious animal. Born as it were of parents in the public and private realms. It is understandable that some may feel co-owners of the medium given its quasi-public heritage. For those frustrated by the dominion Mr. McNees’ asserts over the editorial content of the medium, there is little recourse given its success and (apparent) City of Sarasota sponsorship.
Would the City sponsor such immediate broadcast of its Public Notices? Now, that would be a public service worthy of the time and effort of a City Clerk. Instead of paying USPS rates to notice groups within fifty feet of some project, all of the world could be noticed for free were the City to post via e-mail to such public blogs as this. While Mr. McNees may be powerless to change the pace, he certainly has the power (and demonstrated ability) to implement the fast-paced Internet tools to allow Public Notice to keep pace with Public activity. ***
Of course, he and the City Commission and the City Auditor an Clerk have all the tools they need to determine the “pace” things proceed through City Hall. We have seen the apply technology to effect a billing system designed to effectively apportion the actual costs of a development application to the applicant. And we have seen them dictate the amount of time a citizen may take to address a burning issue during a Commission meeting.
Time limits and deadlines exist throughout society. As one fellow said, “to keep everything from happening at once.” Anyone who has been through a legal proceeding is aware that he courts regularly create schedules intent upon assuring the respective parties sufficient time to perform, produce, respond and file any number of documents and that (even absent the appeals process) cases can take years to meander through the process.
So Mr. McNees is a bit disingenuous in implying that he and the City Administration cannot require sufficient time limits to afford Mr. Zimmerman’s Neighborhood an opportunity to hold a regular Monthly Meeting, or to afford the Public the opportunity to fully understand if a Square Pineapple is worth paying eleven million dollars for.
Charles Senf
*** It is obvious that those posting here have a sufficient understanding and appreciation of the medium at hand to envision an Internet or e-mail based system of public notices as a supplement to the hard-copy postage-paid versions currently mandated by statute. Perhaps, in a constructive vein, those supporting such a concept might come together to create the new and improved City Public Blog? Perhaps Mr. McNees would consent to opening a thread on the idea? Or we could create our own.
Some opinions on this blog and Sarasota government:
Personally, I prefer to stand behind my words and opinions. If they are anonymous, IMO, they are not worth writing.
That said, anonymous opinions have a long tradition in American editorial journalism and politics. I collect antique newspapers. Some of our Founding Fathers published some of their best work, and some of their worst work, anomyously. Much of the Federalist Papers was originally published anonymously, although we now are pretty certain that the real authors were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Jefferson wrote some truly low and awful anonymous letters about Adams when they ran against each other for President - Adams was a Federalist and Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican (seriously).
I have a newspaper from 1787 with an anonymous letter from a signer of the Constitution, defending his decision to ratify by stating that while it is an imperfect document, it can be amended. I wish I knew who wrote that.
So, anonymous political prose has a long history.
This is also not the first blog or online forum to run headlong into this issue. Virtually every online forum, whether blog, email listserve or bbs that I have ever seen has either started out with an established set of guidelines for civility or else has faced a dilemma where the host or moderator has had to step in, delete some messages, suspend some members, or warn the group.
It might help if Mr. McNees were to review the rules used to maintain civil discourse on other groups, adopt those rules here and then post them here for all to see.
That won't end all the controversy, but then why have a blog if there is no controversy.
In my experience, blocking anonymous posts is impossible. One of my favorite cartoons is from the New Yorker. http://www.ldresources.org/pictures/internet_dog.gif
One dog is sitting next to a computer, turns to the other dog and says, "On the Internet, no one knows you are a dog."
So it is with anonymous posting. This blog allows anyone to create a new username and password and call themselves anything they want. So it is not even technically possible to block anonymous posters.
A Sarasota government blog could be a really wonderful tool of government, once everyone gets used to the idea.
Thanks,
Steve Runfeldt - Sarasota
"Our neighborhood may be sacrificed in the name of affordable housing". Is how this began as a response to my neighbors urging them to take particular notice to the latest in the series of land grabs in play downtown.
"The development community is gaining momentum with their approach that allowing them to build four times as many units as the law allows will reduce the cost of housing in the City of Sarasota. Now, if this were true, New York City would be the most affordable housing market in America.”
When I thought of posting this to Sarasota Voices, I played around with the subject line and finally hit upon the one above.
It struck me that the mantra of Affordable, Achievable and Obtainable Housing is the sort of hopeful chanting one hears about an altar where faith and hope strive to effect change in the behavior of rationale men.
When I shared the New York analogy with one of the Commissioners at a recent Neighborhood meeting, the response was that "there are other factors like property values that go into the New York equation." To be fair, she did not once use the word "mysterious," but it was clear that was where she was headed.
Moreover, it is as clear that New York is where we are headed.
The Sarasota Land Use Lottery is what is to blame for the sort of speculation inherent in the Martin-Tringali-Husani deals we saw in Thursday's (060216) Herald.
The City Planning Board raised the lottery issue in a recent meeting noting the system provides lucrative incentives for property owners to bet their application fees and more on getting double density through a zoning or land use change.
That board and City staff in general is all but overwhelmed by the pace of these activities with City Manager McNees claiming he's powerless to slow it down* enough to allow the community time to properly analyze the portents and probabilities the approvals auger for Sarasota. (comment in this blog)
The one constant is the bottom line for the capitalists eager to get all they can "while the getting is good."
In truth, there have been many positive changes over the last fifteen years or so. The number of people has increased. The number of vehicles has increased. The number of grocery stores has increased. The number of homeless has increased. Property values have increased. Gas taxes have increased. School taxes have increased. Impact fees have increased. Arrests have increased. Property taxes have increased. And the Ringling Causeway Bridge is newer, wider and longer than before. Glory, hallelujah.
We have come to the altar, eyes closed, heads bowed and acted upon faith in the face of reason and all about us has increased.
And we call it ____________________ (???)
CHARLES SENF
Charles - As you often do, you've quoted me completely out of context. What I said I have no power over is "the pace of life we as Americans seem to be choosing", which is a fairly obvious statement.
Post a Comment
<< Home