A Right to Vent
Tags: CMPA / Community Maritime Park / Guest post / Keesler v. CMPA
Florida’s Sunshine Law was introduced in 1957 to replace an ineffective 1905 law. The original bill’s sponsor submitted it ten times before it became law in 1967. The key issue in Keesler v. CMPA, Inc. is nothing more complicated than the meaning of the Sunshine Law phrase “open to the public.” Fortunately, the law provides clear guidance that the Courts always broadly construe it in favor of the public interest and look to its purpose. It was a lucky break for the public.
Starting in 1969 the Florida appellate courts began interpreting the Sunshine Law to provide the public with an ever more expansive right. The landmark 1969 Florida Supreme Court Doran decision contains the pivotal phrase, “The right to be present and to be heard….” That decision has never been reversed.
Community Maritime Park Associates, Incorporated (CMPA) Board of Trustees Legal Counsel Edward Fleming of the law firm McDonald Fleming Moorhead dismisses Doran as unreliable. But Fleming also mischievously argues in the alternative that even if it was still good law for him, the right “to be heard” never gave the public “a right to speak.”
Fleming flippantly characterizes the guaranteed “right” of Floridians to address their elected and appointed officials as, “A right to vent.” He actually said this aloud in Judge Frank Bell’s courtroom with a court reporter present vice more prudently thinking it in silence. He is working under instructions from the like-minded CMPA Board of Trustees Chairman Senior U.S. Federal Judge Lacey Collier who said of the public’s efforts to enforce their inalienable rights, “It is shameful and disgusting to be treated in such a fashion.”
Fleming’s complete reliance upon 35 words tortuously extracted out of context from a 1983 Florida Supreme Court decision called Marston rests his case on very tenuous (“quicksand”) footing. Fleming tried to bluff Judge Bell into agreeing that with these words he carefully copied from Marston that the Florida Supreme Court had unwittingly overruled its entire Doran decision.
Arguing for the public, Sharon Barnett seemed to have all the substantive and procedural law on her side. In her calm and understated manner, Barnett systematically and very tenaciously argued the case for her clients Byron Keesler and Leroy Boyd on behalf of the entire public. None of the defendants showed up for their day in court though the complaining public came out in force. Barnett seemed untiring in fighting for every inch of legal ground.
Fleming is volunteering his services to the CMPA Board of Trustees and he’s probably not an expert in this very specialized area of law. Barnett, also working for free, is a local Sunshine Law authority and former President of the League of Women Voters of the Pensacola Bay Area. She is also a former public interest and appellate law attorney from Washington, D.C. who would someday make a fine Judge. City Attorney Rusty Wells on the other hand apparently gets paid an awful lot of money to not crack open his dusty law books.
Wells once bragged to me how he got rid of former Assistant City Attorney Mike Godwin because his legal research skills were supposedly, “Not up to snuff.” I think he was just jealous that Godwin was the only attorney in the City Attorney’s Office Florida Bar-certified to practice “City, County and Local Government Law.” People who live in glass office buildings shouldn’t throw unopened and usually very heavy law books.
There is no evidence in Wells’ so-called legal memorandum sent to the Council, and upon which Fleming had every reasonable right to rely in part, that Wells did anything more than quickly read the original text of the 1967 Sunshine Law and substitute his own personal opinion for 42 years of judicial interpretation by the Florida courts.
The buck though stops with the Mayor and Council who have passively done and said little to end this law-breaking madness. The CMPA Board of Trustees serves alongside the Pensacola City Council as two halves of the same Community Maritime Park decision-making process. As recently as September 2008 City Manager Al Coby sternly reminded the CMPA Board of Trustees that, “As stated in the Articles of Incorporation of Community Maritime Park Associates, Inc., the Corporation is to operate for the benefit of and to carry out responsibilities that otherwise would be performed by the Pensacola City Council.”
As far back as September 2006 the CMPA Board of Trustees should have been instructed to adhere in full to the Council’s own Sunshine Law procedures to protect the legal integrity of all Community Maritime Park decisions. Since August/September 2008 when citizens really started screaming, and definitely since November when Keesler and Boyd realized it was futile to reason with the unreasonable and filed a lawsuit, the Council should have just slammed down the Sunshine Law hammer on the CMPA Board of Trustees.
The CMPA Board of Trustees even now dishonestly argue in their Motion for Summary Judgment that Keesler and Boyd are claiming the Mayor and Council rather than they themselves have violated the Sunshine Law. But like a modern day version of the Three Wise Brass Monkeys who “don’t see, don’t hear and don’t speak,” the Council passively postures in their chamber waiting for the judicial winds to blow before taking a public stand.
The past and present Mayors and Councils have shown no leadership whatsoever in allowing this problem to first develop and then fester. Their deafening public silence only gives aid and comfort to the CMPA Board of Trustees eagerly seeking to impose harsh judicial sanctions upon Keesler, Boyd and Barnett and to disenfranchise the public. The CMPA Board of Trustees hold their prestige appointments at the pleasure of the Council that pays their ever increasing bills yet waste precious time and energy finding creative ways to betray the public trust rather than serve the public interest.
We all now eagerly wait Judge Bell’s ruling reaffirming or revoking our public “right” within his Escambia County jurisdiction to speak to our elected and appointed officials during each phase of the public meeting decision-making process. As days pass without a decision many in the public are assuming the worst. I more optimistically believe the law will triumph in the end, even if the closing chapter must be written in a Tallahassee appellate courtroom.
C. J. Lewis is a City resident, former candidate for Mayor of Pensacola, and a guest contributor to Progressive Pensacola. Progressive Pensacola does not necessarily endorse or share the opinions expressed in guest postings.
Subscribe to our feed
Get updates via email
Follow us on Twitter
Chairman Senior U.S. Federal Judge Lacey Collier who said of the public’s efforts to enforce their inalienable rights, “It is shameful and disgusting to be treated in such a fashion.”
There you have it.
A pompous old arrogant attorney want to be king. Someone who has forgotten the basis of law and why people fled the kingdom.
Interesting comments from Lawyer Fleming.
Wasn’t he a newspaper reporter prior to being a lawyer?
These guys should stay out of the rain. With those noses, they will drown.
Well said Derek!
“The CMPA Board of Trustees hold their prestige appointments at the pleasure of the Council that pays their ever increasing bills yet waste precious time and energy finding creative ways to betray the public trust rather than serve the public interest.”
And the council, as usual, watches in silence.
I’d love to take credit, but those words were written by Mr. C. J. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis, I believe you are deliberately understating the importance of the Marston decision, which you say is limited to “35 words tortuously extracted out of context.” You didn’t include the words in question, but I’m pretty sure they include this phrase: “nothing in this decision gives the public the right to be more than spectators.”
It’s true that the Attorney General’s office emphasizes “the importance of public participation in open meetings,” but such participation is by no means part and parcel with the definition of an “open meeting.” As described in the Sunshine manual, “when committees are carrying out certain executive functions which traditionally have been conducted without public input (as described in the Marston decision), the public has the right to attend but may not have the authority to participate.” The only thing to my mind that needs to be determined by the judge is whether the CMPA fits into the classification of an executive committee.
Moreover, even if it does not, the CMPA board seems to have acted in good faith by adding a public input section to meetings when urged to do so. When individuals such as yourself, who have been vocal opponents of the Maritime Park, try to seize on this issue to halt and reverse progress on the development, it can only come across as disingenuous.
I’ll stand by my opinion, and that’s all it is, until we hear from Judge Bell or the 1st District Court of Appeal or the Florida Supreme Court. I didn’t include the 35 words because I wasn’t writing a legal brief and I also didn’t provide legal citations either but the words you seek can be found in the Advisory Opinion posted to the link to the Attorney General’s website.
The words Fleming relies upon and also quoted in his educational letter to Barnett instructing her in the law begins with, “We hasten to reassure respondents….” Fleming ends the last paragraph of his polite letter with, “Thank you for your close attention to this authority.” You’ll note if you do look at the link that Fleming carefully redacted the preceding and following parts which explained the context of the Court’s very narrowly construed ruling.
As for relying upon the Attorney General, his own words are advisory and not law. But he carefully explains the law as it has been applied by Florida courts. The CMPA concedes to all of the facts in the complaint and also Barnett’s interpretation of their significance. Barnett ultimately wore Fleming down and he unexpectedly and perhaps unwittingly caved on that last point. There is no longer even a dispute that the CMPA is subject to the Sunshine Law though up until a few months ago Judge Collier claimed otherwise.
By the way, the Florida Sunshine Law does not apply to the federal government in this state so Judge Collier would presumably have no operational experience dealing with it in his own courtroom. And unless I missed it in all the defendant’s pleadings or Fleming’s remarks in court, there’s no dispute that the CMPA is exercising a legislative function on behalf of the Council. Coby’s letter further proves that contention.
Fleming even conceded in court that the public has a “right” to provide input, to be heard, to present their views, etc. but just not a “right” to actually speak, “to speak” here meaning to make an oral presentation, submit written input or even communicate using American Sign Language. If you remember the movie “Miracle on 34th Street,” during the hearing Fleming acted like the District Attorney Thomas Mara character badgering Kris Kringle to prove he is “the one and only” Santa Claus, i.e. “Tell me where it says you get to be heard and also to speak!”
Barnett even presented to the Court a list of the 28 meanings of the word “open” found in Webster’s Dictionary. But Fleming won’t be satisfied until the Florida Supreme Court issues a decision clarifying for him and every last elected and appointed official in the State of Florida that “open” incorporates “a right to speak.” It seems quite likely he’ll eventually get his wish in a Tallahassee appellate courtroom with his name listed for posterity as the losing counsel.
So stripped to the bare bones, the case comes down to something very simple and most fundamental – is it a “right” or a [revocable] “privilege” for the public to be heard, to provide input, to present their views, to speak, etc. during each phase of the decision-making process of the CMPA, the Pensacola City Council, the Santa Rosa Island Authority, the Board of County Commissioners, etc., etc.?
I myself didn’t really “get it” until I sat in the hearing and listened to Fleming describe his ambitions for eviscerating the Sunshine Law.
As for the alleged wrongdoings of the CMPA Board of Trustees, intent need not be proven, half-hearted half-measures don’t buy you leniency, and once this or the next judge or justices confirms they have done irreparable harm to the public interest, all of their decisions will be void ab initio, i.e. they have to take a big mulligan and start back at the 1st Community Maritime Park Tee. It would have been far easier to do it all legal from the start but they didn’t because they didn’t really want to hear from the public. Let them tell you in their own words.
I think Judge Collier summed it up best when he said, before the Council on September 8, “Quite frankly, I am not sure that I care what some other citizen thinks…because that’s just their opinion, and I am the one that’s got to, to cast that vote.” Trustee Dr. Jimmy Jones separately commented, “We are a volunteer board, and we do not have time for such lengthy discussion.” He added, “It is unfortunate that some people who choose to speak are not very nice about it, and I do not think they should be able to speak to this board.” “Venting” is part of that speaking “right” too, so long as the public isn’t profane or disruptive, speaks when recognized and only for the permitted amount of time, etc.
In my personal opinion, aside from the lawyers who I think should all be held to a higher standard and punished accordingly, I think the rest of them were unwitting accomplices and are now suffering the consequences of relying upon inadequate legal counsel to include that of Judge Collier. I know and like several of the Trustees and I can’t believe they would ever knowingly do what they are alleged to have done. My guess is they trusted Judge Collier because he being “a Judge” is an authority figure and they just blindly followed his lead.
And for the record, I have not uttered or even thought a single word in opposition to “the” Community Maritime Park. So don’t put me in the same group with “them,” though the so-called “them” are not of one-mind either. I too want a park on the waterfront for the people. I have and do continue to question the appropriateness of using Community Redevelopment Agency monies to build a ballpark dressed up as a multi-use stadium that city residents don’t “need” and should be built by the Pensacola Pelicans. I have the same concerns about the “Executive Center Space/Conference Center” we also don’t “need” but that the University of West Florida should and probably would build themselves if they didn’t want to put it in a storm surge zone where State of Florida monies cannot be spent. I think they “should” built it but over in the Urban Technology Park Campus.
I think that freed-up $26 million plus in CRA monies would be far better spent building the best downtown library in Northwest Florida, somewhere within the two square mile Urban Core CRA area, maybe on the site of the old St. Michael school. I’d rather spend the money to invest in our community for the direct benefit of our children and generations to come vice merely reshuffle existing economic activity around and about within the city and county or bring it over from Gulf Breeze Proper.
And I’m still waiting to see the required “economic viability” report mandated by the Master Development Agreement providing evidence that the individual projects make economic sense. Ed Spears last week offered me a substitute report that did at least reference the requirement but very clearly was not done by Barry Abramson to actually satisfy the above requirement.
You have indeed been an opponent of “the” Community Maritime Park project in every relevant sense. What else would you call prior opposition to the project being developed by the board whose actions you now hope to nullify? Frankly it seems intellectually dishonest that you would even argue the point.
The bottom line is, the right of public participation at a board like the CMPA — and whether or not a failure to allow such participation constitutes a violation of Sunshine laws — has not been clearly defined by the courts. If they determine public participation should have been allowed, that’s great, but there is no blanket verdict of void ab initio in cases where the jurisprudence was vague. The Sunshine laws were established to prevent secrecy in decision making, which has not at all happened here. The spirit of the law has absolutely been fulfilled, and a judge will certainly bear in mind the motives of the board in his decision.
This whole affair smacks of a losing team scouring replay tapes for technicalities in hopes of declaring the whole game void, and I expect a reasonable judiciary will see it the same way. But like you, that’s just my opinion.
disingenuous? uh oh staff’s on the blog. that’s the fav city hall word.
CJ said “And I’m still waiting to see the required “economic viability” report mandated by the Master Development Agreement providing evidence that the individual projects make economic sense.”
Will it be as reliable as the economic viability report that was produced when the Civic Center was built?
or
as reliable as the economic viability for Palafox Pier? Still no restaurants, shops there . City has not enforced its lease requiring a restaurant (where Lillo’s was located)
or
as reliable as the economic viability study on the Garcon Point Bridge.
‘
Just a few rambling points –
1. Ed Fleming, the attorney representing the CMPA, is married to Jennifer Fleming, who was Director of the CRA during the Trillium One Fiasco. That’s when the downtown boys were sent back to the drawing board. Jennifer crawled away with her tail between her legs. A lot of what is going on now is a personal “Get Back” at the citizens (the ones that “Joe” refers to as “them”) who stopped Trillium One. Instead of working for the good of the community, our city government, in cahoots with the Downtown Crowd, is engaged in personal vendettas against its own citizens. The city council had an opportunity in 2004 to stop the bickering and to bring our community together. They chose to take the low road instead.
2. I believe that “Joe” is the same “joezoo” who used to frequent the PNJ blogs, and is a resident of Arrogant Court. I don’t believe that he works for the city, but it really doesn’t matter.
3. “Joe” is mistaken when he states that C.L. Lewis has been an opponent of the CMP. C,L, Lewis has often taken stands in FAVOR of developing that property. Like a lot of citizens, he just doesn’t favor the present proposal. In addition, he brings up points that should be obvious to anyone and should be of concern to EVERYONE. Where is the damn “economic viability” report? There is no doubt in my mind that this scheme will NEVER be economically viable, and any independent report will disclose that fact. The public has a RIGHT to know that this project will lose millions of dollars of tax money each and every year for the next 30 years. I am sick and tired of a city government that continues to conceal things from its citizens.
4. I tend to AGREE with “Joe” when he insinuates that this lawsuit is a technicality. It is an IMPORTANT technically, but it is a minor offense when compared to other legal problems with the CMP scheme. There are at least 2 other legal issues that will come forth IF this project is allowed to continue.
a. The scope of this project has changed drastically from the one that the public voted on in 2006. That alone should prompt the city council to call for a new vote. If it doesn’t, there will probably be another lawsuit to stop the project.
b. The financing plan that was voted on in 2006 is also completely different now. The city has finally disclosed that the CRA cannot fund the baseball stadium with bonds. The latest financing scheme is equivalent to borrowing $40 million on a credit card, and just making the interest payments every month. No SANE person who do such a thing, and our city shouldn’t do it either. This is a fundamental change that should be approved by the citizens.
.
First of all, I don’t know what bizarro semantic universe you live in, but the Community Maritime Park project is “the present proposal.” If Mr. Lewis is in favor of “developing that property,” but not as the Community Maritime Park, well then he’s opposed to the Community Maritime Park.
Second, I neither work for the city nor live in Aragon. And my name is Joe, so enough already with the “finger quotes.” Sheesh!
I am as disappointed as anyone with how little the master developer thinks can be built with the $40 million of public money, but much of that has to do with the way the economy has turned and the inability to secure private investment in the mixed-use area. (I wonder if that might have been avoided had we not been delayed nearly a year by the referendum, and the related fact that all the environmental permits from the Festival Park had expired, but probably not. On the other hand, if we had sold the property outright as many had wanted to do, we’d probably be in a situation similar to the old Palafox ESP offices or the Hawkshaw Eastside property.) If anything, the economic downturn makes it even more vital to move forward.
Finally, talk about “vendettas”! The anti-CMP people have never stopped trying to derail the project, even though the campaign ended for most of us on Sept 5, 2006. There are obviously people in this community who are happy to cut off their nose to spite their face. Who knows, you might eventually be successful, in which case we’ll all have the joy of going back to scratch with years wasted and a lot of money spent for nothing. If that happens… hey, congrats.
‘
“the joy of going back to scratch with years wasted and a lot of money spent for nothing.”
Yes, yes, yes! There HAS been a WASTE of almost 5 years and millions of taxpayer dollars! WHY? Because a VERY BAD decision was made in December 2004 by a lazy and corrupt city council. The city council did not ALLOW any alternative ideas to be presented. WHY? Because almost ANY idea is better than this hideous scheme to spend $100 million to build a BASEBALL STADIUM for a semi-pro team. If a competing idea was chosen, the people behind this scheme would lose CONTROL of the money, land, and power that has been deeded to them by our city council. This entire argument is about the CONTROL of that money, land, and power that has been stolen from the citizens of Pensacola and given to the Quint Studer / Mort O’Sullivan group.
If the city HAD sold the property, there would more than likely be a tax-producing development on that land right now. At the very least, the city would have received some compensation for the land sale and a few years of property taxes. The grass would have been cut, for crying out loud! Instead, we have had another 4-1/2 years of weed infested, non-taxable, non-income producing, unsightly property that does nothing to entice someone to move to Pensacola. A small fortune has been given to Miller Caldwell to produce pie-in-the-sky drawings of a project that CANNOT BE BUILT by the Quint Studer / Mort O’Sullivan group!
WHY? WHY can’t this so-called “developer” do more with $40 million? One reason is that he is taking a “fee” of $1.5 million for himself right off the top. Another reason is that we were told before the referendum vote in 2006 that site improvements were going to cost $2 million (refer to the proposed budget). That cost has apparently jumped to $20 million, TEN TIMES THE ORIGINAL BUDGET. WHY? Because the BASEBALL STADIUM will not FIT on the existing property and these idiots are filling in the bay to make it fit.
Everything told to the public by Studer’s PR machine and the city council has proven to be false, EXCEPT the fact that a baseball stadium will be built on our property.
The SOONER this scheme is stopped, the better it will be for everyone that lives in the City of Pensacola. And I really don’t give a rat’s a$$ about that millionaire that lives out on the beach.
.
Thanks for the histrionics. You’ve proven my point.
I understand your opposition to the plan, but no longer have the time or patience to correct the “OMG it’s a $100 million baseball stadium!!1!” claims over and over again. (Or for that matter, the feigned shock — shock! — that a developer wants, like, money and stuff for the privilege of performing his services. And you just know those sneaky contractors want to charge more than just the cost of materials!)
There was a vote; your side lost. Go throw your sabots into some other machine, please. The rest of us would like to see this thing come to fruition within our lifetimes.
Face it. This ballpark probably would not have passed if it had been put out for citywide “funding” . Some of the most vocal cheerleaders for this project were from Gulf Breeze and outside the CRA. It was easier to sell the plan for the CRA district to fund this rather than the entire city.
Ed is not married to Jennifer. That would be John. The attorney who formerly sat in the attorney chair during city council meetings prior to Rusty.
Oh X – it is so good to see you back in action touting your lies, half truths and innuendo. Let’s play quick game to see just how up on the facts you are, shall we? It’s only one question and unfortunately, you like all the naysayers, already got it wrong.
Jennifer Fleming, former CRA Director (retired) is married to:
A. Ed Fleming, named partner in MacDonald, Fleming, Morehead, et al, CMPA counsel
B. John Fleming, former City Attorney (retired)
C. Ian Fleming, Novelist
D. A Flamingo
If you answered “A” as so proudly proclaimed by Mrs. X (we know who you are btw) you would be wrong. Sorry, thanks for playing and enjoy the parting gifts. So, go do your homework. Know who you are calling out before you start typing, or just do us all a favor an back away from the keyboard and go do something poductive for our community.
Facts. Another pseudo positive citizen who quickly bottoms out and resorts to calling those citizens who disagree naysayer.
According to these positive folks, there is nothing to fear but fear itself in this economic crisis and we can expect an economic boom for the area once we build a ballpark.
That must make you all soothsayers.
soothsayer
“One who claims to be able to foretell events or predict the future; a seer.”
Anybody seen the mysterious economic viability report??? lol
‘
OK. “Joe”, why don’t you PLEASE tell us what these items cost. Because, if you add them up, you will then get the TOTAL COST of this baseball stadium. Any school kid will tell you that, but you Studerites constantly run from the facts.
1. Land Cost – $
2. Construction Cost – $
3. Finance Cost – $
TOTAL COST = $ (Joe, please fill this line in for us!)
Yes, a developer can expect to get a fee, although in the real world the percentage is a lot lower than what these guys claim it to be. But when a developer receives a fee, he ACTUALLY PERFORMS A SERVICE! Please tell us, Joe, what service is being performed by this developer? All we have here is a construction project. The developer has brought no tenants to the table. The city does construction projects all the time without giving a third party a $1.5 million “developer fee.”
In the real world, a developer usually invests his own MONEY, and is usually assuming a great deal of RISK. Rarely does a developer work for a straight fee, and when he does it is because he is arranging financing. Not the case here! Under the present scenario, this developer is putting up absolutely ZERO funds, and all the risk is being pushed onto the shoulders of the citizens of Pensacola. This is a win-win deal for the developer, Quint Studer, Miller Caldwell, Mort O’Sullivan, etc. The taxpayers are investing ALL the cash, taking on ALL the debt, and giving away 30 acres of prime waterfront property for 60 years. Not a single proponent of this project has EVER produced a cash-flow analysis, much less one that shows that the city can ever break even on this deal. There will be a negative cash-flow to the tune of millions of dollars every year.
The ORIGINAL idea coming from the Studer team was that a private developer would ride into town with tons of businesses dying to locate on this property, and thus produce tons of income to offset the money-losing baseball stadium. That just hasn’t happened. WHY? One reason is that the 3 principals of the scheme allocated all of the prime waterfront land for their own pet projects, leaving the most undesirable property for potential tenants. Tell us, Joe, exactly why would someone invest money to locate a new building on Main Street across from the sewer plant?
Sorry that I missed that Jennifer Fleming is a SISTER-IN-LAW and not a WIFE of Ed Fleming. Gee, I guess they don’t know each other, right? The point was to show the in-breeding and tangled alliances that permeate City Hall. This is one gigantic rat’s nest!
.
‘
Oh, wait, wait. “Nothing But the Facts” says “we know who you are btw.” Boy, that sounds ominous!
OK, NUT BUT, put your mouth where your…….
1. Who am I?
2. Who are the “we” that you refer to?
………………..LOL………………………..
.
Popcorn – you were saying something about name calling? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA At least my challenge was to do something positive for Pensacola today. Guess Mrs. X had other things to do. Oh, the law suit thrown out, permits received, developer about to sign and now this, my day can’t get any better.
Thanks for the forum Mr. Cosson. We see it for what it is and whom it’s for now.
Mrs. X – Your name shall remain a mystery. I won’t out you. I do wish you all the best. Perhaps I’ll see you one day in the park enjoying a beautiful day or a ballgame. You can invite the Fleming’s. All of them. You obviously know them so well. HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
‘
Please, Nutt Butt, tell us everything you know……
Here, just fill in the blank __________________.
I didn’t think so………!
.
Something good for Pensacola? Former city council allowing a nationwide request for OPEN proposals, not the required less than grand plan.
A ballpark on prime waterfront land built with taxpayer dollars and leased for $1 a year. Any profits go to charity (and the developer’s tax write off) not to the citizens to help foot the bill) This is good for Pensacola?
A conference center and offices -whoopee – conventions across from the sewer plant in the slum district instead of the Hilton Garden Inn on Pensacola Beach?
Another museum- yawn- Where are Pensacola’s valued maritime artifacts that thousands will come to see displayed now? Put them in the T. T. Wentworth and bring on the thousands.
Pass us all the kool aid.
I see Xochitl is getting his clocked cleaned here too. Some guy named LiberalArmyVet is constantly proving him wrong on the PNJ blogs.
My money is that “Flower” either has ties to “Save Our City”, someone living in Port Royal who doesn’t want this project to proceed or a simply has a bad case of Studer envy. Speaking of “Save Our City” , what ever happened to their proposal “We can build a Better park” ? Never did see a plan from them.
‘
…………….LOL……………..
Thanks, “Rumor Control” (or should we just call you LiberalArmyVet) for proving to everyone on this forum what a complete idiot you are! OBVIOUSLY, you are not from this area, because you OBVIOUSLY don’t know the story behind Joe Flowers.
Make this story complete! Tell us that you are working for Quint Studer’s PR firm from Jacksonville!
…………….LOL……………..
.
Xochitl,
I don’t know the story behind Joe flower either, but it takes about 10 seconds to google your name and find out it means “flower”
It also only took about 15 minutes of reading here and on the PNJ blog to find out that you’re being proved wrong in both places. Here by Joe, and at the PNJ blog by LiberalArmyVet. All the things you’re saying were disproved years ago. There was a vote, and your side lost. Why can’t you accept that ?
I suppose now you’re going to accuse me of being Joe, LiberalArmyVet, or both. It must not be easy going through life wrong and paranoid. Tah !
Hey Gigi -
Who is “Joe?”
‘
Still no answer. Why should that surprise anyone? Gigi, I was responding to someone who calls himself “Rumor Control,” not Joe. Perhaps “Rumor Control” is Joe. Perhaps you know this because you live with Joe. How would I know?
There are several possible reasons why neither you nor “Rumor Control” know the story behind Joe Flowers, but none of those reasons will put you two in a favorable light. Particularly when you expose your ignorance of our area by accusing others of being Joe Flowers.
Since you know how to use Google, why don’t you take the time to do a little research by googling the words “Joe Flowers escambia county.” You would perhaps learn something about the reason people in this area are so against your scheme to build a baseball stadium with public money. Let me give you some hints.
1.Joe Flowers did not rise from the grave to haunt Port Royal.
2.Even though it is POSSIBLE that I am Joe Flowers, I am not. You see, Joe Flowers bought millions of dollars of antiquated computers for Escambia County. When he died, the county buried all those computers in his grave. So I could, in theory, by typing this from my grave.
This area has a long history of naive local politicians being easily sold a bill of goods by out-of-town snake oil salesmen. Quint Studer is just the latest. Many of us in this area are quite fed up with seeing our hard-earned tax money spent on frivolous enterprises.
No, Gigi, the things that I have been saying were NOT “disproved years ago.” The only thing that was proved years ago is that, by spending $1.2 million, Quint Studer could convince 54% of Pensacola voters that they were getting a “park” when he really intends to give them a BASEBALL STADIUM for his hobby team.
I would be glad to debate you on the issues. The problem is that no one from you side (including you) will talk about FACTS.
,
Xochitl,
What are you babbling about ? No one called you Joe Flowers. Who cares about Joe Flowers anyway? He has nothing to do with the CMP. You might as well bring up W.D. Childers & Willy. Because some local politicians were crooked, you’re now against everything ? Gigi is right. You are paranoid. As for facts, you’re using the same old arguments that SOC did. Those facts were debated and as I recall, SOC lost that election. That seems to be a fact that YOU don’t want to talk about. It’s like Joe (the one you don’t seem to know) said earlier in this thread:
“I understand your opposition to the plan, but no longer have the time or patience to correct the “OMG it’s a $100 million baseball stadium!!1!” claims over and over again.”
Why anyone would waste time debating you is beyond me. Debating you seem to be like debating some dull witted kid who keeps forgetting he was proven wrong.
‘
Are you talking about the election that featured the Fantasy Rendering? Remember the one with the marina? It also featured a parking garage that would hide 800 cars?
Are you talking about the election where the citizens were TOLD that, for $40 million, they would get all a Conference Center and a classroom building for UWF?
Are you talking about the election where the citizens were TOLD that the financing would come from bonds secured by taxes from the CRA District? Nothing money would EVER be secured by any other method?
Well, pal, none of those things have proven to be TRUE, have they? It has been one LIE after another from Studer and company. Remember the one where Studer claimed that all the work would be done by a minority contractor from Ohio?
The only thing that has remained true, the only thing that has remained a constant, is that there would be a baseball stadium on our waterfront property.
As far as I, and a lot of other citizens are concerned, that election is NULL AND VOID!
.
[...] this month, Progressive Pensacola offered a similar take on the judge’s disdain for public input on a major project the public will be financing: “It is shameful and disgusting to be treated [...]