The case against the CMPA
Once you really start digging into the case law, it’s readily apparent that in case after case, Florida courts have interpreted Sunshine laws to confer upon members of the public a right to participate, to be heard, in public meetings. Below, we’ve tried to lay out some of the key points, as contained in a memorandum of law filed by the plaintiffs in Keesler and Boyd v. CMPA, as well as several informal legal advisory opinions issued by the Florida Attorney General over the years.
The CMPA, and their attorney, Ed Fleming, ignore this multitude of case law and instead rest their entire argument on Wood v. Marston (1983), in which the Florida Supreme Court found that members of the public had no right to participate in meetings of an academic selection committee screening applicants for a position at the University of Florida. Courts and Florida Attorneys General, however, have consistently recognised the very limited scope of the Wood v. Marston decision. As the Florida Attorney General’s office said in 2006:
To so construe Marston with such a broad interpretation would eviscerate a central aspect of the sunshine law.
Memorandum of Law
Keesler and Boyd v. CMPA
Attorney for the plaintiffs, Sharon Barnett, laid out her case in a memorandum of law supporting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The whole memorandum is linked at the bottom of this page.
Ms. Barnett begins by establishing that Florida courts have consistently interpreted Sunshine laws broadly, and in the public interest:
Florida courts have given The Sunshine Law the broadest possible interpretation, holding that The Sunshine Law “having been enacted for the public benefit, should be interpreted most favorably to the public.” Canney v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County (1973). Florida courts also mandate that The Sunshine Law should be broadly construed so as to frustrate all evasive devices used to close meetings and decision-making to the public. Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison (1974).
She then proceeds to establish the case law establishing for members of the public a right to participate and be heard:
Consonant with the courts’ rule of broad construction of The Sunshine Law, and to comply with the express statutory requirement concerning enforcement of its purposes, Florida Courts have defined “open to the public” to mean the right of the public to be present and to be heard. In the landmark case of Board of Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, supra, the Florida Supreme Court stated that:
The right of the public to be present and to be heard during all phases of enactments by boards and commissions is a source of strength in our country. . . . Regardless of their good intentions, these specified boards and commissions, through devious ways, should not be allowed to deprive the public of this inalienable right to be present and to be heard at all deliberations wherein decisions affecting the public are being made.
Several years after Doran was decided, the Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle, noting that public meetings “should be a marketplace of ideas, so that the governmental agency may have sufficient input from the citizens who are going to be affected by the subsequent action of the municipality.” Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, supra. Recently, the Florida Attorney General stressed that even “a ‘chilling’ of the rights of Florida citizens to participate in public meetings in unacceptable.” Inf. Atty. Gen. Op. to Pyburn, supra.
Convinced yet? If you’re not, let’s review the numerous opinions issued by the Florida Attorney General’s office which back up Ms. Barnett’s claim that members of the public have the right to be heard at public meetings.
City of St. Augustine (1987)
In 1987, the City Attorney of St. Augustine Beach asked the state Attorney General for an advisory opinion regarding whether members of the public had the right to participate in a City Commission workshop “by being able to make comments and ask questions.”
The Attorney General’s office responded:
The text of the statute provides no express requirement of public participation. However, the courts of this state on construing the law have read into the concept of an open meeting the right to be heard …
I am of the view that the city commission should accord the public an opportunity to be heard at its workshop meetings.
The public input factor to be meaningful must be available at all public meetings, at all stages of the decision-making process.
Town of Orange Park (1994)
In 1994, State Rep. John Thrasher, on behalf of a member of the Orange Park Town Council, asked the state Attorney General to clarify the public’s right to participate in meetings.
The Attorney General’s office:
Until the matter is clarified, this office has recognized that when certain committees are carrying out certain executive functions that traditionally have been conducted without public input, the public has the right to attend but may not have the authority to participate. On the other hand, if a committee or board is carrying out legislative functions, this office has advised that the public should be afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate at each stage of the decision-making process.
Tampa Palm Community Development District (1996)
In 1996, the chairman of the Tampa Palm Community Development District asked the state Attorney General whether “someone who is neither a landowner nor a resident of the Tampa Palms Community Development District may participate in the monthly meeting of the district during the portion of the meeting reserved for audience comments.”
The Attorney General’s office responded:
…These rules may not unreasonably restrict the public’s right of access to meetings…
In sum, a board or commission may adopt reasonable rules and policies for the orderly conduct of a public meeting and may require orderly behavior on those persons attending such a meeting. However, it is not readily apparent how the residence of the speaker or his or her ownership of property in a certain area would be relevant to the orderly conduct of a meeting.
Town of Ponce Inlet (2006)
In 2006, the Town Attorney of Ponce Inlet asked the state Attorney General if a town-operated online discussion board satisfied Sunshine law requirements.
In responding, the Attorney General’s office says:
This statute was enacted in the public interest to protect the public from “closed door” politics and must be broadly construed to effect its remedial and protective purposes…
The public is entitled to meaningful participation in the decision-making process and this constitutional right is protected by the Government in the Sunshine Law.
Links
- Memorandum of Law: Keesler and Boyd v. CMPA
- Advisory Legal Opinion: City of St. Augustine (1987)
- Advisory Legal Opinion: Town of Orange Park (1994)
- Advisory Legal Opinion: Tampa Palm Community Development District (1996)
- Advisory Legal Opinion: Town of Ponce Inlet (2006)
Subscribe to our feed
Get updates via email
Follow us on Twitter
There are 250 Florida Attorney General Advisory Opinions that discuss the Sunshine Law to include describing recommended application of the case law. While the original language of the statute passed in 1967 does at first glance seem pretty straight forward, the Court has since interpreted it, a lot. Judge Bell said there are “zillions” of Sunshine Law decisions. Even the late Sunshine Law bill sponsor who first introduced it in 1957 and then each year until it passed told historians he was surprised at how the Court had expanded the rights of the public.
But while the Court has described many Sunshine Law “rights” that inherently require public speaking, it has never directly said that the public has “a right to speak.” But it has also never said that the public has no right “to speak” either. So that’s the heart of the unresolved legal issue Judge Bell didn’t want to decide, telling Byron Keesler and Leroy Boyd to take it up with the legislature.
All Floridians may ultimately owe the cantankerous Judge Lacey Collier a debt of gratitude for forcing this issue into the courtroom. If he’d just been willing to adhere to the Pensacola City Council’s public participation rules and procedures when discussing how to spend what now appears to be about $92.5 million of taxpayer money for just Phase 1 of the Public Improvements, none of this would have happened. And we’d probably have a better, more affordable park plan as well.
If the Florida Supreme Court does find for the public, Judge Collier will share the losing team credit (Infamy?) with media mavens Rick Outzen and Marty Stanovich and others like them, mostly city day workers who won’t live in our community, that selectively oppose public participation during the public decision-making process. The CMPA exists to act in the place of the Pensacola City Council. Our elected officials could rectify the CMPA lack of public participation problem at any time, or not give the money to the CMPA, or just dismiss them to form a city Community Maritime Park Board, if they had the political will.
If this lawsuit prompts the legislature to make the right of public participation an explicit part of Sunshine statutes, that would indeed be a win for the citizens of Florida, and I would welcome it. However, the plaintiffs are asking to punish the CMPA retroactively for something that was not clearly delineated in the law books.
Plenty of laws aren’t clearly delineated. Courts have interpreted things like the First Amendment expansively to the point that it’s quite conceivable that someone could violate someone’s First Amendment rights despite the fact that every way First Amendment rights could be violated is not delineated in the First Amendment.
And there’s no punishment involved. Despite the fact that these violations could carry fines, the plaintiff is not asking for any; they’re merely asking that the CMPA be made to comply with Sunshine, which again, they are not presently doing. Also, of course, the CMPA’s decisions would have to be revisited/reaffirmed, but that’s the consequence of the CMPA’s actions. They could have very easily avoided all of this by simply complying with Sunshine from the outset.
The First Amendment is not a law; it’s part of the Constitution. Constitutions contains broad principles of governance that are open to interpretation. Laws are nuts-and-bolts instructions: “this is what you do.” Citizens have to be able to rely on the laws as they are written — not guess at how to interpret the collected sum of judicial precedents.
Imagine going to the library, looking up your city’s building codes, building a home in full accordance with them, then finding out later, “oh, these have been interpreted more broadly in the years since this was written, to better protect your neighbors’ rights; you’re going to have to tear it down and start over.”
Joe: Of course it’s a law. And the open meetings provision is in the Florida Constitution, as well as statutes, so if you want to get constitutional about it…
Look at it this way… the first amendment doesn’t say you have the right to wear a black armband, but courts have interpreted it to mean that you do.
The Florida Constitution doesn’t say that “open” meetings have to allow public input, but courts have interpreted it to mean that they do.
The courts are empowered to hold up laws to a constitutional lens and to strike down laws that they find unconstitutional, but it’s the laws that we follow. For example, U.S. courts have found that laws limiting protests to “Free Speech Zones” do not violate the First Amendment; future court rulings may reverse this, and those laws may be struck down or changed. However, protestors who were previously confined to Free Speech Zones cannot retroactively sue the government for abiding by the laws that were on the books at the time.
Again, I think the legislature should change the statutory wording of Sunshine laws to make public participation an explicit right, but that hasn’t been done yet. I’m happy to wait and see what the courts decide, but that’s why I think they will affirm the earlier ruling.
If the purpose of the lawsuit were to force the CMPA to allow public participation at their meetings, I would agree with your reading of case law 100%. But that’s not the purpose, because public participation has already been allowed.
Rather, the purpose of the lawsuit is to force an annulment of everything the CMPA has accomplished on the grounds that past meetings (which were “open” in every other regard) did not have a designated public input segment. By playing a strained game of connect-the-dots back to the “void ab initio” precedent, they are seeking punitive measures retroactively for the CMPA’s failure to do something that, as you provided, has “no express requirement” in Sunshine statutes.
This is a cynical attempt to subvert the spirit of Sunshine law for a transparently obstructionist agenda, and I am confident the higher courts will see it as such.
Joe: That’s just it, that is what this case is about — to force the CMPA to allow public participation at their meetings, and to ensure that it’s made clear that such violations of Sunshine are not acceptable.
The CMPA does not currently allow meaningful participation. They provide an open forum that takes place prior to meetings — the CMPA’s attorney refuses even to say that they are part of the meeting — and citizens are not permitted to speak to individual agenda items. Oh, wait, there aren’t individual agenda items. The CMPA makes the agendas are bare-bones as possible, to further frustrate attempts by members of the public to give input.
No one disputes Messrs. Keesler and Boyd are not fans of the CMP project. Perhaps their “obstructionist agenda” will make them just that mcuh more satisfied when Judge Bell’s ruling is overturned in Tallahassee. This suit, though, is very much about the spirit of the Sunshine law.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you arguing that the current arrangement at CMPA meetings is in violation of Sunshine law?
Yes.
The CMPA continues to use a variety of tactics to frustrate meaningful public input.
The council and staff knows alot about subverting the spirit of an rfp .
When the council, under pressure to allow an rfp, forced the rfp to specifically include ALL the elements of Studer, Cavanaugh, & Fetterman’s plan.
This plot by council and staff obstructively limited the possibility of receiving any other proposal.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t seem to recall any RFP’s being done for the recent Sandspur Airport/hotel deal, or for the Halcorp lease extension at the Port of Pensacola. Both involved City property.
‘
Very good, Citizen Kane!
These are two separate issues. The airport hotel affair has, or course, prompted a law suit for the very reason you cited. The airport director. Frank Miller, has claimed that the airport can act as a separate entity from the city government, and do whatever it pleases. And he did just that.
On your second issue, leases often have a provision for extending the lease. Not sure how this one read. It usually pays to keep a tenant, unless you have another use for the facility lined up.
The best example of how the RFP process SHOULD work was the Hawkshaw property. The city established broad criteria and issued a Request for Proposals. Five local groups responded with five excellent proposals.
The competitive process WORKS. The public is BEST SERVED by a competitive process. If a true RFP had been issued regarding the Trillium property, we would have received several choices. This is precisely what the Studer / O’Sullivan group did NOT want to happen. Their scheme cannot stand up to even the slightest competition. They had enough political influence over our city council to get the council to ignore a long-standing city policy.
Thus we are stuck with a choice between a BAD PLAN or not plan at all.
.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t seem to recall anyone stepping up with a different proposal for the Trillium property.
‘
Do you recall if a Request for Proposals was issued?
.
‘
ABC Contractor, who happens to have a strong relationship with various city officials, approaches the City Manager and suggests that the city build a new fire station at a cost of $5 million.
At their next meeting, the City Council hurriedly announces that they have accepted the bid from ABC Contractor to build a new fire station for $5 million.
When other contractors and concerned citizens complain, the City Council simply says “WE DIDN’T RECEIVE ANY OTHER BIDS!”
Is this how you envision our government should work?
.
‘
BTW, councilmen Mike Wiggins, P.C. Wu, and Mike DeSorbo all PERSONALLY told me that they “had received no other proposals, so they HAD to accept this one!” I got the feeling that they all were pre-programed to give the same response.
When I told Councilman Mike Wiggins that he should expect a lot of opposition to the city building a baseball stadium, he told me that “he didn’t know of a SINGLE person who opposed the plan.”
A corrupt government will exist only if the people they govern accept their corruption.
.
‘
A corrupt government will do more to drive away new businesses than any other factor.
.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I still don’t seem to recall anyone stepping up with a different proposal for the Trillium property.
‘
You still haven’t answered the question. Do you recall if a Request for Proposals was issued?
.
I recall that these same RFP complaints were aired during the referendum campaign, which ended with a victory for the CMP. This issue is moot.
“I recall that these same RFP complaints were aired during the referendum campaign, which ended with a victory for the CMP. This issue is moot.”
That’s kind of my point. People have had years to step up with a different proposal, yet no one has. I keep hearing complaints about this proposal, but I have yet to see a different proposal. I’m starting to come to the conclusion that some people are more anti-any park than they are pro-different park.
‘
No, the issue is NOT mute, just because Joe wants it to be. Corruption is government does not go away. It just festers!
Certainly there are those who benefit from a corrupt government. In my example above, ABC Contractor was the main beneficiary. Other people who benefited were the company’s many subcontractors. It is also well known that ABC Contractor gives jobs to the wives of numerous people around town who can help cover up the actions of this contractor. It turns out that the city manager was looking to move on to a higher paying job, so by building the fire station he was able to add that item to his resume.
The LOSERS in a city with a corrupt government are the taxpayers. You see, there was really no need to build a new fire station at all! The city had plenty of fire stations. And if the project had been put out for bids to other contractors, it would have cost $4 million, not the $5 million that was paid to ABC Contractor. The proposal from ABC was “design/build.” So after the city council awarded the contract to ABC, it announced that it really could not build all of the amenities for $5 million after all. Many of the original niceties, that had helped to sell the project, were eliminated.
,
‘
Since you refuse to answer the question, Citizen Kane, I will assume that you agree with me that NO Requests for Proposals were issued regarding this project. Therefore, I am going to tell you that you do not get a “bye” just by saying “THERE WERE NO OTHER PROPOSALS.” You are NOT going to EVER see a different proposal for this property until a proper Request for Proposal is issued by our City Council. Which is precisely what the Studer / O’Sullivan group and the City Council intended.
The Studer / O’Sullivan group, together with our City Council, conspired to ELIMINATE any competition for the baseball stadium scheme. Competition is in the BEST INTERST of the public. Those who do not want competition have a private agenda.
There are many developers who would be interested in 30 acres of waterfront property in a downtown area. It would be extremely easy to find someone with a better proposal than this one to spend $40 million of taxpayer money to build a baseball stadium. Don’t you find it utterly ABSURD that there was only one proposal?
While this non-competitive one-sided contract was of great benefit to Quint Studer, it was extremely detrimental to the citizens of Pensacola.
Nevertheless, just like ABC Contractor, there are those who are going to benefit from a corrupt government. They include the following.
1.Obviously, Quint Studer.
2.Perhaps UWF.
3.Various subcontractors, including Miller Caldwell ($2 million), E.W. Bullock, Jane Birdwell, Kenneth Lamb, Fred Donovan, Mort O’Sullivan, etc.
4.Those who think that they are getting the project shown in the Fantasy Rendering.
5.Those who enjoy watching Pelican baseball games.
Those who benefit, or THINK that they are going to benefit, will continue to push for the project on this blog and elsewhere.
,
“You see, there was really no need to build a new fire station at all! The city had plenty of fire stations.”
I’ve seen some them. Most are pretty old and some of them are falling apart. Personally, I thought the new station was a good investment.
I keep hearing accusations of corruption, but not seeing any evidence. Perhaps you should run for office on the reform platform and expose all this corruption?
I believe that awarding a non-competitive, one-sided contract for $40 million in cash, plus 30 acres of waterfront property, is plenty of evidence of corruption.
The conspiracy to eliminate competing proposals can be seen in emails between Studer and other parties.
Also shown in the emails is the fact that members of the city council were “in the pocket” of Studer well before the stadium scheme was presented to the public.
Run for office? $100,000 worth of headaches for $12,000 per year? This is why our city council is composed of housewifes, retirees, and “reverends.” They are easily overpowered by the Quint Studers of this world. I would be glad to work toward increasing that salary enough to attract stronger people. Therefore, running for office would be a conflict of interest, wouldn’t it?
“Also shown in the emails is the fact that members of the city council were “in the pocket” of Studer well before the stadium scheme was presented to the public.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the state attorney look into those allegations and dismiss them?
And correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Councilman Marty Dononvan exposed as basically being C.C. Elebash & Charles Fairchild’s sock puppet?
And correct me if I’m wrong, but if there’s all this evidence of corruption, why isn’t a single person, including yourself, making these charges in public instead of doing it anonymously on blogs?
Starting with your last paragraph, Charles Fairchild obtained the emails. He read the emails on the steps of City Hall and gave copies of them the the media. I would say that he made the charges in public, wouldn’t you? None of the media printed the material in the emails. Have you ever read the emails?
You second paragraph is incorrect. I believe that you are referring to sunshine law allegations that an individual made. My allegations are completely different. My allegation is that the city council deliberately failed to obtain alternative bids, if you will, for the use of the Trillium property. The fact that the council did this is SELF EVIDENT., since they refused to issue a Request for Proposals Emails between Studer and his PR company disclose that it was Studer’s intention to prevent alternative proposals.
In my statements, I always say that the city council broke city “policy.” I would think that their would be a law against what they did, but I have not been able to find anyone who knows that law. The state attorney told me that he was too busy chasing illegal contractors after Hurricane Ivan to look in to the matter.
Your third paragraph appears to be an attempt to insult people you know nothing about. From the outset of this disastrous episode in the history of Pensacola, those who have promoted this project have tried to belittle those who opposed their scheme to build a private baseball stadium with public money. Quint Studer hired 7 public relation firms, at a cost of $1.2 million, to overcome a grassroots movement of concerned citizens. Their apparent advice was to use a negative campaign.
Just to let you know, Citizen Kane, I wrote a response to your post, but it was blocked. That makes the second time that a response to you was blocked in the last couple of days.
Xochitl: Sorry your two comments were not posted sooner. Something in them sent them to moderation and I’ve been away all weekend so I hadn’t approved them.
They’re up now.
“Have you ever read the emails?”
I have, including the infamous “five votes in our pocket.” email. I’ve also read the Elebash emails to Donovan. There’s no evidence in any of the emails that bribery was employed by either side. Where is your corruption?
“My allegations are completely different. My allegation is that the city council deliberately failed to obtain alternative bids, if you will, for the use of the Trillium property.”
I recall that issue being brought up during the referendum. I don’t recall where it was shown the the city violated any laws or did anything illegal. I also recall a great deal being said about building a better park, but never seeing anything of substance behind the claim, not even conceptual drawings that would have been relatively inexpensive to produce. Nor do I recall any serious attempt by any other party to present a proposal before the council
“Your third paragraph appears to be an attempt to insult people you know nothing about. From the outset of this disastrous episode in the history of Pensacola”
I’m sorry you feel that way, but I believe it to be a valid point. Individuals reputations are being damaged and characters questioned, mostly anonymously. Charges of corruption and illegal activities are serious things. If those making the accusations are unwilling to do so publicly and risk counter charges of slander or libel,why should I believe them?
I have never used the word “bribery”, nor have I said (lately at least) that there were any laws broken. I would THINK that there would be a law requiring a competitive process for government projects, but I don’t know where to find that law. Perhaps some of the lawyers who read this can tell me.
Wikipedia -
“Corruption is essentially termed as an “impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle; depravity, decay, and/or an inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means, a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct, and/or an agency or influence that corrupts.”
Corruption, by definition, can be improper OR unlawful. I believe that it is AT LEAST improper to award a non-competitive contract for $40 million of taxpayer money.
Yes, charges of corruption ARE serious. To have committed the corruption is even MORE serious.
Don’t’ you think so?
“None of the media printed the material in the emails.”
Huh? The Pensacola News Journal wrote stories that quoted heavily from the emails. Rick Outzen posted the entire text of Fairchild’s press conference on his blog. Why would you say something so easily proven wrong? Just more of that “spaghetti at the wall” strategy?
You keep painting this picture of a grand conspiracy perpetrated by Quint Studer, but I’ve yet to see how he stands to gain financially from this. Yes, he gets to use a publicly-financed stadium for his team, but he could just as easily have kept using the baseball park at UWF without paying millions out of pocket and pledging to give away all his profits.
And when you’ve been confronted by these pesky facts, you hem and haw and say, “Well, really, it was the architect Miller Caldwell who manufactured the plan, so he could make millions off the design work!” Except Caldwell doesn’t design stadiums; they had to work with specialty firms who do that. So maybe picking a sports stadium as the lynchpin for this conspiracy doesn’t make a lot of sense. In fact, when you divide a less than $2 million design fee by the number of firms listed in the design criteria team — seventeen! — it doesn’t seem like a very lucrative gig.
But keep chasing that windmill, Xochitl. Why let a three-year-old referendum (which Charles Fairchild himself said would “decide the issue”) stop you when reason and facts clearly do not?
Perhaps, to understand the concept of corruption, you need to clear your mind of the CMP.
Just think of the recent case where Bob McLaughlin attempted to hire Cindy Anderson at a salary of $120,000 per year. The position was not advertised, and there were no interviews with any other candidates. In other words, it was a non-competitive award of a very lucrative job.
Is it fair for Bob to say, “No one else applied for the job? I HAD to give it to Cindy!”
Who loses in this situation? Bob and Cindy are happy.
It is the taxpayers who lose. Not only are they losing $120,000 per year, but they may not be getting the best qualified person for the job. At a time when Escambia County is desperate for economic development, can we afford to give an important job to someone just because she and Bob are friends?
While this episode was improper, was it illegal? A lot of people thought so. This practice seems to be common in this area.
Ah, Joe. It’s nice to see your hysterical response!
I guess you idea of “quote heavily” and mine are two different things. I believe the News Journal wrote one story. It also wrote one editorial that dismissed the emails as being trivial. A better question might be “Why didn’t the News Journal obtain the emails themselves?” Why did the News Journal jump all over Cindy Anderson, but ignored the fact that the city awarded a non-competitive $40 million contract? The News Journal certainly made a stink about the fact that Anderson had no competition.
Come to think of it, Joe, have you ever read ANYTHING in the News Journal that said a bad word about this project?
At the time, I didn’t know who Rick Outzen was. Come to think of it, I didn’t know what a blog was, either. When you say that Outzen printed the text of the press conference, does that mean he printed the emails themselves?
Come to think of it, Joe, have you ever read ANYTHING that Rick Outzen has said about this project that is negative?
I don’t have to paint a “grand conspiracy,” Joe. All I have to do is show that the Pensacola City Council awarded a non-competitive $40 million contract, along with 30 acres of waterfront property.
Do you agree, Joe, that the Pensacola City Council awarded a non-competitive $40 million contract?
“None of the media printed the material in the emails.” This is your statement, and it is empirically false. How many pages should the PNJ have devoted to Mr. Fairchild to fit your definition of ‘printing the material’? And for someone who admittedly didn’t know the publisher of the second most circulated newspaper in Pensacola, or even what a blog was, how are you qualified to tell us what ‘none of the media’ did or did not do?
As to your other question, I agree that having a more competitive RFP process is a reasonable concern. That’s why we had the referendum to uphold or overturn the council’s decision. I’m glad we did it. However, it was not unusual for the council to select a plan without competition. I don’t recall an uproar over the Council’s decision to put a park where Bayfront Auditorium used to be, for example. (Why wasn’t there a national RFP over what to do with that valuable piece of waterfront property?? I just bet the contractors who built the park had all those council members in their pockets!!) But again: the referendum settled this issue, as Charles Fairchild said it did. I know that defeat may taste like a “shit taco,” as Jon Stewart recently said, but to keep prattling on three years after the fact is just sour grapes.
I think that you are confusing my words, Joe. When I said “material in the emails,” I meant the emails themselves. I didn’t mean ad libs or commentary about them. The News Journal has run full page endorsements for this project. They certainly could have printed the most pertinent emails in their entirety. And they CERTAINLY could have followed up with investigative stories. Of course, it is my opinion that the News Journal was doing its best NOT to turn over any stones.
If Outzen’s newspaper is the “second most circulated newspaper in Pensacola,” and there are only 2 newspapers in Pensacola, doesn’t that also make it the “LEAST most circulated newspaper in Pensacola”? In any case, when I used the term “media” I was referring to “news media,” not blogs. Sorry if that offends anyone, but if you are giving commentary, you are not rendering the news.
Still, I’ve got the feeling that you are quibbling about the News Journal because you don’t want to answer this question.
Do you agree, Joe, that the Pensacola City Council awarded a non-competitive $40 million contract?
…”there are only 2 newspapers in Pensacola”…
Wow. The hits just keep coming. (I also remember seeing the story covered on WEAR and hearing it it on WUWF, but those probably don’t count either. After all, they didn’t reprint every word from every email!)
I answered your other question earlier, but it was held in moderation.
It was because of your profane “taco” phrase. Haha.
Nope. I wouldn’t expect TV or radio stations to “print” a copy of the emails.
But please enlighten me, Joe. How many newspapers are there in Pensacola? You’ll have to name them, of course.
Well, there’s the Downtown Crowd, the Corsair, the Voyager, the Pensacola Voice, La Costa Latina… Get the idea?
But no, you’re right. TV and radio stations don’t count as media because I accidentally used the word “reprint” (wocka wocka!). Blogs don’t count because you hadn’t heard of them. The “media” begins and ends with the PNJ, which you admit covered the story, but they don’t count either because it wasn’t favorable enough to S.O.C. for your liking, and because they later had the gall to cover that the state attorney’s office had found the allegations baseless.
Oh, I didn’t know that you wanted to use the “expanded” definition of the word “newspaper.”
We can do that, but it’s really going to be BAD NEWS for you guys. There are at least a dozen weekly church bulletins that have a wider circulation than Outzen’s newspaper. Not to mention the “Thrifty Nickel,” which probably has a higher circulation than even the News Journal.
Still, I’ve got the feeling that you are quibbling about the number of newspapers because you don’t want to answer this question. It’s just a “yes” or “no” answer, Joe. If you don’t use profanities, it will even get printed.
Do you agree, Joe, that the Pensacola City Council awarded a non-competitive $40 million contract?
I agree that the Pensacola City Council chose a plan of action without a bevy of alternatives, just as it did for Plaza de Luna and countless other projects. (You might have read that answer above, but since it wasn’t printed in the PNJ, perhaps you didn’t know it existed.)
Yes or no, Xochitl: didn’t we have a referendum to decide this matter back in 2006?
“There are at least a dozen weekly church bulletins that have a wider circulation than Outzen’s newspaper.”
Please enlighten me. You’ll have to name them, of course. And please make sure to use plenty of “condescending” “sarcasm-quotes” about the other Pensacola media to cover for the fact that you were wrong, plain and simple.
I agree that if the City initiates a proposal for a project, there should be a competitive bidding process, but you’re saying is that any time a business person goes to the city with a proposal that they’ve spent time and money developing, the City should stop and ask everyone if anyone else has a different proposal they’d like to submit before accepting the initial proposal.
I don’t think I can agree with that. As a business person, why should I come up an idea, then spend the time and money to necessary to make it all work, only have to have the City ask all my competitors if they’d like an opportunity to essentially steal my idea?
In this case, the land had been sitting there vacant for several years without anyone presenting the City with a proposal. Then comes the Maritime Park Proposal and suddenly anyone and everyone must be given a chance to submit a proposal of their own? Why? Did they not have the same chance as I did to come up with a plan? Isn’t that what free market capitalism is all about? Why should I have to subsidize my own competition?
In any case, clearly the City did not act illegally, or charges would have been filed. As for the moral implications, morality is relative. I find it immoral that it should be required to give others an opportunity to benefit from the fruits of my labor and effort.
Now Joe, you are not giving a straight answer. When you state that it was done “without a bevy of alternatives,” you are implying that there were at least “a few” alternatives. Actually, there were NO alternatives. And the issue isn’t that no one else provided any other alternatives. The issue is that the Pensacola City Council REFUSED to seek alternative proposals.
Hence, my accusation that the City Council performance was CORRUPT. I THINK that you have agreed with this line of thought. If not, please tell me where I am mistaken.
I am not familiar with any non-competitive bids regarding Plaza de Luna. Perhaps you are referring to the development at the end of Palafox Street. I am not familiar with the details of either of these projects, but it would not surprise me if you are correct. My response would be “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Yes, a referendum was held. No, it did not decide the matter.
Yes, Citizen Kane, the city has to abide by an open bidding process under every circumstance that I can imagine.
Go back to my earlier post.
ABC Contractor approaches the City Manager with the idea that the city should award ABC with a $5 million contract to build a fire station. It is improper (if not illegal) for the city to award a $5 million contract to ABC just because ABC put that idea in the mind of the City Manager.
Citizen Kane, you have brought up a lot of interesting questions for discussion. I will try to take them one at a time.
But first, you are under the misconception that S&S spent “time and money” developing their concept prior to city approval. The actual “approval” took place well before the public new about it. The approval took place during conversations between S&S, the attorney for S, and our City Manager, Tom Bonfield. Were members of the city council aware of these discussions? It would be hard to imagine that at least the top dogs knew what was going on.
People often approach a government body with an idea.
Suppose you see an abandoned school building that you would like to turn into elderly housing. You approach the school board and ask to buy it. The school board is obliged to put the building out for public bids.
From the Pensacola News Journal, aka “the media”:
“Charles Fairchild, chairman of Save Our City, the political action committee that led the fight against the park, said there would be no more opposition. ‘This will decide the issue,’ Fairchild said before the return of the referendum results. He said the real winners are Pensacola residents. ‘They asked for a referendum and were able to cast their vote to decide the issue,’ he said.”
I agree with you. No one should be given the opportunity to benefit from the fruits of your labor.
On the other hand, you shouldn’t be given the opportunity to take public money and land just because you were the first one to ask for it.
Charles Fairchild speaks for Charles Fairchild. I am not Charles Fairchild.
A lot of people who voted “yes” in the referendum voted because they thought they were getting the Fantasy Rendering. Ray Gindroz did a beautiful job producing that rendering. The promoters of the stadium mailed that rendering out to every household in Pensacola. The News Journal printed it many times. It still can be seen in places such as this blog.
Unfortunately, the Fantasy Rendering is a false rendering. The city is not getting anything close to that rendering. The promoters of the stadium were shocked when they saw the rendering, because they knew it was nowhere near their budget. Many of the more impressive (and expensive) features, such as the marina and lighthouse, were deleted within a couple of weeks.
So basically, Joe, I feel that the referendum was approved through false advertising. But more importantly, key elements of the project have been deleted since the referendum. It is also probable that the financing plan that was promised before the vote will not be possible.
In short, Joe, the referendum is (or will be made) null and void.
Hang on, I think I’ve got the pattern.
1) Depict Quint Studer as a con man who is getting “a $100 ballpark for $1!” If anyone debunks this by pointing out the actual numbers, and how Studer is not making any money off this deal,
2) Claim the lack of a competitive RFP process is proof of corruption; when someone brings up the voter referendum that affirmed the project,
3) Say the referendum was won by a “fantasy rendering” with features that were later dropped, even though the final build-out plan includes all the major elements from the Gindroz rendering. Complain about the money spent by Studer during the campaign, and how this fact should disqualify the results.
4) Rinse. Repeat.
It’s like a merry-go-round. Wheeeee!
See….. You should just kick back and enjoy the ride instead of always getting your panties in a wad.
But before you do that, perhaps you could reveal to us a REALISTIC idea of how to reach that mystical “final build-out plan.” Does the city have another secret CRA District that it can use to float more bonds?
The developer selected by the CMPA is, for $40 million, proposing to build the items shown on this web site, PAGE 15.
http://www.ci.pensacola.fl.us/upload/images/CommunityDevelopment/PDFs/OB%20memo%20CMPA%203-9-09.pdf
The citizens of Pensacola, will receive the following items.
One (1) baseball stadium.
One (1) asphalt lot for the baseball stadium.
And miscellaneous landscaping.
This is NOT what the citizens of Pensacola voted on!
The phase I plan describes the essential infrastructure and public amenities that must be built with the $40 million public money. The master developer firms cannot seek out private investment until they are awarded the contract, as you well know, and other elements of the final buildout will be added over time as the park generates revenue — without incurring any more burden on the CRA or the city.
*Yawn*… Any more canards you want to trot out?
That’s a bunch of malarkey!
The “master developer” is composed of local yocals who have brought nothing to the table, but are demanding a $1.5 million fee. The baseball stadium can be built without giving anyone a $1.5 million fee. If these guys (or anyone else) can bring a tenant to the site, pay them a leasing fee. The city will have paid for all infrastructure, taken all the risk, leaving the “master developer” with the simple task of collecting all the profits.
Major elements of the “Fantasy Rendering” are gone, and gone forever. These include marina, parking garage, Conference Center, UWF Classrooms, museum. etc. The principals (Fetterman, Studer, UWF) have assigned the waterfront sites to themselves, leaving privated developemt with views of Main Street. Therefore, there will be NO desirable provate development.
Phase 1 will be the Final Phase. This is what will occupy the site.
1. One (1) baseball stadium.
2. One (1) asphalt lot for the baseball stadium.
3. And miscellaneous landscaping.
Here we go again. Xochitl, I no longer have the desire nor the patience to keep correcting your cyclical pattern of distortions, and luckily there’s no need! Despite all your grousing, the project is moving forward, slowly but surely. If you want to keep up this Norm Coleman clown act, by all means go ahead; it will give us some entertainment while we wait for the Pelicans’ first game at the new stadium. :)