Who Gets the Credit? - 09/01/10

f city commissioners expect applause for finally moving the Cove Center project, they may get it. But not from this website. The fact is that city commissioners (acting in their role of CRA Board) obstructed, frustrated, and delayed the project nearly out of existence. The fact is that some commissioners were more interested in serving their gal pals, Kiwanis buds, and campaign contributors than they were the people they supposedly represent.

It was more than obvious that these commissioners were acting all along in the interest of a few individuals who did not want this project to happen.

They might have been more deserving of praise if they had said, in the beginning, "We're not going to do this," and had good reasons. Instead, they strung the residents along with a series of excuses. They told us, "We'll do this next year," when, in fact, they had no intention of doing it at all. It is also a fact that if they had moved the Cove Center project when they came into office, it would be well on its way to completion by this time.

Perhaps in March 2011 and March 2013, voters will remember who worked more for the privileged friends and special interests, than their constituents, with respect to the Cove project.

I'm happy, of course, that the project is finally on track. It won't make the Cove Shopping Center the Seventh Wonder of the World, but it will be a quantum improvement over what's there now. It may start in as little as a couple of weeks.

A lot of people worked on the Cove plan. The people who probably deserve the most credit for saving it are the citizens who got in the face of some of our public officials and told them, start listening to us, not your friends. Public officials have no friends who are more important than constituents.

It's hard to know exactly what the public sentiment is on the Cove project; there was never a vote. But it was a grass-roots effort. The plan was carved out in numerous public meetings and charettes in which anyone could participate. And many did. The loudest complainers did not. It's ironic that the only major public works project in Deerfield Beach in recent history, crafted by the residents themselves, should encounter so much resistance.

As one of the speakers at the CRA meeting said, "You can't finish something, if you don't start something." It's not profound, but it's certainly right.

Conclusion: The commission/CRA finally did the right thing with the Cove project. But they don't deserve high praise for the way they handled it.

Madness at City Hall - 08/29/10

oday's topics: Insanity at City Hall, Midnight Madness. Yes, it's that time again, when Island Water Sports holds its annual midnight sales bash. Madness goes back as far as I can remember, and I've lived on the beach for 25 years. This year, they've teamed up with the Island Partnership; wait till you see what they want to do.

It's budget time at City Hall, also. The city fired over 100 city workers to help balance the budget. This is just one of many cuts in the budget plan. Among other things, City Manager Hanson eliminated donations to some private non-profits and cut funding for the street festivals.

It's still not enough. They're talking about increasing ad valorem tax rates and various fees. They may increase the fire assessment fee by $36. They want churches and other non-profits to pay the fire fee just like businesses and homeowners. They may double the price of the beach parking sticker for residents. To top it off, the commission is thinking about a utility tax, which voters have twice rejected. (But they say they can do it anyway.)

It all looks pretty harsh, a far departure from the days when the city thought nothing of spending hundreds of thousands on boat races and other events that were supposed to make the city look good. But now, some commissioners want to reinstate the city's numerous contributions to non-profits, which Hanson eliminated. This includes Little League and youth football. This is not sewer pipes, fresh water, or public safety we're talking about -- this is taking money out of your pocket and giving it to private causes favored by the city commissioners. And it could mean as much as $65,000 out of your pocket.

I wonder, how we can always seem to find tens of thousands of dollars to spend on forensic audits and charitable donations, but we can't seem to come up with the money to replace the deteriorating sewer line under the Intracoastal, which city officials say is a disaster waiting to happen.

Is funding for Mango also a talking point?

If that's not insanity, the plan for this year's Midnight Madness may well be. In the past, Madness was just a minor annoyance for nearby residents for one evening each year. It seems this year, Island Water Sports, in conjunction with the Island Partnership, is proposing to close off A1A on the S-curve for the event and to make room for street vendors. The state (FDOT) would have to OK the street closure, which is set to take place on October 15th. It will be an all-day affair.

But that's not all. Some of the street vendors would like to sell alcoholic beverages. First consider, Deerfield Beach has an open container law. Second consider, Midnight Madness is mostly aimed at kids under legal drinking age.

What are they thinking? This is how the proposal is described in an e-mail from the city:

Their preliminary proposed plans include closure of A1A between the S-curve, live music, and food vendors. Attendance at last year's event was estimated at 3,000. They have a sponsorship and revenue plan to that they estimate will cover the event related expenses, but the cost estimates are preliminary. A plan for rerouting A1A traffic that FDOT would approve appears to be the highest hurdle before their anticipated application could be presented for City Commission consideration.

The plan has been discussed with the BSO, Fire, Parks, Risk, and CRA staff.

In a separate phone call with Keven Klopp, CRA director, I asked about alcoholic beverage sales. I heard from one of the merchants in the beach shopping district that part of the plan was -- I'm more or less quoting -- for the city to suspend the open container laws for the event. Mr. Klopp stated some individual vendors may want to sell alcohol, but that the sponsoring organizations were "strongly advised" not to request alcohol sales as part of their proposal to the city commission.

Seems like good advice to me. It is true, we relax enforcement of the alcohol laws during some beach events. In this case -- not such a good idea.

So let's recap: All day Friday, October 15th, when most people are (supposed to be) in school or at work, A1A will be closed for a Midnight Madness-related street fair. From 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., A1A traffic will be rerouted through residential neighborhoods. Word of open alcohol sales on the street will go viral throughout area schools. Sounds like a plan, doesn't it?

Conclusion: It must be a full moon.

Rick Scott Still "Stinks" - 08/27/10

ill McCollum may be a sore loser for refusing to endorse Rick Scott, after his loss to Scott in the GOP primary on Tuesday. It's protocol for losing primary candidates to endorse the winner, letting bygones be bygones, for the sake of party unity.

But he's right. There are serious questions about Scott's integrity because of his involvement with the Columbia/HCA scandal. Scott won the GOP nomination for governor, but he still smells to high heaven.

It's equally true, Scott was not charged or convicted of any crime. What's not as clear, is if Scott went free because there was no evidence that he knew or participated in his company's medicare fraud scheme, or whether the evidence was just too flimsy to support prosecution. White collar crime investigations can be complex and sometimes produce muddled results. Such investigations can taint people who are innocent of any wrongdoing. They may leave the guilty unscathed.

Rick Scott, of course, maintains his innocence, but also tends to dance around the subject.

A Sun-Sentinel blogger suggested that Scott's victory was the result of the party rank-and-file's discontent over the Republican establishment. McCollum was supported by Governor Bush and by much of the top GOP leadership. Low turn-outs in South Florida, where McCollum was supposedly stronger, may have been a factor.

Scott had an effective no-brainer message which resonated with many people fed up with current Washington policies. The polls indicate that a majority of Florida voters do not like the health care reform and support measures like Arizona's controversial immigration law. Scott's campaign ("Let's get to work"), backed by immense financial resources, was the clincher.

There's probably no question that the GOP establishment is not thrilled with Scott's win. He is viewed as an outsider and apparently is capable of bringing home the bacon without their help. Scott doesn't owe the top GOP officials anything, at this point, and, from their viewpoint, that's not good.

Quite honestly, the establishment could use a good shake up. The "Peter Principle of Politics" is that the scum rises to the top. Scott's victory in November portends changes upstairs.

Still, I doubt the party leadership was a major factor in the primary. Consider the fact that Scott did not run away with the nomination -- it was a relatively close vote, and even last-minute opinion polls showed McCollum ahead. It could be argued that if 50% of Republican voters voted against the establishment, then almost 50% did not, or didn't care.

I suspect that most of the rank-and-file don't care about who the so-called party leaders are, or even know who they are. Ordinary voters of both parties are more interested in who's governor or U.S. senator.

In the final analysis though, Scott can't completely escape the uneasy feeling many Republicans and many Democrats have about his closeness to the Columbia/HCA medicare fraud, whether or not he was directly involved. This seems to be Bill McCollum's view.

McCollum indicated he may support Scott later. It will be interesting to see what other prominent Republicans who supported McCollum, like Jeb Bush, will do. It would be astounding if they were to throw their support to the Democrat.

Despite all this, as the primary clearly showed, many voters like Scott's message. Given the conservative mood-swing of Florida voters right now, that makes him a formidable candidate. In fact, according to the first post-primary poll conducted by Rasmussen, Scott leads Alex Sink, the Democrat's nominee. (Detailed numbers can be found in the Rasmussen Poll feature in the right panel of this website.)

I won't deign to tell Democrats how to run their campaign, but I believe it would be a mistake to dwell on Rick Scott's character too much. By this time, everybody knows about the baggage, so let voters use their own judgment. Democrats need to advance positions that may win over moderates and conservatives who also don't feel comfortable with Mr. Scott.

Conclusion: Rick Scott has a solid conservative message at a time when liberal policies are falling out of favor in Florida. He could be the next governor. The Democrats will have to "get to work" and come up with fiscally conservative policies to Sink him.

Citizens, Beware! - 08/18/10

hree issues to discuss this week: Burgess Hanson, the utility tax, SMDs.

The latter refers to single-member districts. At one time, a time long ago, in a galaxy we hoped was still far, far away, Deerfield Beach city commissioners were elected at-large. That means that your District 1 commissioner was elected by the folks who lived in Century Village. Political bosses like Amadeo Trinchitella, who controlled Century Village, loved this system; it meant they could run city government by controlling large, make-or-break voting blocs. Voters created SMDs to break up Trinchi's power hold.

Why bring this bit of ancient history up now? Because Sylvia "Always Has a Better Idea" Poitier would like to restore at-large elections.

The city commission voted on Tuesday to hire Hanson as the permanent city manager, a position he's filled on an interim basis since Mike Mahaney was fired. Commissioners will vote on a contract next month. The main concern about Hanson is that he was mentored by LRD, you know, Larry R. Deetjen, the expert on stealth politics. The worry is that Deetjen taught his young assistant too well about secrecy and backroom deals as the way to run local government.

Some of us romantics hope that this city has moved beyond city government à la LRD -- that the past is not prologue with Mr. Hanson.

The Buffalo Law Review described one of my law professors as the foremost Marxist legal philosopher in the English-speaking world. Plato taught Aristotle. Students don't necessarily emulate their teachers. I'm not a Marxist by any stretch, and Aristotle was not a Platonist. We can cross our fingers that this is the case with Mr. Hanson, and that the city has in fact moved beyond the Deetjen era.

Still, almost every day we see the Deetjen legacy at City Hall. Keep in mind, that Noland was a part of LRD's Dream Team. Legacies don't die easily.

Hanson has made some bold moves already when it comes to the financial affairs of the city. He laid off city workers and has now raised the hot button issue of a utility tax as a new revenue source. A utility tax is technically known as a municipal public service tax. It can apply to electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, and water. If such a tax were levied in Deerfield, officials estimate that the average person would pay around $80 per year.

The final amount depends on the rates (10% is proposed; it could be less) and which of the above services are taxed. For example, only about half of the 27 cities in Broward which levy a utilities tax apply it to water service. Deerfield is the only "major" city in Broward that does not tax either electricity or water.

How will this go over with residents? Nobody wants new taxes. They especially don't want new taxes or higher tax rates if the money is squandered or wasted or is not matched by good faith efforts to reduce spending. Hanson's reduction of city staff is evidence that he is trying to get a handle on spending. But commissioners control the purse strings.

Ganz said he will not support a utilities tax unless it offsets the ad valorem -- the tax property owners pay on the assessed value of their land. But Noland was blathering on about how we need more money for parks. So this new revenue, if approved, could be an excuse for the city to spend more rather than cut back. Given the state of the economy and the personal economy of so many residents, this is not the time to look for new ways to spend the public monies.

The operating philosophy behind the utilities tax -- as explained -- is flawed, also. The idea seems to be that renters don't pay taxes because they don't own property. Because renters usually pay for electricity, the theory goes, they would pay some of their fair share instead of freeloading off their landlords.

This is utter nonsense. Even the dumbest person (except city officials, apparently) understands that the rent renters pay pays the ad valorem and other expenses related to the property; then the landlord gets to deduct it on his income tax. So what's going to happen is that the renters will continue to support the ad valorem and pay the additional utility tax. In the real world, landlords are not going to pass an ad valorem tax break back to their tenants even if they get one. Another name for the municipal public service tax could be the landlord relief tax.

The bottom line is that renters already stressed financially will have to pay more; homeowners may pay less if there is ad valorem relief.

This may be a stark view, but it seems to me this is the time to cut back to the bone before we start to raise taxes on people who can't afford them, or think up new ways to spend money out of the public trough. Maybe if we had been a little starker years back, we wouldn't be in so deep today. I'd rather try to make sure Deerfield residents (including renters) don't pay a dime more in taxes and fees than they need to before a single penny goes to Little League. City officials need to set priorities and say no to non-essential expenditures.

There is another wrinkle in the utility tax proposal. Deerfield Beach once had a tax. Voters nixed it some 31 years ago.

The city attorney says that the city can still impose the tax because of the construct of the state law which authorizes the tax. Still, I expect there could be litigation challenging a move to restore the utility tax.

Sylvia Poitier has asked the city attorney to draft a ballot issue for March that would create two additional at-large commissioners to the city commission. Here we go again.

Ordinary citizens fought hard to get SMDs (single-member districts) in the city charter. If voters approved additional at-large commissioners, they would be screwing themselves. It is costly to run a city-wide campaign; this means two more commissioners on the board (in addition to the mayor) financed by developers and deep-pocketed city contractors.

Why not just hand city government over to a consortium of the politically-connected elite?

It's a stupid idea, but it has appeal. Some argue that the SMDs breed parochial behavior -- which apparently is a bad thing. I'd like to see some examples.

If district commissioners represent parochial interests, it's their friends, the favored gift givers, and campaign contributors, not the ordinary citizens of their communities over-and-above what's best for the city as a whole. This would not change with at-large commissioners, only get worse.

I wonder Poitier's motive bringing this subject back up at this time. Maybe readers have some ideas that have escaped me.

A new city manager, a proposed new tax, and Sylvia Poitier, taken together, could only lead to one conclusion: Citizens, beware!

This website is independent commentary. It is not associated with any political organization, candidate or campaign. We fully support the right of free speech and press and the right to privacy. We oppose censorship in any form. However, certain practices are not consistent with ethical journalism or ethical politics. Such practices include plagiarism, defamation, incivility, knowing misrepresentation or misstatement of fact, abusive language, or the use of the Internet to threaten, bully or intimidate public officials, candidates or political activists.