A CHANGE IN TIDES AT CLAM BAYOU?
I first met Al and Cindy Davis at a Gulfport Water Watch meeting in their home on Clam Bayou in the spring of 2006. The tide was out and 20 or so people were looking out at a vast expanse of mud and thousands of white specks over the entire gooey landscape. It turned out that the specks were golf balls and the goo was silt and debris that had migrated there every time it rained for at least 20 years.
I was appalled at what I saw. I saw environmental degradation the likes of which I had never seen in all my years in the real estate and development business and I had witnessed some pretty sad messes over many years. My only thought was, “How can this happen in 21st Century America?” Everyone else in the room had a look of resigned disgust. Almost all of them had witnessed the slow death of the Bayou due to the poisonous runoff from more than 1700 acres of St. Petersburg’s urban landscape.
In recent times, Al and Cindy had organized Gulfport Water Watch as an activist group whose primary goal was to awaken official Gulfport and any other government or quasi-government body who would listen to a story of the imminent death of the bayou and the assault on Gulfport’s waters by neighboring St. Petersburg with the apparent approval of the Southwest Florida Water Management District District, (SWFWMD).
By the time I got on the scene. Gulfport Water Watch was attending almost all Gulfport City Council Meetings in substantial numbers and was making some headway in arousing public opinion against the environmental disgrace that was Gulfport’s Clam Bayou. Al, Cindy and other Water Watchers were also attending many regional and state meetings, bringing the sad story of Clam Bayou to their attention and seeking some redress only to be continually undercut by SWFWMD and their “experts.”
As a recent retiree the Clam Bayou cause looked fairly non-controversial and like something I could and would sink my teeth into in the coming months and years. I could fight the injustice of the killing of the bayou and at the same time further the interests of my newly adopted hometown, Gulfport. I did join the fight and along with many others have spent the last three or so years in the trenches trying to save the bayou. For many reasons, we lost that fight and the bayou had been condemned to certain death by the very people charged with saving it.
The first thing I learned was that almost everyone in Gulfport felt the same, Clam Bayou must be saved. At the same time, the Gulfport power structure was reacting negatively toward the Gulfport Water Watch and had derisively labeled it a “Special Interest Group.” Yes Virginia, there is a small, but effective coalition of old-time insiders and political wannabees who would be frightened of a new, growing group of activists demanding public accountability. When Al and Cindy identified and focused on one member of the power structure as the source of anti bayou activities that politician was successful in convincing some residents that Al and Cindy Davis were merely motivated by economic reasons and that all they were interested in was being able to dock their “mega yacht” in front of their house. (They don’t own one.) The argument was personalized and the city was split down the middle. The charge was a lie and the result was a tragedy for the bayou and the city.
Increasingly frustrated by the personal attacks on their characters, by the sabotaging of their efforts by Gulfportians at the county and state levels, by the stonewalling of SWFWMD and by the continuing degradation of the bayou, the Davis’ decided to go to the court system as a last resort. Out of their own resources with no claims for financial reward, the Davis hired a top flight environmental attorney and filed suit against the City of St. Petersburg; the Southwest Florida Water Management District; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator and A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator for USEPA Region 4.
After many months of filings, counter-filings, hearings, depositions and tens of thousands of dollars of the Davis’ money, it appears that a settlement of the state level charges may be imminent as reported in the Neighborhood Times of the Sunday, August 16 issue of the St. Petersburg Times.
According to the Times, the Davis’ Attorney Tom Reese stated that he expects the local defendants to make an offer to settle and that it would not be monetary. He also said, “It would have to include some dredging of the bayou and assurances that the government agencies would better monitor the runoff that is coming into the estuary. We need to know what is going on during a rain event—how much stormwater is coming in and how the salinity is changing.
According to the Times, when asked about the dredging, Atty. Reese said the bayou has essentially been acting as a retention pond for stormwater runoff. Ponds built for that purpose have to be periodically dredged to collect the contaminants that wash in with the rainwater. The bayou needs to be dredged and the collected sediment dumped as waste, he said.
Those of us who were involved in the earlier Water Watch battles know that this is precisely what we’ve been asking for all along. As a citizen of Gulfport, I am wondering why a private citizen was forced by City of Gulfport inaction to go to the extraordinary and expensive measures he has undertaken in order to save our valuable estuary. I am wondering why a citizen of our city with, as everyone agrees, a just cause has to have his motivations questioned and his personal integrity attacked by city officials in order to secure a result that was as obvious to everyone six years ago as it is today. I am thankful that out of loyalty to our city, the Davis’ decided not to include the City of Gulfport in the suit because our fair city was just as guilty of neglect of the bayou as anyone else.
The settlement negotiations have not been completed so us Clam Bayou advocates will hold off on our celebrations until a deal is finalized. Celebrate we will, not for us or any personal justifications, but for the health and life of Clam Bayou. That’s what it’s been about for lo these many years.
If what you have said here is true Bob and I have no reason to doubt you, then I owe Al and Cindy an apology. I wasn’t aware that they were pushed to the point of disrupting the Council Meetings. I was led to believe that they had a boat and wanted their own Off Gulf Parking lot primarily and that the emphasis on the condition of the Bayou was just an avenue to obtain their goals.
We know very well how people can turn on you when you take a stand and I should have know better, I should have done my own investigation and drawn my own conclusions on the Bayou.
Prior to our confrontation with the indifference of this City I didn’t pay politics any mind. We helped when we could and let the elected folks do their job. I thought highly of Mayor Mike and Michele King, and couldn’t imagine that they wouldn’t at the very least listen to our concerns. Give us the right time of day and look at what they were proposing.
So I can imagine that Al and Cindy may have been ignored, may have run up against special interests with deep influential roots in the community which forced their hand. I hope they win, not to spite those who oppose them, but if what your saying here is on the money then both the Bayou and the Citizen of Gulfport will also win. This city could use a win and put this issue and sense of entitlement that seems to permeate the Staff and Council behind us.
Congratulations to two true patriots of Gulfport, the State of Florida and their country, Al and Cindy Davis. These two folks can tell you how bad the political structure is here in Gulfport since that is where the denial began that the Bayou was just fine, thank you. How shortsited, politically correct, the folks who opposed, smeared and spread faulty rumors about these two people who put up their own money, one hell of alot of time and energy to right a wrong and fight the government. I applaud them and ask them to turn their attention now to larger matters, keeping this country safe from those that now wish to control our lives, our thoughts and our culture. We need more patriots like the Davis’s to save our country from the threat from within now.
I hope that this might bring about a new beginning for all parties. Let us hope that those who have perhaps judged too harshly will be less apt to do so in the future. Let us hope too that that those sometimes drawn to personal anger will find alternative sources for that energy. The factions that have resulted from this and several other of the “hot issues” in the city could do so much more good by working together than against one another. This can start through the leadership of the members of the City Council. Let us call upon them to set the example and forge the way!
I do wish that all your hopes come true Mtober.
I don’t suspect that the “angry people” need leadership from the group that you’ve suggested though. It was that group that caused their anger and forced them to take a stand. I’m sure no one chose to be angry or redirect their energy to fighting ignorance and indifference over living their lives in a sanguine manor.
To find out more about anger management and laughing in the face of tyranny.
Call 1-800-we-need-a-new-government-now
Or go to http ://www.throw_the_bums_out.biz
Oh…and have a nice day!!
2iview…My point exactly! The leadership in this city MUST step forward and help to mend the fences and subside the anger. This cannot happen if the leadership picks and chooses, because of actions past, to whom they will listen. They MUST participate in representative government and NOT shun those with whom they may disagree or those that may err in speech or thought! The city cannot move forward with a mindset of any less!
Mtotber,
I certainly understand the principle that you feel should be exercised; theoretically it would be a course of action but not exclusive. If the article above is not an accurate depiction of the events and there are two sides to the story, then it is quite possible that the Group would need to reach out to the Council. We have no idea why the animosity exists, there is no explanation of who pushed who or why. If I remember correctly the City was sort of cheerful before the group brought a melancholy mood into our politics. So if memory serves, Tom Huxley wrote something along this line that helps guide me to reasonable conclusions after the facts are presented.
“The great tragedy of Science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact”
The story above is certainly intriguing and it makes me want to read more but aside from the facts of the legal events there is little proof that the City created the animosity. New Groups of people that are politically motivated tend to be aggressive, and in their zeal create waves with far reaching consequences. Politicians protecting their position of authority can demonstrate elitism, so the ball could be in either court. I think I’ll reserve my conclusions until the final chapter.
2iview–good points. However, if the group or members thereof reach out and are rebuked by the Council then that is wrong, IMO. It is also wrong for elected officials to rebuke / attack people that may happen to speak with or occassionally socialze with persons in the “evil group”. Assuming the 3rd party is part of the “evil group’s” ploy without having any facts is disgusting. You know what happens when you ASS.U.ME something. Our government shouldn’t shun anyone regardless how loud they spoke or how assinine they may have behaved in the past. The days of GLOP’g (general labeling of people)need to end. Elected officials need to be leaders not politicians.
If the goal is to win a point and concession than every advantage will be exploited and every association will be calculated. You’re with us or against us is the battle cry for those who need to herd the sheeple. Anyone who is in the way is Cannon Fodder, casualties of war, similar to the Red Cross on the front lines, or doctors without borders. You may be there for another purpose but you are on a side no matter where you make a stand. Appearances are everything, and if you take another stand that happens to coincide with the same side then those suspicion will be confirmed. If your next position is contrary to the group you were last associated with then the opposition may grant you room to argue.
I read your letter to the editor and know from experience that it may not have been publish because it’s too long. Try short, sweet and to the point and chances are it will get in. Only one letter per month, per person.
I don’t know much about the fine details of the social intercourse that goes on in the City, I work with data and I like the near predictability. If the City hadn’t put us in a toxic wasteland, I could have gone on for another 22 years happily translucent to 95% of the City’s population.
If the goal here is retribution for your affliction then you join the battle, if your goal is to mediate the situation then maybe something constructive can become of it?
Pick two people and an arbitrator to sit in a room and hash out their differences. It doesn’t have to be the primaries; it could be one from each side that would like to see this social conflagration come to an end.
Someone with the authority and respect of both sides needs to mediate and force the warriors to the table by challenging their strengths as leaders or intelligent beings.
That a good idea – presuming the parties want to mediate. I hope it works out somehow.
Cute