GULFPORT, A HOUSE DIVIDED
The second in a series of editorials
Show me politicians who blame the ills of their community on divisiveness and I’ll show you a failure of leadership. True leaders are supposed to take the best ideas of their opposition and, where possible, incorporate them into a plan of progress for the community. This theory of leadership is based on the principle that those who rock the boat soon stop rocking once you pull them inside the boat.
A loyal opposition is a sign of a healthy community where citizens are engaged in trying to create a better community. These well meaning activist opponents are welcomed by true leaders. Often there are several able individuals with special training or long years of experience involved in an opposition group. These motivated, talented people are a community resource and should be used to great advantage. It is out of this group of people that the traditionally great resource of community volunteers has been found over the years.
In Gulfport today, we have reached the point where the relationship between a majority of our City Council and the public is a “we-they” relationship. Activist groups are labeled, “special interest groups,” and the input of citizens to the public debate is not only discouraged, but is largely ignored once given.
Specific reference is made to a group formed in 2002 to try and save Clam Bayou called Gulfport Water Watch. It has as secondary objectives: 1) the desire to promote the health of waterfront businesses and 2) the preservation of open and free access to the water by all citizens. The concern for the health of waterfront area businesses is to discourage high-rise development there. This group with these benign objectives has been vilified and minimized by key leaders in Gulfport for the past few years.
To be fair, Gulfport Water Watch quickly became a large, (150+/-) on its mailing list, aggressive force in the community bringing upwards of 25 people to most City Council Meetings. All this when prior total attendance at Council Meetings hovered around 3. Apparently they scared the heck out of those protecting the status quo because the animosity between the group and some members of the Council was almost immediate and longstanding coloring debate to this day.
In an effort to give the appearance of pushing economic development on 49th Street, the Council pushed through the establishment of a smokehouse over the documented objections of immediate neighbors. When after the fact results proved the assertions of the abutters and obvious harm was being done to the abutters, the primary objector was virtually labeled a “crackpot” and smoke continued to cover the neighborhood. Only the smokehouse going out of business provided relief to the abutting citizens.
More recently, the work and report of a three member Budget Review Committee made up of Margarete Tober, Dorothy Wolski and Dr. Jennifer Salmon received short shift in the budgetary process even though observers agreed that the work was of very good professional consultant quality. (A $30,000 consultant’s report on staffing from a few years earlier was also mostly ignored.)
With much hoopla, the City Council appointed a Charter Review Committee in early 2009. Their comprehensive report has been in for several weeks now. The Council chose to ignore their recommendation regarding residency of the City Manager and has, to date, ignored the rest. Chaired by Christine Brown, this able Committee also included longtime city activists Lynne Brown; Mark Epstein; Art Padula and able newcomer, Frank Verdino.
The moribund Waterfront Redevelopment Advisory Board, (WRAB), was recently reorganized after many months of virtual inaction. This committee advises the City Council on issues facing residents of the Waterfront Redevelopment Area and on the use of TIF dollars. (Under the law, all revenues coming to the city, including property taxes, are to be used for the benefit of Redevelopment Area residents.) One result of the reorganization was to change meeting frequency from once a month to once a quarter. Now with a full complement of enthusiastic and able members, a majority of the Board is wondering why its important role has been so minimized by the Administration and is fighting for more frequent, staffed meetings. The WRAB Board is Chaired by Chamber President and businesswoman, Lori Rosso; Co-Chaired by yours truly, Bob Newcomb with the balance of members being Beth Armstrong; Bill Essielionis; Avrio Taylor; Michael O’Toole and Metria Jones.
Most recently, at an October 9 workshop Meeting of the Council, several changes in meeting rules were endorsed that would further limit public input at City Council Meetings. (See recent Watchdog Article, “Gulfport Begins a New Era.”) More importantly, there appeared to be a prevailing attitude among Council Members and the Administration that public participation was a thing to be tolerated but certainly not encouraged.
It appears that the City Council, which is made up of a diverse group of Gulfport citizens has decided to band together on two major points: 1) the business of government is so complicated that lay people cant possibly have anything meaningful to say about it and, 2) those who do not agree with us are against us. Neither of these two conclusions can be publicly stated. It wouldn’t be politically correct. Each member appears to come to these conclusions for reasons specific to their particular ambitions and/or experiences. We will explore in detail how each Council Member’s background, political ambitions, political philosophies, political connections and attitudes toward representative government might have led them to these unfortunate conclusions in the next editorial of this series.
In the meantime there seems to remain a growing gulf between our elected officials and politically active citizens. One need only observe the vitriol regularly expressed toward Gulfport Water Watch and its founders, our most visible group of activists, to prove the point. By labeling the group a “special interest group,” some Council Members have attempted to make the city a victim of some “insidious plot,” when in fact it is the citizens not the Council that are the victims. It cannot be the other way around. The City Council has all the power. The citizens do not. Vilifying a legitimate citizen or group of citizens who speak out against the status quo is no way to run a city. Ignoring good advice from able citizens is no way to run a city or anything else for that matter.
Until our City Council begins to heal the widening chasm between themselves and its able citizenry, this city isn’t going anywhere but will be doomed to remain in the quagmire in which it now finds itself. Can this Council get it done? Stay tuned for the next editorial in this series.
Is Gulfport politics unique? I really couldn’t say because I have never been involved in local small town politics before. I remember my first time at a Gulfport City Council Meeting; I came to speak at the public session and stayed for the whole session. At the end of the meeting, city manager at the time Bob Lee came up to me and thanked me for staying through the whole meeting, apparently most citizens did not.
City council faces have changed over the years, but the philosophy has not. Pretty much the city is run by the city staff, and the council is the rubber stamp for their actions. Citizen involvement seems to be a rallying cry for many, but when the council actually asks for citizen involvement in the decision making process that involvement is mostly ignored.
I served on the prior “City Charter Review committee” with then chairman and former councilmember Lynne Brown, members Christine Brown, Mark Epstein and now councilmember Judy Ryerson. After spending many hours reviewing the charter, making minor changes and making some recommendations, we found out that the same thing that happened to our current charter review committee happened to us. Our recommendations were ignored and we all felt like it was a waste of time. During that process, we decided that the Code and Ordinances of our fair city also need to be reviewed because there are some pretty silly and outdated laws on our books.
After many sessions, I finally convinced the council to start a committee to review the city codes and after two years of exhaustive work, most of the work of that committee was ignored also.
It should come as no surprise; certainly it wasn’t for me, that the city staff and the city council would ignore the hard work that went into the “City Charter Review committees” recommendations. Nor does it surprise me that the city staff would ignore the “budget Review Committee” recommendations either. Why should they change anything?, it works for them.
I remember a member of the “Senior Advisory Board” asking council why they did not consult with the board while considering an issue that concerned the senior citizens in this town. The answer given was “because they didn’t have to”.
Many of the “business” people in this town comment upon how difficult it is to start a business here, I myself having experienced first hand how this city works when (and I use the term works loosely) one would like to start a business here. If you go on the basic premise that the city of Gulfport is the city of “NO”, then you can understand the problem that, not just business people, but developers, builders, homeowners and most of the citizens have in dealing with the city’s bureaucracy. Starting with the community development department and almost every other department, the staff would rather say no to you then to help you find a way to do it within the rules. It sometimes appears that the only way to get something done is to go ahead and do it, and then get the city staff to ok it after the project is completed.
Can we expect any help from our city elected officials, in my experience no. At least not business wise. Let’s look at why, and why is the people that we have elected to serve on our basically powerless city council. Mayor Mike comes from a government job with the Department of Transportation, Judy Ryerson worked for the city for many years, Michelle King is a local successful realtor, Bob Worthington is retired from an Aerospace/Defense contracting job and to round out the council, Sam Henderson is a full time student concentrating on Environmental sciences.
No business experience there, yes sure the mayor has had a few local businesses here, none I would call highly successful, Council woman King is “self-employed”, but not in a real business sense, where you have to pay the rent every month, the utilities every month, hire help and generally worry about everyone else in your business before yourself. As far as the other three, I see no entrepreneurial proclivity from them.
City managers Lee, Brobiel and now O’Reilly, while acting like this city is a small business, really don’t know what running a business is like, when YOUR income is dependent upon how well the enterprise does or not. Let’s face it, the government sector is not the private sector, and having no business representation on the council is hazardous to those who expect progress in the economic area of our city’s economy.
There are so many examples of Gulfport’s government’s inability to deal with the real problems of the city, but none so glaring as its inability to deal with the parking problem in our downtown “restaurant” district. This is not a new problem and the beachside parking lot example with the movable permit only signs go back before my arrival.
Here’s what I am talking about: Gulfport had its Geckofest on labor day. With an approximately 15,000 crowd, no one expected that parking would be easy, especially with Beach Blvd and its numerous parking spaces blocked from use. First time Gulfport visitors found parking after driving the local neighborhoods for a half an hour. A fifteen minute walk brought them to Beach Blvd where they proceeded to stroll for another three hours. They loved the town, and after leaving vowed to come back for dinner soon. The next weekend, they returned to sample the cuisine of one of our fine restaurants. Again they found that even with Beach Blvd open, parking spaces were at a premium, and after a half an hour of driving the city streets found a place on Beach that had recently been vacated. They loved their meal and afterwards strolled down to one of the beach side bars for an after dinner drink or two. After spending the evening and a fair amount of money on our local establishments, they headed home.
Next weekend comes, and before a decision can be made as to where to spend their weekend dollars, “let’s not go to Gulfport, it’s too hard to find a parking place” is one of the first considerations. For those businesses depending on repeat business this thinking is disastrous.
While the basic premise of government is its mission to help the citizens and community in which it is based to better their lives and the lives of the town around them, our government seems to be mostly concerned with keeping the enterprise going, doing nothing extra and generally stalling any efforts by “outsiders” to move the city forward.
And so the City Council, at the direction of the city staff, find that those who do want to change, move the city forward or just do what many consider just the natural progression of things are the “opposition” and do what they can to maintain the balance as it is.
You are right on Big Dog. From experience, I know that no matter how much I give to this community I will continued to be villified by the majority of the Council. The leader of this majority has an obedient following. Facts and truth don’t seem to matter.
I will continue to do the best that I can for my community, because I am better than that. “The greatest good for the greatest number” should me the motto for the whole council, but sadly it is not. I long for the day when voter apathy is non-existant and all of our leaders who are not self serving. Only then will Gulfport be the best it can be.
Think about this…..didn’t the current council spend more time and thought on figuring out what to do about the chickens than what to do about the budget?
Relative to the budget, not one of them ever asked how much money was spent this year? I know that government budgeting is done budget to budget, however, wouldn’t one also want to know the actual $$ spent? If they had any business intuition they would have asked that question. Budget $100K for something and don’t spend it and then budget $100K again the next year, and brag they you are not increasing the budget yet you don’t know if it was really necessary? It never occured to any of these folks to even ask the question or challenge O’Reilly about leaving those #’s out of the budget. Is this how they prepare their personal budgets??
If they had any type of business / professional experience they would also be knowledgable in the art of true collabaration. That does not mean hiring your unqualified friends, rather seeking out the best solutions through all resources including those that may not always agree with you.
Last, thanks Big Dog for explaining Water Watch. I have been accused of being a member of this group so I am glad to know now what it is. This, of course only occured after becoming more active/vocal in the city, posting on this site and being seen talking to you and others. Nevermind, that I have a fairly gregarious personality and try to speak with and learn from an array of people, and have been seen doing so. It was instead an opportune time for certain leaders to label me as part of the WW as if the group is made up of some diseased criminals from a third world country. It is this divisive behavor that the Mayor and leadership should focus on instead of spending two hours trying to figure out how to stiffle our right to freedom of speech at future council meetings. I for one would like to see the Peace of Pinellas people march on Gulfport!!
…and just to be clear, I’m not suggesting havoc, however the Peace for Pinellas people might at least bring some attention to these issues and cause one or two of our purported leaders to lift their heads up out of the sand!
To Dogfish: I agree with your comment which makes Gulfport out to the be NO city. There use to be a humorous saying in the police departmemt a long time ago. “If your having fun, then your probably doing something illegal” This was a joke used to poke fun at aspects of law enforcement. But if you think about some of the ordinances in Gulfport, it may ring a bit true.
Examples,…those who skate in our cities skate park have to wear a helmet. If they don’t, they can be cited and made to pay a fine. Grilling on the beach is illegal by local ordinace. You can’t walk your dog on the beach.
Now, some of your comments I respectfully disagree with. I do not think you can run a city like a true business. Also, you don’t have to have owned or run a business to practice good government or effectively and efficiently run a city. But, I do think one should be business savy.
Regarding the parking problem on the beachfront. How do you think this can be resolved? If we need more parking spaces, who will pay for it? It doesn’t look like we have enough space in that area to create more parking. We are a small city that does so much in the beach area. Parking issues are going to be par for the course until we do some brainstorming to fix it. Just not sure if there really is a “fix”.
Also… I understand that beach front functions help attract people to our area to spend money. The only benefit I can really see thought is that it helps the beach businesses make money. How does this benefit the city as a whole? And I am not throwing this out there to be antagonistic, I am sincerly asking. Remember, I am a cop, I can investigate the most complicated of crimes but other things easily confuse me LOL.
As far as I know, the city makes money off of property taxes, business permits and other fees. We don’t get sales tax, do we? I thought all the sales tax goes to the State or county? Only reason why I bring up the money issues is that we use tax dollars for public services, community projects and so on. I don’t see the link between more business for beach businesses and how it benefits the city as a whole.
That’s Old Crackpot, crazy, pain in the ass, racist, bigot.
I wear it proudly, considering where it may have originated and with the knowledge that it in no way resembles the description of a hypocrite. I’ve observed through the years our citizens challenging the City on various issues and in time they conclude, that fighting City-hall is an exercise in futility and give up or leave the City. The Gulfport Government has grown accustom to this weak opposition and often win by attrition.
I’m not one to bother with the government until it bothers me or someone asks me for help. I don’t enjoy the lime light or public speaking, I feel as though I’m speaking underwater. But when forced, I take a firm stand and if I’m standing on the laws and or principle I don’t give up easily.
Before I came to Gulfport I was sponsored to peddle a bicycle 200 miles per day for 5000 miles across America. If you can understand the both physical and mental endurance such a challenge presents then by comparison these obstacles are barely one pass over the Greenhorn Mts.
Fred Metcalf’s office, through Mike Taylor, in email, appearances in the Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council Chambers presented an incomplete Site Plan that was illogical, illegal, absurd and below the standards expected by the oversight committees. The Board and Council depended on their professionalism and in my opinion they were misled. Whether it was a matter of cronyism for an ex city councilman or sympathy for a friend who lost his business location on Gulfport Boulevard, we don’t know yet but I will continue to search for the source of this dirty, filthy miscarriage of justice until I reach the source.
I’m not unreasonable, I understand that mistakes can happen and that victims are created by these mistakes. But what really Ticks me off is that when they had discovered that there were adverse effects to their vote, that no one, not even the people who passed themselves off as friends, had the political backbone to stop the nightmare. That was the painful part, if we hadn’t cared, if these were people that we didn’t know we would have approached the issue with a legal strategy, but we trusted their judgment, we respected their positions and we let down our defenses.
There will be no unified City with these people in office, not as far as I’m concern. If they can do this to this here, they can place that Site Plan anywhere in a Commercial Zone within City limits, and that is not acceptable to me or other citizens of this City.
If you listened to Ms. Ryerson’s invocation on Oct. 16 on the environment and look at the result of her vote and her subsequent inaction you’ll hear Hypocrisy in her words.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
~~Voltaire
The Department of Community Development made the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council believe in absurdities and the result was atrocious.
Hey Big Dog,
I just noticed that you’re on the Planning and Zoning Board with Smokin Jeri Reed. Maybe she’ll invite you out for some Smokin good ribs. Maybe she’ll ask Larry Cooper and Sam Henderson to join you? Keep in mind; the same toxins that are found in the air are embedded in the meat. If the insurance companies knew she was scoffing down smoked junk food they’d disqualify her for a preexisting condition.
The Site Plan that was passed by Jeri Reed used Mesquite exclusively according the the report from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. ? have the photos that they took.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
November 2002, part 1 · Volume 110 · Number 5,
More D, Whisman L, Whisman B, Jordan-Wagner D.
Identification of specific IgE to mesquite wood smoke in individuals with mesquite pollen allergy
To the Editor:
Pollen from mesquite (genus Prosopis) is a potent allergen responsible for causing immediate hypersensitivity reactions in susceptible people in the western and southwestern United States.1 A study by Novey et al1 showed that according to skin prick testing (SPT) results, mesquite sensitization was the most prevalent pollen sensitization in a group of 100 atopic patients in California. The clinical relevance of these sensitivities was confirmed with
nasal, conjunctival, and bronchial challenges.1
Over the past several years, the burning of mesquite wood for broiling and barbecuing has become popular because of the distinctive flavor that the smoke imparts to various foods.2 Respiratory effects reported with exposure to mesquite smoke in mesquite broiler cooks have been attributed to hydrocarbons or other irritants.2 However, it is known that allergens can survive the process of combustion and remain immunologically active in smoke.3
Three patients presented to our clinic with complaints of allergy symptoms after exposure to smoke from mesquite wood. We sought to identify immunologically active allergens in mesquite smoke that could explain the symptoms in these patients.
Of the 3 patients presenting to our clinic, 2 had complained of oral allergy symptoms after eating foods cooked over mesquite wood; the other had complained of rhinitis after being exposed to mesquite smoke used for recreational barbecuing. All patients had positive SPT results with mesquite pollen extract (1:20 w/v; Hollister-Stier, Spokane, Wash).
Oh I forgot to mention that it is the City’s responsibility to regulate the fuel. They are supposed to determine what wood/coal/cow pies/garbage is burning in the Hazardous Waste Generator. I suppose like the City Council she thought that the Health Department or the County would do that job for her, but as I told her they do not.
She determines the type of stove/smoker…the type of fuel…and the level of emission control. There is no one else. The plan was incomplete as Mike Taylor told her, but she didn’t insist that it be completed before it was presented. Will you pass a plan that is incomplete? Is that what the Citizens expect of your position?
Let’s say that I have a helicopter and want to land it on my roof, would you inspect the helicopter? Would you inspect the roof? Well you see, there was no Smoker inspection by Jeri Reed, and Jeri Reed was spotted looking at the Site after she past the Plan. Does that make any sense to you? Would you inspect my roof after you passed a plan to allow me to land a helicopter on it? I know it’s an extreme analogy but it goes to the point. There was not Smoker inspection report in the P&Z packet, I purchased it specifically to find out what brand the smoker was, what kind of wood would be used and what type of emission precautions would be taken. None of that information was in the P&Z packet, nor was the questions answered in the P&Z boardroom.
I wasn’t concerned that the county wouldn’t do their job; I was concerned that the City would be irresponsible in their regulation, as they were when the Smokehouse was located on Gulfport Boulevard south of the Elementary Schoolyard. If they could dump toxic waste on elementary school children then they were negligent enough to ignore the obvious. If they think that just passing Plans willy-nilly and their responsibility ends at the doors, they are sadly mistaken. There are consequences to every action and they’re not always positive.
I hope that you will learn the lesson from this tragedy, and understand that it would be advisable to consider looking closer at a Site Plan when it is sponsored by an influential friend of the City, rather than passing plans because the influential person is in the room. Jeri Reed stated at the end of Site Plan Review #SO8-05 that she recognized ex councilman Larry Cooper and if he was a sponsor that she could not vote against the plan. I’m paraphrasing here, but it was the point that she was making.
This statement after telling the audience how she knew where all the Smokehouses were and went on to explain how she didn’t patronize the one in Pinellas Park any longer because of their alterations in flavoring techniques and then spoke about other Smokehouses that she still liked. Imagine sitting in the room trying to make a case on how badly we would be affected by the emissions with the chairman of the board expressing her love for the byproduct of our asphyxiation? I think she should have recused herself, but of course that would be asking too much.