Most folks who are "Ruttencuttered" respond in kind, and, as a result, demean themselves as they drag themselves down to that sordid level. To his credit, VM Parent retained both his dignity and his focus, and demonstrated the soundness of his reasoning and the quality of his character by posting the following response:
{Blogmeister Note: Bolding and italics are added by the Blogmeister for emphasis and did not occur in
Dear Mr. Ed:
I was finally able to breach my civility filter and distill the points I think you were trying to make.
I am an advocate of discussion grounded in a solid basis of facts, well-reasoned, and that point me toward a sound conclusion. That is what I (and I believe, other prudent citizens) need to experience to be persuaded by what is being calmly and civilly discussed.
The main reason why I think the approach you used to distinguish St. Pete Beach from Amendment 4 is not persuasive is because of the focus on form rather than substance. As an engineer I put a high value on substance.
For example, you are absolutely correct that the 2009 vote on our Comprehensive Plan was based on the initiative provisions of Section 7.02, Article VII of the City Charter; I don't think I've ever said or implied otherwise.
It is completely irrelevant to the Amendment 4 debate that the 2008 St. Pete Beach ballot issue arose under Section 7.02 rather than Section 3.15. The crux is not how an issue got on the ballot; it is what happened after our voters made their choice; i.e., the ballot language lawsuit attacking our City and how that relates to Amendment 4.
The true parallel between the 2008 St. Pete Beach election (that led to a lawsuit) and Amendment 4 is that, in both scenarios, Florida election law requires that the ordinances amending the Comp Plans be summarized in 75 words or less.
Let me say that again (no weather forecast, no farm report).....
The true parallel between the 2008 St. Pete Beach election (that led to a lawsuit) and Amendment 4 is that, in both scenarios, Florida election law requires that the ordinances amending the Comp Plans be summarized in 75 words or less.
The lawsuit we have directly in front of us is attributable to at least one voter, who seems to believe that his opinion as to what is most important, to him personally, should be THE ballot language. What about what is most important to me? Or to you? Or my neighbor? Or people in Pass-a-Grille? Or Joe SixPack? Or Susan ChampagneMagnum? The ballot is a 75 word SUMMARY of a 200 pape Plan not the ENTIRE Plan.
There was quite a bit of supplementary information available; from different "sides", supporting different opinions, and from the City, in the form of the actual Comprehensive Plan. If Amendment 4 were actually to pass, informed voters will, of course, need to read and understand the 200 page comp plan document and how it is impacted by amendments.
What matters is the fact that our 2008 election proves that when cities are compelled to put their Comp Plans on the ballot (whether it's because of Hometown Democracy or any other charter provision), Florida election law requires comp plan changes be summarized in 75 words or less which obviously exposes cities to massive litigation costs arising from ballot language challenges.
Your condemnation of the 75-word ballot summaries used by the city in 2008 is also flawed because it fails to address the practical limitations of complying with the ballot summary requirement.
For example, you criticized the city's failure to create a ballot summary that explained that the ordinance would:
"triple maximum allowed building height, almost triple the number of hotel rooms allowed, allow condos along most of the length of the east side of Gulf Blvd., and require that all new buildings be built almost up against the sidewalk, put condos all over areas of the city where they were previously not allowed, including most of Corey Avenue, the Upham beach neighborhoods and up Blind Pass Road."
Content aside, the problem with your criticism, or course is that you've just used 69 of the 75 allowed words to describe what matters to YOU, without leaving any room for describing any of the other plan elements or any of the other non-plan descriptive verbage necessary to have a valid ballot summary, and that might be important to ME.
While you may feel that green standards, energy efficiency and other such items are "BS", simply inserting what YOU think is important and leaving out what OTHERS feel is important leaves the City open to lawsuits from the OTHERS.
Personally, I think the recent oil well blowout disaster makes energy efficiency leading to oil independence and a focus on living GREEN not just "feel good stuff" as you put it, but rather a critical pat of living to day and in the future. The same way I feel toward beach access improvements which were not in the ballot summary. I was bummed.
Of course, I'm not saying that what you value (building height, etc) is more or less important than what others, or I, may value (green standards, etc.). What I'm saying is that it is impossible to squeeze EVERYTHING into 75 words, so someone is always going to feel that something important was left out, which in turn leaves the city open to costly lawsuits. This is why Amendment 4, putting Comp Plans on the ballot, is a bad idea.
I could explain other logical reasons about why Amendment 4 is a bad idea, but this email is already too long, so I'll save those ideas for a later time.
Let me add, your statement that I "put myself" on the commission is simply untrue.
While you may have some idea of how to "put yourself" on the commission, I became a candidate for District 2 commission fully expecting to run a spirited campaign against the incumbent commissioner who,by the way, appointed me to the Historic Preservation Board and who I contacted prior to qualifying myself to run, as a matter of "honor thy sponsors."
Unfortunately, no one else qualified by the deadline, leaving the District 2 seat unopposed. I became the District 2 Commissioner of St. Pete Beach, not because I "put myself on the commission", but rather because neither the incumbent nor anyone else was willing, or able, to step forward and run.
In my opinion, the failure of others to commit to a term of public service is not a valid basis to criticize my willingness to devote the time and energy to serve my community as a city commissioner. A job that I enjoy very much.
By the way, to answer your question referring to "whatever hell-hole" I came out of......Ohio, but I've never thought of it that way. "Beautiful Ohio, where the golden grain Dwarf the lovely flowers in the summer rain." -- "Beautiful Ohio" - Ohio's state song.
Jim Parent, Vice Mayor, St. Pete BeachKudos to Vice Mayor Parent for refusing to take Ruttencutter's bait, and for presenting such a clear explanation of why Ruttencutter's argument is wrong: The critical importance of St. Pete Beach to the Amendment 4 debate lies not in how the City's comp plan got on the ballot, but rather in the chaos and costly devastation that occurred after the comp plan was put on the ballot!
Vice Mayor Parent's response was posted on August 14, 2010. As of today, August 22, Ruttencutter has failed to respond or to present any facts or arguments to refute Parent's rebuttal.
It therefore is clear that the Battle of the St. Pete Beach Vice Mayors is now over, and current Vice Mayor Jim Parent is the winner! Floridians should heed Parent's words before voting on Amendment 4 in November!
Read More about Amendment 4 and why Putting Comp Plans on the Ballot is a Really Bad Idea!
