Alachua Voter Guide

Although I have been busy trying to make a living, your intrepid blogger has stayed on the trail of this mysterious $5,000 donation to “Equality is Gainesville’s Business” (EGB). I finally got some answers.

The donor was another political action committee (PAC) called “Basic Rights Gainesville” (BRG). This PAC was created by Gainesville City Commissioner Craig Lowe. He also created the recipient of the donation, EGB. He created EGB in June of 2008. The first donation was recorded on 6/24/08.

On October 3, 2008, Craig Lowe filed papers with the Supervisor of Elections registering the creation of Basic Rights Gainesville (BRG). The first donation, recorded the same day, was a $5,000 check from another PAC, Basic Rights Montgomery of Silver Spring, Maryland. This money was then recorded as an expenditure, in the form of a donation from BRG to EGB. EGB recorded that donation on December 24, 2008. Then, last month, Craig Lowe notified the Supervisor of Elections on January 9th that the last quarter report from BRG was its last. BRG was disbanded. It had served its purpose as a conduit for the donation from Basic Rights Montgomery.

What most of us want to know is, is this illegal? No, I don’t think so. The next question is, why the subterfuge? Why not just take a donation directly from Basic Rights Montgomery instead of creating a Gainesville entity to pass it through? It looks deceptive.

The very purpose of all this reporting and making things a public record, and putting them online is to make campaigns more transparent. The people who championed these laws and practices did so because they thought that the people of a community should know when big donors from out of the area are trying to influence their elections. In the spirit of those laws, I will try to keep these issues out in the Sunshine. I’m sure our city commissioners will agree that this is the right thing to do.

I welcome Craig Lowe or anyone else in EGB to take all the space they need in this blog to respond.

In the previous post, Don talked about the planning charrette to discuss the future of Newberry Village and surrounding area.  What purpose does the charrette hold in the formation of public policy?

The misty-eyed answer is that charrettes provide a means of community participation so that all concerns are addressed and all voices are heard.

In fact, there is a textbook about charrettes and I’m not far off the mark:  In The Charrette Handbook, published by the American Planning Association, Bill Lennertz and Aarin Lutzenhiser say, “Charrettes engage citizens in envisioning new possibilities for their communities. They foster the collaboration, creativity, and consensus necessary to define a vision shared by citizens, officials, developers, and other stakeholders.”

Note the operative phrases: “engage citizens” … “collaboration” … and “shared by citizens.”

The answer in reality is significantly different.  Very few regular Joes and Janes attend charrettes for the obvious reason that charrettes are usually scheduled at times when most people are working.  They’re also all day events that are sometimes spread out over two or three days.  Very few ordinary citizens can afford (in either time or money) to sit through the whole thing.

Plus, charrettes are process-oriented.  They build to a conclusion, or “drive an outcome” as a planner once remarked to me.  Thus, one needs to participate in the entire charrette to really have an impact.  This becomes an excuse to reject public opinion when it emerges.  If a handful of citizens can make only a part of the charrette, here’s what they will experience.

At the beginning of the charrette, they’ll hear community leaders or invited speakers from other cities wax philosophical (er, “envisioning”) about the ideal living arrangements in a particular area.  If they show up midway into the process, they’ll get to write their concerns on the poster paper (e.g., traffic congestion) only to be told their specific issue was addressed earlier in the presentation.  If they show up at the end to complain about the results, they’ll be told they missed the important collaborative exercises earlier in the process.

The average citizen rightly concludes, “Even if I can squeeze out a long lunch to come to this thing, my view is still inconsequential to the outcome.”  It’s as if by design charrettes are used to exclude public opinion while laying claim to the exact opposite.

I’ve sat through a few charrettes, so I’m speaking from experience.  I’ve heard the dismissive remarks of planners and other government officials to some very legitimate concerns raised by citizens.  I’ve heard a public safety official (who was not on the agenda but came of his own initiative) express concern about how roundabouts would impede the movement of emergency service vehicles only to be told, “We’re confident you will be able to manuever fire trucks successfully and respond in a timely fashion.”  (You’ll notice there was simply no room on the agenda of a three-day event to cover public safety concerns regarding the transportation and land-use plans of this area.  Curious, no?)

I think readers of this blog would be interested in seeing exactly how many people attended the Newberry Village Charrette and, of those, how many are unaffiliated with government or special interest groups (developers, Sierra Club, etc.).  In other words, how many ordinary Joes and Janes took two work days and a Saturday off to participate?

So to get back to my initial question: What purpose does the charrette hold in the formation of public policy? Charrettes are used to legitimize planning decisions under the guise of public participation.  They claim to produce a “vision shared by citizens, officials, developers, and other stakeholders.”  What could be more representative than that?  They claim dynamic participation by all concerned people.  What could be more democratic than that?  Hey, wait a second … we’re a representative democracy, right?!  What a brilliant mechanism for policy decision-making!!!

Elected officials like charrettes because they can claim the results a) represent the will of the people and, when the people finally show up at meetings to object to the implementation of the results they can b) dismiss the will of the people.

This I’ve witnessed, too, especially on the controversial issues like the design of SW 24th Avenue and the narrowing of Main Street.  “All of these concerns were discussed in the charrette.”  “If you cared enough about this issue, we had a open event where you could have brought this up.”  ”It’s a little too late in the process to begin rewriting all of the hard work put into this.”  I’ve even heard elected officials express personal discomfort with the transportation plans but vote for implementation anyway because “the people weighed in on this at the charrette.”

The bottom line, therefore, is that charrettes enable planning ideas that are unpopular with the general public to gain legitimacy and approval from elected officials.  They allow unelected planners and special interest activists to drive policy decisions, and they allow politicians to both claim popular support for their voting decisions while dismissing popular opposition to their voting decisions.

In practice, charrettes do not ”engage citizens” or ”foster collaboration,” and their results are certainly not “shared by citizens.”

I just found out about this yesterday, and I was hoping to get more information by now, but I am as busy as the rest of you this time of year. That is why I think it is unlikely that any of the ordinary citizens who have 9-5 jobs will be able to attend anyway. But, you do deserve the opportunity to know how the sausage is made, so to speak. Here is an excerpt from the email I got from the Coalition for Responsible Growth, which is the only public notification I have seen so far:

Starting on December 11th, a 3-day planning program, called a “charrette,” is being hosted by the developer of Newberry Village, an approved development located at Ft. Clarke Boulevard and Newberry Road. The developer together with county planning staff, the MTPO (Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization), Gainesville Regional Transit System, the University of Florida, the not-for-profit SantaFe HealthCare DRI (Development of Regional Impact), and Carey Graham of the City of Eugene, Oregon will present current ideas and seek input from interested citizens during this 3-day event to help shape the future development of the area north of Newberry Road between I-75 and Ft. Clarke Boulevard.  The plans made should guide the future evolution of the area and create the Santa Fe Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor connecting Santa Fe College and the Oaks Mall.

The charrette will be hosted at Santa Fe College in Building R – Room R-01 on December 11th, 12th, and 13th from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.  A copy of the daily schedule is attached in a PDF format. Interested citizens are welcome and in fact are being sought to help shape future development plans for this are.

Here is the schedule of events, in pdf format.

I will not be able to attend this, except for a little bit on Saturday if I can sneak out of the house for an hour or so. Although I cannot actually participate, I would at least like to know who is there. These meetings are the places where your most dedicated activists show up, and those with vested interests. If you are one of them, I’d appreciate it if you could email me some details. Send them to dontwc@gmail.com.

Charles Grapski, former Democratic candidate for the Florida House of Representatives, former candidate for Alachua City Commission, and the bane of Mayor Jean Caderwood’s existence, is still in jail, according to the High Springs Herald and Alachua Today.

This is not to say that he has been continuously in jail since he was in the news for beiing a disruptive force in Alachua city politics. This time around he was incarcerated after breakiing into someone’s home on October 12 at 3am and refusing to leave.

According to Alachua Today:

Although Grapski has been largely silent on outside political matters since being held in the Alachua County Jail, he has been drawing attention from behind bars. Just last week, Grapski filed a formal grievance against the facility claiming several inmate rights violations. Among Grapski’s chief complaints are that the jail has been systematically denying inmates the right to communicate and meet with counsel. Grapski also alleges that living conditions are not safe citing dangerous and unhealthy temperatures and complaints about the food.

That report was online on November 27. A subsequent report from the High Springs Herald tells us:

After “disobeying verbal orders” on Nov. 26, Grapski was found guilty of breaking the jail’s rules and was sentenced to 20 days of confinement starting Dec. 2, said Emil Pata, Grapski’s supervisor at the Alachua County jail.

As part of Grapski’s punishment, he will not be allowed any visitors or phone calls except to his lawyer, Pata said.

Whether Charles Grapski is a political prisoner or an annoying pest with time on his hands, he is an example of what a passionate individual can do when he wants to be heard. He is at the opposite end of the scale where public apathy is weighed. That is not to say that he is right, but at least you know where he stands, and he is willing to come to grips with the political process.

I will let you decide whether or not you care about Grapski’s situation by providing you with links to his various web sites and YouTube videos. Then you can either speak up for him yourself, or determine that he is just getting what he has coming.

Early Grapski site at UF, 2 minute talk on YouTube, TruthOut article about Grapski, an Anti-Grapski Blog, Grapski.org, Students rate Grapski as a professor, Gatorpedia, Grapski’s MySpace page

Below is an excerpt from and email I got from Cain Davis. He wants to make sure that we know that the City Commission will be deciding whether or not to accept the ballot language, that has been prepared by their own attorney, of the City of Gainesville Charter Amendment that city residents will decide this March 24, 2009. The Amendment prohibits the city from providing civil rights, protections, and preferences that are NOT already provided for by the Florida Civil Rights Act. Passing this amendment would be the deal killer for the City’s controversial Transgender Bathroom amendment to its own civil rights ordinance that, in practice,  allows any man to self-identify as a protected “trangendered” person when caught lurking in the lady’s room at any private business. Schools and all government buildings were exempt.

The City Commission will be meeting this Thursday, December 4, to make the decision. It will be a great opportunity to see how they work, and how willing they are to let the citizens decide on this issue. A lot of people worked very hard to get this on the ballot. More people signed the petitions to get this on the ballot than normally vote in City of Gainesville Elections.

************************

“During their discussion on November 6, 2008, the Commissioners specifically asked for citizen input regarding the ballot language because several individuals who support their side were in the audience and presented what the commissioners thought were good ideas.  Let’s provide them the citizen comments they requested.  Below is the website you can go to and listen to the entire discussion, about 50 minutes:

http://gainesville.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=450

“Once you get to the site, if you only want to listen to the part of the meeting which pertains to the gender identity issue please follow these instructions:

1. Look to left-hand side of screen, under the picture
2. Click on the up/down cursor which is located to the right of the words “jump to”
3. Once the listing appears,scroll down to the line which reads: 080410 “Proposed city charter amendment”

“The video will start playing at the beginning of the gender identity discussion.

“The following is the website which contains the agenda item for December 4, 2008, the item is on page 35 of the agenda:

http://legistar.cityofgainesville.org/meetings/2008/12/8654_A_City_Commission_08-12-04_Meeting_Agenda_(Long).pdf

“The following are the email addresses for our city officials, please send your email to all emails and blind copy citizensforgoodpublicpolicy.org.  The reason we are requesting for you to blind copy citizensforgoodpublicpolicy.org is so that we can have an accurate count of those who oppose what the city commission is attempting to do:

HanrahanP@cityofgainesville.org
hawkinswt@cityofgainesville.org
mastrodij@cityofgainesville.org
henrysl@cityofgainesville.org
poel@cityofgainesville.org
DonovanJF@cityofgainesville.org
LoweSC@cityofgainesville.org
legal@cityofgainesville.org
hauck@cityofgainesville.org

“Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to provide enough information for you to understand what and why we are requesting your support at this time.  If you have any questions please email to citizensforgoodpublicpolicy.com.

“Thanks in advance.

“Cain Davis
Chairperson, CGPP”
www.citizensforgoodpublicpolicy.org

In what will be a bitter pill for Gainesville City Commissioners, the Supervisor of Elections plans to certify the petition count results that will allow a charter amendment on the ballot that overturns the city’s new provisions that allow anyone to use any public restroom based on an inner sense of their own sexuality. The city must hold a special election not less than 90 days after certification, and that date is not yet known. It would be most logical, and cost effective, to hold it on the same day as the 2009 city elections.

The certification will be announced Monday, August 18th, at that day’s Gainesville City Commission meeting. Details will follow.

Before I left for vacation, I did not have much hope for the ballot initiative that would give Gainesville voters the chance to reject the gender identity clause in its civil rights ordinance. And when I got home and saw that the corner of 13th Street and 16th Ave was pretty much owned by the signature gatherers, I was still skeptical. But I was wrong. The group, Citizens for Good Public Policy, had kicked on the after-burners when things looked darkest, and got the signatures they needed plus about 3,000 more. They now await verification by the Supervisor of Elections Office. This can take up to 45 days.

Presuming that there is not a failure rate of over 35% (signatures thrown out because the person does not live in the city limits, or otherwise does not match the official voter registration information), this spells doom for the ordinance, that the city commission passed in January, over the howls of protest of many irate citizens and business owners. And that’s not all. If it turns out that 6 or 7 thousand citizens who cared enough to sign the petitions also show up at the polls, they will constitute a new majority in what is usually a forgotten March election. And if these same people get in the habit of voting in the Forgotten Election, it could mean a sea change in Gainesville City government. But that will only happen if several of them decide to actually run for the city commission and take a turn at governing, which takes a much bigger commitment than what happened this week.

Ricky Sullivan gets another signature.

With just two weeks to go to get their ballot initiative qualified,  the Citizens for Good Public Policy are a long way from getting it done. They need 5,581 signatures by July 29, and so far they have collected only 1,847.  And it gets worse. Of the 1,190 that have been checked so far by the office of the Supervisor of Elections, only 738 are valid city residents, which means they have had an exceptionally high failure rate of 38%. I got these numbers from SOE just yesterday by going down there and talking to one of the clerks.

I am, by nature, a suspicious person, so I asked why there was such a high failure rate. The clerk I spoke with said tha t she can only speak for the petitions that she had personally checked, and she said that it was residency that kept tripping people up. My other question was where this 5,581 number came from to begin with. She said that it needed 10% of the registered voters in the city to sign petitions. When I ran for a county-wide office in 2002, I only needed 1260 signatures, or 1% of the registered voters, to get on the ballot. Why was there such a high threshold for this item? And if it’s because it’s a law and not a candidate, did the two charter amendments on the city’s 2003 ballot both have to pass the same test? I could not get an answer to that at this time, but SOE is certainly welcome to have their day on this website.

I found the failure rate stunning, but sadly believable. People who are not used to engaging the system make a lot of mistakes. When I get signatures for a candidate, I always have to double check their work, and I frequently find unfilled blanks and information that does not match their voter ID. And most of the voters I have encountered are not even aware that their precinct numbers and voting districts are all on their voter IDs in their wallets. Volunteers really have to know what they are doing, or they do a lot of work for nothing.

Of course, if you do the math you can see that 4800 more signatures needed divided by 14 days (about 343) divided by 20 volunteers makes a little over 17 signatures per volunteer per day. It’s still a tough number, but it shows how steady, careful effort can get it done.

Local politics is about to get nastier in Gainesville. It all began when the City Commissioners ambushed the general public with it’s highly controversial “transgender rights” amendment to the City’s anti-discrimination policies. Without seeking the usual public input they get before putting in a restaurant drive-through lane, Mayor Pegeen Hanrahan and Commissioners Jack Donovan, Jeanna Mastrodicasa, and Craig Lowe insisted that this ordinance had to pass. Since then, a new group has formed to get a binding referendum on the ballot that would let Gainesville voters annul that decision.

Citizens For Good Public Policy, led by former State House candidate Cain Davis, needs 5,581 petition signatures  to get this on the Spring ballot for 2009 City of Gainsville elections. This should not be hard to do, considering the noise that this ordinance raised. But there is a speed bump on the road to their success: intimidation tactics that raise questions about the reputations of the signers. Are they all bigots?Are they guilty of something terrible for wanting a choice?

An eyewitness account of a single petition gatherer being harassed and shouted down and vilified at Fanfare & Fireworks by a group of gay-rights proponents may give would-be signers second thoughts. (If anyone has video of this, please contact me!) Just wanting this item on the ballot is enough to have you labeled as a bigot, a homophobe, or a hate-monger. And since these petitions are a matter of public record, they could be obtained and used for purposes of revenge. One group of pro-gay-rights activists are listing the names and addresses of Florida Marriage Protection Amendment petition signers on a website called KnowThyNeighbor.Org. If there is a purpose for this other than intimidation, I’d like to know what it is. And will there be a similar attempt to smear the signers of the local petition?

I am not the least bit ashamed to say that I signed the petition to repeal the transgender ordinance. I didn’t do it because I hate gay or transgender people. I did it because it’s the only way to force the city commissioners to do what they should have done to begin with: have a full and complete discussion with their constituents about the problem and how to solve it instead of just calling us names. Accusing people of good will of hatred in order to get your way is bad policy, and it should cost you an election.

If this issue makes it to the ballot, Jeanna Mastrodicasa will be facing an opponent who will be the beneficiary of the larger-than-usual turnout that it will surely generate. She has already opened her campaign account for the 2009 race. So far, she has no opponent.

I saw this, and many other signs on the fence surrounding West Side Park this Saturday morning. It was part of a large demonstration by the local Veterans For Peace chapter. By “large demonstration”, I mean it had a huge sign presence that stretched for at least 50 yards along the fence. I’m not sure that there were more than 12-18 actual demonstrators.

I took this picture and bring this up because I remember that in 2002, as a County Commission candidate with little money, I asked the parks department if I could set up a political rally in this tax-payer funded space. I needed to be able to access the public and allow them to have access to me so I could share my platform personally. I was refused. I was told: “No political rallies.”

Well, things must have changed. Or perhaps it is purely a case of selective enforcement. I’d love to have them weigh in on this site and let me know.

In 2002, I learned the hard way about the antipathy that candidates must face. The Girl Scouts can sell cookies in a shopping center, and certain selected “charities” of dubious veracity can set up a table in that shopping center, and anyone seems to be able to set up a car wash, but a local candidate is told “no” on the grounds that then they will have have to let them all do it.

Besides the fact that this is an irrational fear (most candidates are unwilling to give that kind of access, nor can they all be omnipresent at multiple shopping centers) , it is one that the centers do not take into account when allowing the aforementioned groups to squat on their property.

I remember well how humiliating it was to be chased off from any venue where there was a line forming because I dared to gather signatures to get on the ballot. The people I approached did not complain. It was always the manager of the theater, or whatever.

So, why is it that a candidate is the only one who has to  pay for his or her “free speech”? We are told to use direct mail and advertising, but then we are vilified for raising the money to pay for that advertising. It is the height of hypocrisy.  Or perhaps it is something that no one ever thinks about.

And that is part of the reason why I created this site. It’s a totally free venue where the candidates can say whatever they want. What remains to be seen is if they will use what is free, or just keep raising money.

Don Marsh