Thanks to Jim DeFede, CBS Miami, for obtaining Leon County Grand Jury report on HOPE FLORIDA SCANDAL

Read story here: https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/grand-jury-report-hope-florida/

Read full text of LEON COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT -- CLICK HERE:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15YSC5ztguz1srPqz65ibtZSnD5LwmNot/view?pli=1

St. Augustine Residents Count: "Cutting the Public Out of Historic Preservation? Not So Fast My Friend! Cutting the Public Out of Historic Preservation? Not So Fast My Friend!" (Capt. Lee Geanuleas, U.S.N. (Ret.):

Neighbors, The info below may seem a bit bureaucratic, but trust me, it’s important for the City of St Augustine. 

At Monday’s meeting, the City Commission unanimously (4-0) passed Resolution 2026-27 opposing proposed changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA).

What is Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966? 

It’s the part of the act that requires federal agencies to consider the effects on historic properties of projects they carry out, fund, permit, license, or approve nationwide.  Section 106 gives interested parties and the public(us!!) a chance to weigh in on planned projects before a final decision is made. This process is an important tool for citizens to lend their voice in protecting and maintaining historic properties in their communities. 

An example is the rebuilding of the Bridge of Lions. Section 106 allowed the City of St Augustine to participate in the bridge’s design and build process.   

Why did the City Commission do this, you ask?

The commission acted because, on 24 July, the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) voted to move forward with a revision to the regulations implementing Section 106.  Essentially, the Council is pushing for changes that will cut state and local governments and the public out of decisions that could impact our historic assets. Some of the most disturbing aspects of the proposed changes include:

• Federal agencies will no longer be required to try to avoid or minimize damage to America's historic architecture, neighborhoods, and landscapes.

• State and local governments will no longer have the right to be notified or have the opportunity to comment when federal agencies initiate a project that could impact historic places within their jurisdiction.

• The public's opportunity to comment on federal historic preservation policies or actions would now be entirely optional, at the discretion of the federal agency.

• The federal government will no longer be required to consult with Native American tribes or seek their expertise regarding their own significant cultural resources.

• Significant cultural landscape features would no longer be considered historic properties, so federal agencies would no longer be required to consider any adverse effects to significant places such as the Grand Canyon.

The good news is that the proposed changes have not yet been published in the Federal Register. It could happen soon, but there’s still time for you to weigh in.

What can you do? 

1. Write to Governor DeSantis to share how these changes impact historic properties in St. Augustine. His email is: governorron.desantis@eog.myflorida.com

2. Write to our members of Congress and consider contacting the district office during the August recess to make your voice heard.

Senator Rick Scott (contact via website): https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/contact/contact

Senator Ashley Moody (contact via website)

https://www.moody.senate.gov/contact-us/

Representative John Rutherford (email via website)

https://rutherford.house.gov/address_authentication?form=/EmailUS

3. Be prepared to send comments to the ACHP when the comment period opens. Email: achp@achp.gov

4. Connect with the National Trust for Historic Preservation and stay informed on the latest developments. https://savingplaces.org/section106

Apologies for a rather bureaucratic post, but this is important to a city that claims history is its brand.  

If you care about historic preservation, please help!  

On behalf of St Augustine Residents Count,

Lee Geanuleas

ANNALS OF TRUMPI$TAN: Trump administration considering deal to give up part of Yosemite National Park. (Jake Spring, WaPo, August 28, 2026)

Lanny Davis, 2014

Know Your Developer Mouthpieces: The dodgy developer's louche lawyer is LANNY JESSE DAVIS, Washington, D.C. fixer, lobbyist, and former counsel to former President WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON. 

From The Washington Post: 

Trump administration considering deal to give up part of Yosemite National Park

The National Park Service is looking into a land exchange that would give a small portion of Yosemite to a private developer.

August 28, 2026 at 6:31 p.m. EDTYesterday at 6:31 p.m. EDT

4 min

Make us preferred on Google

Half Dome in Yosemite National Park last year. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images)

By Jake Spring

The Trump administration is considering a deal that would give a small part of Yosemite National Park in California to a Nevada-based private developer, which is seeking to build a road to gain direct access to the park, according to park advocates and a representative of the company involved.

Under the potential deal, according to the National Parks Conservation Association and others, the federal government would exchange land that is part of Yosemite for property that directly borders the park held by Kingsbarn Realty Capital, a real estate investor. Yosemite is the fifth-most-visited national park, and is renowned for its mountains and waterfalls.

Lanny Davis, a lawyer representing Kingsbarn, said the company plans to build “single-family upscale, private homes” on the parcel next to Yosemite. 

He confirmed that Kingsbarn has been discussing a potential land exchange with the Interior Department for more than a year, with property of equal value being swapped. The deal would allow for residents of the development to make an 11-mile drive to the park, rather than taking a longer 28-mile route, Davis said.

“We went to the Department of Interior to make the environmental argument, that it’s better to have people make the direct drive to the entrance or exit than to do the roundabout route,” he said.

Aubrie Spady, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, which oversees the Park Service, said in a statement that “no final decisions have been made.”

“If a proposal advances, the Department will follow established procedures to ensure appropriate coordination, transparency and public involvement consistent with federal law,” Spady said.

She said that claims that it is secretly working on a deal to hand over National Park Service land to a private developer are false, and that there has been no political pressure to reach a certain outcome. Spady blamed “anonymous allegations to manufacture a political narrative that simply is not true.”

Kingsbarn’s website says it has over $2.8 billion in assets under management with 330 properties around the United States.

“This shady dealing involving Yosemite is incredibly disturbing,” said Neal Desai, a senior director for the Pacific region for the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group. Desai said the group separately verified with people with direct knowledge of the matter that the exchange is under consideration.

“The National Park Service, they need to get back to prioritizing conservation, not participating in an open-air market where they’re just selling away Yosemite to the highest bidder.”

NOTUS first reported Friday that the land exchange is under consideration.

There is a long history of trying to develop the property currently held by Kingsbarn. A previous owner of the property, an undeveloped area on the western edge of the park, had attempted to build there and gain road access more than a decade ago, an effort that was ultimately blocked in court, Desai said.

Davis, the Kingsbarn lawyer, said a land exchange would avoid these past legal obstacles.

“Under regulations, the Park Service is able to exchange land of equal or greater value as long as it’s otherwise environmentally sound,” he said.

Davis, who previously served as a lawyer in the Clinton White House, said the deal had no connection to President Donald Trump.

Desai said developing the land would cause environmental destruction that runs counter to the National Park Service’s mission.

“They need to be prioritizing conservation, not helping to bulldoze land, cut down towering trees and construct a luxury development that’s going to harm Yosemite,” Desai said.

What readers are saying

The comments express strong outrage and disbelief over a proposal by the Trump administration to allow a private developer access to Yosemite National Park, suggesting corruption and personal gain for Trump and his associates. Many commenters call for action from Congress and... Show more

This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.

WE, THE PEOPLE, NEED FULL DISCLOSURE OF COMMISSIONERS' SECRET MEETINGS WITH DEVELOPERS. (Ed Slavin 8/31/2026 e-mail to SJC BoCC)

On Monday, August 31, 2026 at 09:28:14 AM EDT, Ed Slavin <easlavin@aol.com> wrote:

To: Honorable Clay Murphy, Chair, St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, 500 Sebastian View, St. Augustine, Florida 32084

Dear Chairman Murphy:

A. Good morning. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." As I told St. Johns County Commissioners at our August 18, 2026 meeting, Commissioners must meet reasonable expectations of probity in disclosing the "substance" of ex parte contacts.  

B. In a quasi-judicial hearing, ex parte contacts, or contacts by anyone with Commissioners outside the hearing room, must be carefully scrutinized.

C. Disclosing ex parte contacts requires far more than mere generalities. Please be specific as to subjects, attendees, facts, quotes, documents and dates.  

D. From this day forward, for ALL St. Johns County all quasi-judicial agenda items, starting with the certification sought in NCERT 2026-01 N Palm Valley Rd, involving agricultural enclave certification for some 4,462 acres: 

1. Please provide a complete spreadsheet detailing all ex parte contacts, as was the practice by our former City of St. Augustine Vice Mayor Todd David Neville (later the chair of the State Board of Administration's Audit Committee).

2. Please place each Commissioner's ex parte  contact spreadsheet and all related paper and electronic documents on ex parte contacts online before the meeting begins.

3. Before the hearing on September 1, 2026, please promptly supplement the information that now appears at:

https://stjohnsclerk.com/minrec/agendas/2026/090126BCC/09-01-26REG03.pdf

4. Please require all persons testifying in this or any other zoning matter to be sworn under oath under penalty of perjury if they are testifying on behalf of or in support of an an applicant, unless the Commission votes to find that there is a specific exemption from the oath requirement, e.g. under F.S. 286.0115. 

E. Please enact a comprehensive St. Johns County Lobbyist Disclosure Ordinance.  

F. With 40% of our St. Johns County Commissioners to go on criminal trial in November, please honor and respect our sacred Right to Know about all of our elected officials meetings with landowners, lobbyists and influencers.  

G. Commissioners: please videotape each of those ex parte developer meetings from this day forward: if you don't, the FBI might. (Ask Tom Manuel or Scott Maddox).

H. As Thomas Jefferson said, "A public office is a public trust."

Thank you. 

With kindest regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Ed Slavin

Box 3084 

St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3084

www.edslavin.com

http://www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com

http://www.staugustgreen.com

(904) 377-4998

The 2026 Florida Statutes  

Title XIX PUBLIC BUSINESS Chapter 286 PUBLIC BUSINESS: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS View Entire Chapter

286.0115 Access to local public officials; quasi-judicial proceedings on local government land use matters.— (1)(a) A county or municipality may adopt an ordinance or resolution removing the presumption of prejudice from ex parte communications with local public officials by establishing a process to disclose ex parte communications with such officials pursuant to this subsection or by adopting an alternative process for such disclosure. However, this subsection does not require a county or municipality to adopt any ordinance or resolution establishing a disclosure process. (b) As used in this subsection, the term “local public official” means any elected or appointed public official holding a county or municipal office who recommends or takes quasi-judicial action as a member of a board or commission. The term does not include a member of the board or commission of any state agency or authority. (c) Any person not otherwise prohibited by statute, charter provision, or ordinance may discuss with any local public official the merits of any matter on which action may be taken by any board or commission on which the local public official is a member. If adopted by county or municipal ordinance or resolution, adherence to the following procedures shall remove the presumption of prejudice arising from ex parte communications with local public officials. 1. The substance of any ex parte communication with a local public official which relates to quasi-judicial action pending before the official is not presumed prejudicial to the action if the subject of the communication and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom the communication took place is disclosed and made a part of the record before final action on the matter. 2. A local public official may read a written communication from any person. However, a written communication that relates to quasi-judicial action pending before a local public official shall not be presumed prejudicial to the action, and such written communication shall be made a part of the record before final action on the matter. 3. Local public officials may conduct investigations and site visits and may receive expert opinions regarding quasi-judicial action pending before them. Such activities shall not be presumed prejudicial to the action if the existence of the investigation, site visit, or expert opinion is made a part of the record before final action on the matter. 4. Disclosure made pursuant to subparagraphs 1., 2., and 3. must be made before or during the public meeting at which a vote is taken on such matters, so that persons who have opinions contrary to those expressed in the ex parte communication are given a reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication. This subsection does not subject local public officials to part III of chapter 112 for not complying with this paragraph. (2)(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), a county or municipality may adopt an ordinance or resolution establishing the procedures and provisions of this subsection for quasi-judicial proceedings on local government land use matters. The ordinance or resolution shall provide procedures and provisions identical to this subsection. However, this subsection does not require a county or municipality to adopt such an ordinance or resolution. (b) In a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters, a person who appears before the decisionmaking body who is not a party or party-intervenor shall be allowed to testify before the decisionmaking body, subject to control by the decisionmaking body, and may be requested to respond to questions from the decisionmaking body, but need not be sworn as a witness, is not required to be subject to cross-examination, and is not required to be qualified as an expert witness. The decisionmaking body shall assign weight and credibility to such testimony as it deems appropriate. A party or party-intervenor in a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters, upon request by another party or party-intervenor, shall be sworn as a witness, shall be subject to cross-examination by other parties or party-intervenors, and shall be required to be qualified as an expert witness, as appropriate. (c) In a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters, a person may not be precluded from communicating directly with a member of the decisionmaking body by application of ex parte communication prohibitions. Disclosure of such communications by a member of the decisionmaking body is not required, and such nondisclosure shall not be presumed prejudicial to the decision of the decisionmaking body. All decisions of the decisionmaking body in a quasi-judicial proceeding on local government land use matters must be supported by substantial, competent evidence in the record pertinent to the proceeding, irrespective of such communications. (3) This section does not restrict the authority of any board or commission to establish rules or procedures governing public hearings or contacts with local public officials. History.—s. 1, ch. 95-352; s. 31, ch. 96-324.