Judge tosses surveillance libel lawsuit
TAMPA – A law enforcement officer’s defamation suit against Tampa area television station WTSP-Ch. 10 and reporter Mike Deeson has been dismissed.
Steven Dickey, a corporal for the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, filed the suit after a February 2008 story aired about a quadriplegic man who was dumped out of his wheelchair by law enforcement personnel after being booked on a traffic stop. A surveillance video of the incident shows Dickey smiling.
Deeson remarked that Dickey “appears to think it’s funny.” Dickey then sued, alleging the video was edited to make it appear that he was complicit in the incident and thought it was funny.
Hillsborough Circuit Judge William P. Levens ruled in favor of 10 Connects and Deeson, finding that the broadcast was “a fair report of a public record, Deeson’s statement was an opinion, the report was substantially true and there was no evidence of actual malice,” according to the St. Petersburg Times.
Source: St. Petersburg Times
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
JEFF GREENE'S SILLY LIBEL LAWSUIT
A failed billionaire Senate candidate, Jeff Greene, has filed a $500 million libel lawsuit against two newspapers (See below).
This shows beyond peradventure that JEFF GREENE was not qualified to be U.S. Senator.
Does he suppose that he would have made $500 million as Governor? Where did he get his ad damnum figure from? Where can he show $500 million in damages?
And how in the name of all that’s holy could JEFF GREENE suppose he could ever show he meets the New York Times v. Sullivan standard for suing a public figure for libel (“Actual malice or willful disregard of the truth.”).
Damages? JEFF GREENE is irreparably damaged alright, but not by the Miami Herald or St. Petersburg Times. Perhaps he was damaged by overindulgence in some of those alleged controlled substances that were not on his yacht with Mike Tyson (best man at his wedding). Or perhaps his soul turned to stone by contact with so much money, thereby destroying his judgement.
The rich are different that you and I, as F. Scott Fitzgerald said – yes, they have more money. And in the case of Mr. GREENE , no class. What an uncouth jerk he is, destroying a coral reef in Belize for his own carnal pleasures. Damn glad he’s not going to be a United States Senator.
And like RICK SCOTT and S. GARY SNODGRASS, ex-candidate JEFF GREENE objectifies lesser mortals and looks down his nose at them. Florida voters have already kicked JEFF GREENE in the butt – now it’s the job of a court and jury to hear his silly complaint and tell him to go away.
That will also involve rejecting the theories upon which L. Lin Wood (Bryan Cave partner from Atlanta) will use to get past summary judgment – Wood is an expert on libel who successfully represented falsely accused Olympics security guard Richard Jewell and other plaintiffs.
But does Wood now have fool for a client – a rich man rejected by the voters who hires a lawyer to pursue a libel case against two respected Florida newspapers? Good luck, Mr. Wood --- you’re gonna need it. No jury in Florida will see JEFF GREENE as sympathetic. If there’s a verdict, be prepared for a shocker (like the ½ penny libel verdict in Leon Uris’ novel, QBVII).
UF Brechner Center Report: After failed Senate bid, Greene sues two newspapers for libel
MIAMI-DADE – Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Jeff Greene lost the Florida primary and has now filed a defamation suit against two newspapers, alleging their coverage damaged his reputation.
Greene is suing The Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times for $500 million in damages, alleging that two stories were “knowingly based on false information,” according to the complaint filed Sept. 1. The stories were written and edited by Times staffers but also published in The Herald.
The first story looked at Greene’s real estate dealings in California. The second story addressed boxer Mike Tyson’s ties to Greene and Tyson’s admission of using drugs on a yacht. A correction was run by both papers in which Tyson clarified the drug use did not occur on Greene’s yacht. Tyson was the best man in Greene’s 2007 wedding.
Greene, who is represented by Atlanta attorney L. Lin Wood, filed the defamation suit in Miami-Dade circuit court. “It’s very unfortunate,” Greene told The Herald in a phone interview. “I was ahead 15 percent and when the stories ran, I was down 10 percent. It just snowballed after that.”
Times Editor Neil Brown denied the suit’s allegations. “Democracy won’t work if we let lawsuits full of baseless charges from a political candidate inhibit us from providing voters with the independent information that they need and rely on,” Brown said.
Source: The Miami Herald
Greene is suing The Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times for $500 million in damages, alleging that two stories were “knowingly based on false information,” according to the complaint filed Sept. 1. The stories were written and edited by Times staffers but also published in The Herald.
The first story looked at Greene’s real estate dealings in California. The second story addressed boxer Mike Tyson’s ties to Greene and Tyson’s admission of using drugs on a yacht. A correction was run by both papers in which Tyson clarified the drug use did not occur on Greene’s yacht. Tyson was the best man in Greene’s 2007 wedding.
Greene, who is represented by Atlanta attorney L. Lin Wood, filed the defamation suit in Miami-Dade circuit court. “It’s very unfortunate,” Greene told The Herald in a phone interview. “I was ahead 15 percent and when the stories ran, I was down 10 percent. It just snowballed after that.”
Times Editor Neil Brown denied the suit’s allegations. “Democracy won’t work if we let lawsuits full of baseless charges from a political candidate inhibit us from providing voters with the independent information that they need and rely on,” Brown said.
Source: The Miami Herald
UF Brechner Center Report: Dan Gelber vs. Pamela Bondi on Open Government Issues
ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATE Q&A
The Florida Attorney General is in a unique position to influence open government. The AGO administers the voluntary mediation program, issues legal opinions on open government issues, and often implements transparency initiatives within the AGO. Here, the candidates respond to The Brechner Report’s
questions on open government.
Pam Bondi is the Republican candidate for Florida Attorney General.
Dan Gelber is the Democratic candidate for Florida Attorney General.
The Attorney General has historically played a major role in promoting Florida’s strong open government and transparency laws. As AG, where would you put open government on your list of priorities?
Bondi: I have spent the last two decades as a prosecutor in Hillsborough County, and for the last ten years I acted as the public information officer for our office, with the responsibility of handling requests for public records and information. I whole-heartedly believe that Florida’s open government laws are paramount to ensuring transparency in the public process and providing citizens with a means to hold government accountable and that the people have the right to know. As Florida’s Attorney General, it will be a top priority to support efforts and advance policies that protect and guarantee transparency at all levels of government.
Gelber: Among the most important things I do. First, I believe sunlight is a terrific antiseptic. I have already indicated I would push a public corruption task force that would include lawyers from the AG office designated to help prosecute open government violations. I will also continue to push to bring a more open and transparent government to state government (where it is currently lacking) like Senate Joint Resolution 440, which requires the Legislature to abide by much of the open-government laws that govern local governments.
Are there any exemptions to the Open Meetings or Public Records Laws that you feel should be passed? Repealed?
Gelber: I don’t see the need for more exemptions. I would support (see above) a change that would bring more sunshine to the state legislature. In the early 1990s, as various citizen forces and Florida’s attorney general were pushing for more oversight and transparency in government, legislative leaders negotiated a compromise that would impose lesser open-government standards for the Legislature. Legislators argued that the nature of a 60-day session and the practicalities of noticing all communications among legislators would make it unrealistic to apply the same notice requirements as imposed on other levels of government. I would support legislation that would change these exemptions and require the Legislature to operate with greater sunshine. This means opening up the budget process, requiring that any budget allocations be made in public and greater scrutiny over the amendatory process.
Bondi: As Attorney General, I will continually review our state’s open government laws to ensure that any exemptions are truly necessary and properly justified.
What is your position on the use of Blackberries, PDAs, text messaging and other mobile technologies by public officials?
Bondi: We are living in a highly technological age where electronic communications are commonly used to conduct business in industries, including government. I believe in order to uphold Florida’s century-long commitment to open government our laws must stay current with evolving technology, in order to ensure continued transparency and accountability in government.
Gelber: I believe communications of public officials related to official acts should be disclosed to the extent they can be memorialized (including texts).
Do you have any specific open government initiatives that you would like to implement if elected?
Gelber: The most important unit of government that is in desperate need of greater transparency and sunshine is the Florida Legislature. While I cannot put laws in place to bring such transparency and openness, I will use my office to push for reforms in hopes that recent incidents of misappropriations compels the legislature to advance such proposals.
Bondi: As attorney general, I will be an advocate for openness and transparency at every level of government.
Are there any other comments you’d like to make on open government?
Bondi: Florida has a long-standing tradition of enacting laws that require government to operate in the sunshine, so that citizens can hold government accountable for its actions. If given the honor to serve as our state’s next Attorney General, I will continue to make these efforts a priority and make certain that my administration works to increase transparency and provide the people with access to their government.
Gelber: Although it might be easier to govern with limited citizen involvement, it is not better or healthier for a democracy. For that reason, I have been a leading advocate for more transparency and openness. I appreciate that many will raise the same arguments that were raised when the Legislature initially exempted itself from Florida’s demanding open-government laws. Perhaps if, in the nearly two decades that followed, the legislature would have governed themselves better, such an argument should prevail.
But regrettably, most Floridians view state government as more beholden to special interests than the interests of citizens. Sunshine is an antiseptic
The Florida Attorney General is in a unique position to influence open government. The AGO administers the voluntary mediation program, issues legal opinions on open government issues, and often implements transparency initiatives within the AGO. Here, the candidates respond to The Brechner Report’s
questions on open government.
Pam Bondi is the Republican candidate for Florida Attorney General.
Dan Gelber is the Democratic candidate for Florida Attorney General.
The Attorney General has historically played a major role in promoting Florida’s strong open government and transparency laws. As AG, where would you put open government on your list of priorities?
Bondi: I have spent the last two decades as a prosecutor in Hillsborough County, and for the last ten years I acted as the public information officer for our office, with the responsibility of handling requests for public records and information. I whole-heartedly believe that Florida’s open government laws are paramount to ensuring transparency in the public process and providing citizens with a means to hold government accountable and that the people have the right to know. As Florida’s Attorney General, it will be a top priority to support efforts and advance policies that protect and guarantee transparency at all levels of government.
Gelber: Among the most important things I do. First, I believe sunlight is a terrific antiseptic. I have already indicated I would push a public corruption task force that would include lawyers from the AG office designated to help prosecute open government violations. I will also continue to push to bring a more open and transparent government to state government (where it is currently lacking) like Senate Joint Resolution 440, which requires the Legislature to abide by much of the open-government laws that govern local governments.
Are there any exemptions to the Open Meetings or Public Records Laws that you feel should be passed? Repealed?
Gelber: I don’t see the need for more exemptions. I would support (see above) a change that would bring more sunshine to the state legislature. In the early 1990s, as various citizen forces and Florida’s attorney general were pushing for more oversight and transparency in government, legislative leaders negotiated a compromise that would impose lesser open-government standards for the Legislature. Legislators argued that the nature of a 60-day session and the practicalities of noticing all communications among legislators would make it unrealistic to apply the same notice requirements as imposed on other levels of government. I would support legislation that would change these exemptions and require the Legislature to operate with greater sunshine. This means opening up the budget process, requiring that any budget allocations be made in public and greater scrutiny over the amendatory process.
Bondi: As Attorney General, I will continually review our state’s open government laws to ensure that any exemptions are truly necessary and properly justified.
What is your position on the use of Blackberries, PDAs, text messaging and other mobile technologies by public officials?
Bondi: We are living in a highly technological age where electronic communications are commonly used to conduct business in industries, including government. I believe in order to uphold Florida’s century-long commitment to open government our laws must stay current with evolving technology, in order to ensure continued transparency and accountability in government.
Gelber: I believe communications of public officials related to official acts should be disclosed to the extent they can be memorialized (including texts).
Do you have any specific open government initiatives that you would like to implement if elected?
Gelber: The most important unit of government that is in desperate need of greater transparency and sunshine is the Florida Legislature. While I cannot put laws in place to bring such transparency and openness, I will use my office to push for reforms in hopes that recent incidents of misappropriations compels the legislature to advance such proposals.
Bondi: As attorney general, I will be an advocate for openness and transparency at every level of government.
Are there any other comments you’d like to make on open government?
Bondi: Florida has a long-standing tradition of enacting laws that require government to operate in the sunshine, so that citizens can hold government accountable for its actions. If given the honor to serve as our state’s next Attorney General, I will continue to make these efforts a priority and make certain that my administration works to increase transparency and provide the people with access to their government.
Gelber: Although it might be easier to govern with limited citizen involvement, it is not better or healthier for a democracy. For that reason, I have been a leading advocate for more transparency and openness. I appreciate that many will raise the same arguments that were raised when the Legislature initially exempted itself from Florida’s demanding open-government laws. Perhaps if, in the nearly two decades that followed, the legislature would have governed themselves better, such an argument should prevail.
But regrettably, most Floridians view state government as more beholden to special interests than the interests of citizens. Sunshine is an antiseptic
UF Brechner Center Report: Entire Wakulla City Commission Pleads Guilty to Sunshine Violations
BARTOW – The entire Wauchula City Commission has reached a plea agreement after the seven commissioners were charged with violating the Open Meetings Law. The charges relate to two private meetings on Sept. 14, 2009 and March 1, 2010.
Six of the commissioners, Jerry Conerly, Daniel Graham, Delois Johnson, Valentine Patarini, David Royal and Yeavone Spieth, each face two misdemeanor counts of intentionally violating the Sunshine Law. Commissioner Clarence Bolin attended one meeting and only faced one count.
Each commissioner pleaded no contest to a single count of violating the Open Meetings Law and was ordered to pay $325 for fines and court costs as part of their plea agreement. Royal, the mayor, must also pay $500 for prosecution costs; the remaining members must each pay $300 for prosecution costs.
Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Each charge carried a maximum penalty of up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Source: The Ledger (Lakeland)
Six of the commissioners, Jerry Conerly, Daniel Graham, Delois Johnson, Valentine Patarini, David Royal and Yeavone Spieth, each face two misdemeanor counts of intentionally violating the Sunshine Law. Commissioner Clarence Bolin attended one meeting and only faced one count.
Each commissioner pleaded no contest to a single count of violating the Open Meetings Law and was ordered to pay $325 for fines and court costs as part of their plea agreement. Royal, the mayor, must also pay $500 for prosecution costs; the remaining members must each pay $300 for prosecution costs.
Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Each charge carried a maximum penalty of up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Source: The Ledger (Lakeland)
St. Augustine Record: Guest column: Gianoulis presents real choice for Senate 8
Guest column: Gianoulis presents real choice for Senate 8
Posted: October 17, 2010 - 12:28am
We have a real opportunity in our upcoming election to do -- locally -- what the people and (some) of the politicians around the country have been talking about -- getting some new blood in our political process so we can start doing things differently and, begin seeing some real progress out of the mess we've gotten into.
In the Gianoulis/Thrasher Florida Senate District 8 race, we are presented with a real choice. On the one hand, we have a regular, good-ole-boy politician, John Thrasher, who believes he can do whatever he wants and the "common person" be damned. The perfect example was his high-handed attempt to push through Senate Bill 6 (a slap in the face to all educators) without consulting any of the concerned parties beforehand. St. Johns County, in his district, is the number one school district in the entire state, yet Thrasher never considered speaking with its superintendent, Dr. Joseph Joyner, before proposing his Senate bill. Joyner should have been one of the first people someone from our district would have consulted before proposing such a bill, because he not only leads the best district in the state, he was also Florida Superintendent of the Year in 2008 and president of the Florida Association of District School Superintendents in 2007.
This is not just bad for people in education, this is horrible for all of us who would like our elected representatives to actually represent us -- meaning consult us, hear what we have to say, and take our views and concerns into consideration before proposing bills or voting on legislation. I would urge voters to check out the below site, which I found when I googled the 2009 District 8 race to fill Jim King's seat.
http://politicsfla.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/examining-district-8-candida...
Deborah Gianoulis, on the other hand, really is a fresh voice with a fresh way of thinking.
I have been following her career for years when she was a TV anchor and was aware of her support for education and Character Counts! while I was a high school teacher and then Director of Staff Development in the St. Johns County School District.
Although I do not know her personally, I have heard her speak in public and truly believe that she will listen to us and pay attention to our views and concerns, reflecting on the wishes of the people (instead of her own desires and needs) before proposing or voting on legislation which affects us all.
I urge you to vote for Deborah Gianoulis to give Florida a fresh start to begin getting our elected representatives to actually start representing us again.
FBI Press Release: Developer Pleads Guilty to Fraud Charges
 | |
| For Immediate Release October 19, 2010 | FBI Jackson Contact: Public Affairs Specialist Deborah Madden (601) 948-5000 |
| Daniel McMullen, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Mississippi, and Donald R. Burkhalter, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, announced: On Tuesday, October 19, 2010, developer/business owner Ricky Douglas Deveny, age 52, pleaded guilty to federal wire fraud charges. His appearance this morning before United States District Judge Ozerden is the culmination of a federal investigation into fraudulent business and real estate activities conducted by Deveny from in or about June of 2005 until in or about November of 2006. Deveny was indicted by a federal grand jury in June of 2010, which charged him with intentionally devising and carrying out schemes to defraud and to obtain money or property from individuals and homeowners in Harrison and Hancock Counties. As part of this scheme, the indictment charged Deveny with creating numerous false and misleading real estate contracts in order to lure individuals into investing in his business, Sandstone Construction, Inc. In addition, the indictment alleged that Deveny promised victim homeowners that he would perform construction or home repair, charging and being paid various sums of money, and never performing the promised work. Many of these victims had suffered damage to their property as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Deveny is scheduled to be sentenced at 9:30 a.m. on January 27, 2011. This investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Jackson Field Office, Gulfport Resident Agency, and prosecuted by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi. | |
 |
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
FOLIO WEEKLY: REP. JOHN MICA a/k/a "JOHN LUIGI MICA" CAUGHT WITH LOBBYISTS IN DEBAUCHED ATMOSPHERE
FOLIO WEEKLY: Mica Caught with Rich Lobbyists in a "Debauched Atmosphere"
FOLIO WEEKLY: Mica Caught with Rich Lobbyists in a "Debauched Atmosphere"
JUVENILE FLORIDA REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN JOHN MICA HEAD-BUTTS ABC NEWS CAMERAMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY JUVENILE ENTOURAGE -- HOW MUCH DID THEY DRINK AT BACHANALIAN TOM DELAY LOBBYIST PARTY THAT NIGHT?
"Oooh, you hit me in the head,"- Mica says mockingly. "Don't hit me in the head again."
Mica Caught with Rich Lobbyists in a "Debauched Atmosphere"
by Anne Schindler
"Straight to Video,"
Editor's Note column by Anne Schindler,
Folio Weekly (Jacksonville, Florida),
September 16-22, 2008
Before you read this, I invite you to check out the 56-second video clip in question. It's posted on our blog (folioweekly.com/folioblog) and YouTubeJohn Mica"-). (search for "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhe7d36BHs
For those of you without an Internet connection, here's a brief description: In the footage, Republican Congressmember John Mica, who represents portions of Northeast Florida, is seen leaving a Minneapolis nightclub after a lavish convention-week party thrown by disgraced former House Leader Tom DeLay. An ABC News cameraman, who was covering Delay's return to the GOP fold, questions Mica about the event.
"Mr. Mica,"- he asks, "with Tom DeLay coming back--was it good to see Tom DeLay?"-
Mica doesn't respond. He quickly turns his back to the camera and asks some thuggish pals to screen him from view. One of them deliberately bumps the cameraman; another approaches with arms folded, shielding Mica. In the background, the lawmaker ducks and dodges, attempting to elude the camera. The ABC reporter persists. "I don't mean to pester you--I'm just curious with a couple questions."- At this point, Mica bends down and head-butts the underside of the video camera.
"Oooh, you hit me in the head,"- Mica says mockingly. "Don't hit me in the head again."-
The cameraman res ponds quickly. "I didn't do that, sir."- "I'll knock that thing out of your hand,"- Mica continues, shoving the lens with his hand.
"Don't touch my camera, sir,"- the reporter says. "Please don't touch my camera. Please don't touch my camera."-
At this point, Mica's thugs begin pushing and manhandling the cameraman, knocking his lens away with force. "Whoa, stop, man--I'm a journalist,"- the reporter stammers. "I'm on public property. Let go of my camera. I'm just a journalist!"-
The footage captures a brief shot of a Mica supporter summoning a police officer and pointing at the camera. "No, I didn't,"- the reporter can be heard saying. "Oh my God. Holy (expletive bleeped)."-
There are a lot of questions raised by this bizarre little video, but first among them has to be: Whatever happened to "No comment?" Though Mica told several news outlets that he felt threatened by the reporter, it's frankly impossible to believe him after watching the video. Mica and his minions are clearly in control. The lawmaker is surrounded by supporters, allies and meatheads unafraid of physical confrontation. The cameraman, meanwhile, is intimidated and bullied, unable to ask a simple question.
Another question might be: Why is Mica lying? The lawmaker has continued to insist that the cameraman hit him in the head. Not only did Mica make the allegation on the original film--albeit in a tone that borders on laughter--but he allowed his posse to accuse the newsman of assault, to a nearby cop. The cameraman wasn't arrested, but Mica has continued to claim he was the victim, not the other way around.
So why was Mica so skittish? Perhaps because of where he'd been. Dubbed "Ultra-Conservative Girls Gone Wild"- by a Minneapolis Star Tribune blog, the party at the slick Aqua Bar featured fat cigars, rich lobbyists and a somewhat debauched atmosphere. (According to the blog, Smash Mouth Steve Harwell invited hotties on stage and poured shots of Jägermeister and tequila into their mouths.) Sleazier by far was the presence of DeLay, who accepted tens of thousands of dollars in gifts from convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and who was forced to resign after being indicted on conspiracy and money laundering charges.
An ordinary lawmaker might worry about how that kind of stuff plays at home--partying with an indicted powerbroker, head-butting a reporter. Fortunately for John Mica, he doesn't need to worry about such scrutiny. Orlando Sentinel political columnist Scott Maxwell called the incident funny, and vouched for Mica. "If he says the scene was a misunderstanding and that he didn't hit the camera, I'm prone to believe him."- He added, "I'll be honest: I don't wanna mess with Mica."-
The St. Augustine Record went further, climbing up in Mica's lap with an editorial so fawning and sycophantic, it's embarrassing to read. Titled, "Fine line between responsible and irresponsible journalism,"- the piece actually criticizes ABC as "unprofessional"- and repeats--without refutation--Mica's claim of "gotcha journalism."- All evidence to the contrary, the piece quotes Mica saying, "I love talking to the press."- The editorial added, obsequiously, "We know. He always responds to our calls and interviews."-
Painful as it is to reprint, here's the rest: "Mica believed that the incident was unintentional. But that's not the point. The point is irresponsible journalists give the rest of us a bad name."-
No, what truly gives the rest of us a bad name is the shamelessly uncritical eye of modern media, which has so forsaken the cause of accuracy and honesty that it's been supplanted by "The Daily Show."- The truth about Mica is clear to anyone who cares to open their eyes. But it's one piece of news you'll have to gather for yourself.
JOHN MICA, the soulless, spineless Tibet-junketing, news cameraman head-butting, earmarking, labor-baiting, offshore oil-drilling extremist -- is JOHN MICA a truly offensive, oleaginous politician, or what?
Here he is with his idol, President GEORGE W. BUSH, who publicly declared there are "talkers and doers" and that "JOHN MICA is a doer." He's done enough damage and does not deserve a ninth term.
IN HAEC VERBA: Excerpt from Times-Union Endorsement of Debaushed, Big Oil Bleared Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA
This is the part of what the Times-Union had to say in an editorial stating that JOHN LUIGI MICA was a "good bet":
"John Mica hardly fits the stereotype of a long-time incumbent. Yes, the Winter Park Republican has been in Congress since 1993. But, no, he isn't arrogant, corrupt or self-absorbed. In fact, his work ethic and integrity remain beyond reproach."
With all that our Seventh COngressional District knows, I am speechless. In fact, I have but one word of response:
Ha!
Here's a prior blog post:
JOHN LUIGI MICA ONLY VOTED WITH GEORGE W. BUSH 95% OF THE TIME
The rest of the time he's spending taxpayers' money on earmarks and taxpayers' and lobbyists' special interest money in restaurants, piano bars, casinos and airports around the Nation's Capital and around the world, even traveling to Tibet.
It's our money -- send JOHN LUIGI MICA to K Street as a lobbyist, where he belongs.
St. Augustine Record: Alex Sink Leading Race for Governor
Poll shows Sink with lead over Scott
By DAVID ROYSE
Created 10/19/2010 - 12:32am
Rubio pulls ahead of Crist by 8 percentage points
The News Service Of Florida
TALLAHASSEE -- A poll released Monday evening as voters finished the first day of voting in Florida showed Democrat Alex Sink with a small lead over Republican Rick Scott with 13 percent of voters saying they're still undecided in the governor's race.
The statewide survey of 500 Florida likely voters conducted Oct.14 to 17 by Massachusetts-based Suffolk University shows Sink with 45 percent of the vote to 38 percent for Scott. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.4 percent.
When asked which candidate for governor has run a more negative campaign, 42 percent of respondents said Scott, 23 percent said Sink, and 35 percent remained undecided.
Suffolk also polled the U.S. Senate race and found Republican Marco Rubio up 39 percent to 31 percent for independent candidate Charlie Crist, with Democrat Kendrick Meek polling 22 percent. Libertarian Alexander Snitker gets 2 percent. Only 6 percent of voters say they're still undecided in that race.
"Florida may be deploying one party to Washington and another party to Tallahassee," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, in Boston. "Rubio's biggest ally in the U.S. Senate race is his Democratic opponent who is preventing Independent Crist from overtaking Rubio. In the governor's race Democrat Alex Sink's biggest ally is her opponent's negative ads against her. They are turning voters off and turning voters away from Republican Scott."
When Meek voters were asked who would be their second choice if it was apparent Meek could not win, 56 percent of Meek voters chose Crist while only 8 percent would vote for Rubio. More than one in four -- 26 percent -- remain undecided. If Meek dropped out of the race, Rubio's lead would be cut to 5 percent with 20 percent undecided, Paleologos said.
The poll also found 52 percent of Florida voters disapproving of Barack Obama, and 58 percent saying the country is heading in the wrong direction. Nearly 90 percent of respondents said they don't think the recession is over in Florida.
Suffolk also polled the attorney general's race. Republican Pam Bondi leads Democrat Dan Gelber 38 percent to 30 percent in its measurement of that contest, with independent Jim Lewis getting 7 percent.
By DAVID ROYSE
Created 10/19/2010 - 12:32am
Rubio pulls ahead of Crist by 8 percentage points
The News Service Of Florida
TALLAHASSEE -- A poll released Monday evening as voters finished the first day of voting in Florida showed Democrat Alex Sink with a small lead over Republican Rick Scott with 13 percent of voters saying they're still undecided in the governor's race.
The statewide survey of 500 Florida likely voters conducted Oct.14 to 17 by Massachusetts-based Suffolk University shows Sink with 45 percent of the vote to 38 percent for Scott. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.4 percent.
When asked which candidate for governor has run a more negative campaign, 42 percent of respondents said Scott, 23 percent said Sink, and 35 percent remained undecided.
Suffolk also polled the U.S. Senate race and found Republican Marco Rubio up 39 percent to 31 percent for independent candidate Charlie Crist, with Democrat Kendrick Meek polling 22 percent. Libertarian Alexander Snitker gets 2 percent. Only 6 percent of voters say they're still undecided in that race.
"Florida may be deploying one party to Washington and another party to Tallahassee," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, in Boston. "Rubio's biggest ally in the U.S. Senate race is his Democratic opponent who is preventing Independent Crist from overtaking Rubio. In the governor's race Democrat Alex Sink's biggest ally is her opponent's negative ads against her. They are turning voters off and turning voters away from Republican Scott."
When Meek voters were asked who would be their second choice if it was apparent Meek could not win, 56 percent of Meek voters chose Crist while only 8 percent would vote for Rubio. More than one in four -- 26 percent -- remain undecided. If Meek dropped out of the race, Rubio's lead would be cut to 5 percent with 20 percent undecided, Paleologos said.
The poll also found 52 percent of Florida voters disapproving of Barack Obama, and 58 percent saying the country is heading in the wrong direction. Nearly 90 percent of respondents said they don't think the recession is over in Florida.
Suffolk also polled the attorney general's race. Republican Pam Bondi leads Democrat Dan Gelber 38 percent to 30 percent in its measurement of that contest, with independent Jim Lewis getting 7 percent.
Orlando Sentinel.com Don't get snookered by fears spread by Amendment 4 foes
Lauren Ritchie
COMMENTARY
October 13, 2010
The lies are starting to work.
A multimillion-dollar campaign financed by developers, builders, land speculators and others who stand to make fortunes from over-development is starting to convince Floridians that Amendment 4 will bring on Armageddon.
What a shame if development interests are able to obscure the truth with their wild and monstrously inaccurate claims that the proposed amendment on the Nov. 2 ballot will collapse the economy and cost taxpayers their last pennies.
I bet it'll be the cause of world hunger, too. Not to mention the collapse of morality in the Western world.
Dear reader, it is easy to strip aside the nonsense being brought to you by the greedy people who helped create this lingering economic meltdown and who care about one thing and one only: their pocketbooks.
This is so, so simple — but voters have to engage themselves long enough to realize that they're being snookered.
That's hard when a sea of amendments will be floating before them on the ballot next month. But make no mistake — this is the single most important change to come before voters in decades.
If passed, Amendment 4 it would change the way business is done in Florida and maybe even "save" the state from utter ruin.
Lake already could double
The amendment is dramatically simple — voters would get to say yea or nay on big developments whose backers want to build them where they should not be.
Despite howling from developers, Amendment 4 would not have control over all development. Quite the reverse. Communities being built where development is supposed to go — typically near cities where utilities and services are offered — could merrily build without interference from Amendment 4.
In Lake County, for example, there are already enough parcels of land approved for development that the population here would double if they were all built at once.
The proposed new law would step in only when developers stray into places where they should not build, such as rural areas. But that's where builders want desperately to put up subdivisions because it is how they make unfathomable profits. Greedy developers buy the cheaper land for bigger rewards, and do not care a whit about creating sprawl, destroying the rural lifestyle and costing taxpayers a bundle to serve the community with police, fire, schools and new roads.
Consider this: Under Amendment 4, a builder who wants to dump a new city the size of Mount Dora on the fringes of Leesburg could do so tomorrow. If that same developer wants to create a city in rural, ecologically critical south Lake, for example, the developer would have to ask you, the voter.
Ignore the noise
This terrifies builders. Why? Do the math. It's so much easier to sway the votes of five county commissioners than trying to win an approval from nearly 200,000 voters across the county.
No longer would developers be able to contribute the $500 limit to the campaign of a county commissioner — and get each of their family members and employees to "contribute," too, — in exchange for the unspoken agreement that their poorly-planned projects will be approved.
Inexplicably, one of the most vocal arguments from opponents of Amendment 4 is that it would (horror of horrors) change the way representative democracy works. The power would shift from elected hands to voters. How awful! And our elected officials have done such a splendid job of controlling runaway growth! Florida's development is top drawer and built with the interests of the resident in mind!
Or not.
Ignore the noise. There is one question and one only at stake: Do you like the way Florida has developed?
If so, vote no on Amendment 4. If you think local elected officials are doing a great job of guiding growth, vote no on Amendment 4. If you think that elected officials are listening to residents and voting in your best interest, then vote no Amendment 4.
But please don't vote against it because you're confused by the ton of mud that developers have dropped onto this issue to trick you.
Don't do it because you think that you're somehow a traitor to democracy. It is democracy, after all, that allows voters to take this sliver of power back into their own hands.
Don't do it because you're afraid of dozens of expensive, confusing elections. That won't happen. Developers don't want to face you, the voter. They will be satisfied with building communities where they ought to be and making a little less money.
Don't do it because you're being told the economy will get even worse. That's a lie. Developers can build thousands of homes today. Right this minute. They just want the extra gravy on their mashed potatoes, and they want you to ladle it on.
Follow the money trail
Instead, give this a little thought.
Amendment 4 is no panacea. It won't fix all the ills of growth. Rather, it will give voters a small measure of control over the very worst of the abuses.
As always, follow the money trail. The Miami Herald reported last week that Lennar Homes, which has taken $251 million in taxpayer-funded relief, managed to sink $367,000 into the fund to fight Amendment 4. Pulte Homes got $800 million in bailout bucks — and sent $567,000 to the opponents of Amendment 4.
Do your interests align with those of big developers?
Mine don't.
I'm voting YES on Amendment 4.
(Column online at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-amendment-4-flor20101013,0,255181.column)
__._,_.___
COMMENTARY
October 13, 2010
The lies are starting to work.
A multimillion-dollar campaign financed by developers, builders, land speculators and others who stand to make fortunes from over-development is starting to convince Floridians that Amendment 4 will bring on Armageddon.
What a shame if development interests are able to obscure the truth with their wild and monstrously inaccurate claims that the proposed amendment on the Nov. 2 ballot will collapse the economy and cost taxpayers their last pennies.
I bet it'll be the cause of world hunger, too. Not to mention the collapse of morality in the Western world.
Dear reader, it is easy to strip aside the nonsense being brought to you by the greedy people who helped create this lingering economic meltdown and who care about one thing and one only: their pocketbooks.
This is so, so simple — but voters have to engage themselves long enough to realize that they're being snookered.
That's hard when a sea of amendments will be floating before them on the ballot next month. But make no mistake — this is the single most important change to come before voters in decades.
If passed, Amendment 4 it would change the way business is done in Florida and maybe even "save" the state from utter ruin.
Lake already could double
The amendment is dramatically simple — voters would get to say yea or nay on big developments whose backers want to build them where they should not be.
Despite howling from developers, Amendment 4 would not have control over all development. Quite the reverse. Communities being built where development is supposed to go — typically near cities where utilities and services are offered — could merrily build without interference from Amendment 4.
In Lake County, for example, there are already enough parcels of land approved for development that the population here would double if they were all built at once.
The proposed new law would step in only when developers stray into places where they should not build, such as rural areas. But that's where builders want desperately to put up subdivisions because it is how they make unfathomable profits. Greedy developers buy the cheaper land for bigger rewards, and do not care a whit about creating sprawl, destroying the rural lifestyle and costing taxpayers a bundle to serve the community with police, fire, schools and new roads.
Consider this: Under Amendment 4, a builder who wants to dump a new city the size of Mount Dora on the fringes of Leesburg could do so tomorrow. If that same developer wants to create a city in rural, ecologically critical south Lake, for example, the developer would have to ask you, the voter.
Ignore the noise
This terrifies builders. Why? Do the math. It's so much easier to sway the votes of five county commissioners than trying to win an approval from nearly 200,000 voters across the county.
No longer would developers be able to contribute the $500 limit to the campaign of a county commissioner — and get each of their family members and employees to "contribute," too, — in exchange for the unspoken agreement that their poorly-planned projects will be approved.
Inexplicably, one of the most vocal arguments from opponents of Amendment 4 is that it would (horror of horrors) change the way representative democracy works. The power would shift from elected hands to voters. How awful! And our elected officials have done such a splendid job of controlling runaway growth! Florida's development is top drawer and built with the interests of the resident in mind!
Or not.
Ignore the noise. There is one question and one only at stake: Do you like the way Florida has developed?
If so, vote no on Amendment 4. If you think local elected officials are doing a great job of guiding growth, vote no on Amendment 4. If you think that elected officials are listening to residents and voting in your best interest, then vote no Amendment 4.
But please don't vote against it because you're confused by the ton of mud that developers have dropped onto this issue to trick you.
Don't do it because you think that you're somehow a traitor to democracy. It is democracy, after all, that allows voters to take this sliver of power back into their own hands.
Don't do it because you're afraid of dozens of expensive, confusing elections. That won't happen. Developers don't want to face you, the voter. They will be satisfied with building communities where they ought to be and making a little less money.
Don't do it because you're being told the economy will get even worse. That's a lie. Developers can build thousands of homes today. Right this minute. They just want the extra gravy on their mashed potatoes, and they want you to ladle it on.
Follow the money trail
Instead, give this a little thought.
Amendment 4 is no panacea. It won't fix all the ills of growth. Rather, it will give voters a small measure of control over the very worst of the abuses.
As always, follow the money trail. The Miami Herald reported last week that Lennar Homes, which has taken $251 million in taxpayer-funded relief, managed to sink $367,000 into the fund to fight Amendment 4. Pulte Homes got $800 million in bailout bucks — and sent $567,000 to the opponents of Amendment 4.
Do your interests align with those of big developers?
Mine don't.
I'm voting YES on Amendment 4.
(Column online at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-amendment-4-flor20101013,0,255181.column)
__._,_.___
Carl Hiassen: Running scared over Amendment 4
The Miami Herald
Posted on Sat, Oct. 09, 2010
Running scared over Amendment 4
By Carl Hiaasen
chiaasen@MiamiHerald.com
Major home builders are uncorking a bombastic media blitz to scare Floridians away from voting yes to Amendment 4.
The same people who helped ignite the housing crash and mortgage meltdown are absolutely terrified of giving citizens actual control over growth in their own communities.
The so-called Hometown Democracy Amendment would require local voters to approve any significant changes to a county or city ``comprehensive land-use plan,'' the map by which municipalities evolve.
If the measure passes -- and it needs the support of 60 percent of voters -- no massive housing subdivision or commercial development could be built without the project first appearing on a ballot.
It's not exactly a radical concept, but the opposing special interests will do just about anything to kill it.
They're scared because they know Floridians are fed up with lousy planning and overbuilding, and the high taxes that always result.
They're scared because they know Floridians are sick of watching elected officials cave in again and again to developers, making a farce of land-use regulations.
But mostly they're scared because, if passed, Amendment 4 has the potential to disrupt the influence-peddling and outright corruption that's made it so easy to subvert the will of the public.
As things stand now, development interests can thwart opposition to projects by simply buying off the politicians whose votes are needed to make it happen.
Typically that's achieved by hiring connected lobbyists, who then approach a receptive county commissioner or city council member. In many cases, the lobbyist has raised money for the officeholder's election campaign, so a favor is perceived to be owed.
And a threat implied, too: If you don't line up behind the project, don't expect any donations for your next campaign.
Occasionally, if the elected official is exceptionally greedy and dim-witted, a cash bribe or some other illicit benefit is arranged.
Public hearings are often a formality, a minor road bump. Plenty of earnest folks show up to question the impact of a proposed subdivision or shopping mall upon their neighborhoods and lives, and the politicians pretend to listen.
By that point, though, the deal is already sealed, the necessary majority of votes secured.
This cynical charade has been going on since the beginning of statehood. It's the reason so many Florida cities look like they were planned by chimpanzees on LSD.
It's also the reason we now have an estimated 300,000 homes and condos sitting vacant statewide, while leading the nation in foreclosures as well as mortgage fraud. The term ``growth management'' is a joke.
Amendment 4 isn't a perfect solution. Much will depend on how the language is interpreted -- for instance, determining how large a project must be before it goes to a vote.
Many thoughtful people, including some professional planners, fear the amendment would generate an endless spate of elections in fast-growing counties. They're also worried that deep-pocketed developers will be able to sway the outcomes with slick advertising campaigns.
Another issue is the wisdom of holding a countywide or citywide referendum on a building project that might affect only one neighborhood. At the very least, the amendment is bound to spawn lawsuits until the courts clarify its reach.
Despite such concerns, it's hard to imagine a system for managing growth that could possibly be more dishonest, or deaf to the public interest, than what we have now.
Nobody with half a brain believes that development pays for itself. Study after study shows that residents are the ones who pay big-time for sprawl, which is why taxes are so brutal in Florida's most densely populated counties.
So is the cost of living. Clogged highways, overcrowded schools and jails, water shortages -- we pay for all of it.
Opponents claim that Amendment 4 will actually raise taxes, one of many straight-faced lies that will saturate the airwaves between now and election day. This is well-financed desperation.
While the amendment's supporters have raised only about $2.4 million, the opposition had a war chest of $12 million by mid-summer.
The biggest donor is the Florida Association of Realtors -- what a shocker -- followed by some of the biggest home builders on Wall Street.
Here's the killer: Many of the companies bankrolling the ad campaign against Amendment 4 are recipients of a congressional bailout, in the form of humongous tax refunds earlier this year.
According to an industry magazine (Headline: ``Builders Cash in on Tax Refunds''), Lennar Homes has already taken $251 million in taxpayer-funded relief.
Yet somehow the firm scrounged up $367,000 to fight the Florida Hometown Democracy movement.
Pulte Homes accepted $800 million in federal bailout refunds while kicking in $567,000 to a political action committee opposed to Amendment 4.
So, when you see all those dire-sounding, fright-filled TV commercials, remember whose paying for them. You are.
These guys are using your money to keep your voice, and your vote, out of the neighborhood planning process. Think about that when you're standing in the voting booth on Nov 2.
Do the thing they dread the most: Read Amendment 4 and decide for yourself.
© 2010 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/09/v-print/1865470/running-scared-over-amendment.html#ixzz12opNEerX
Posted on Sat, Oct. 09, 2010
Running scared over Amendment 4
By Carl Hiaasen
chiaasen@MiamiHerald.com
Major home builders are uncorking a bombastic media blitz to scare Floridians away from voting yes to Amendment 4.
The same people who helped ignite the housing crash and mortgage meltdown are absolutely terrified of giving citizens actual control over growth in their own communities.
The so-called Hometown Democracy Amendment would require local voters to approve any significant changes to a county or city ``comprehensive land-use plan,'' the map by which municipalities evolve.
If the measure passes -- and it needs the support of 60 percent of voters -- no massive housing subdivision or commercial development could be built without the project first appearing on a ballot.
It's not exactly a radical concept, but the opposing special interests will do just about anything to kill it.
They're scared because they know Floridians are fed up with lousy planning and overbuilding, and the high taxes that always result.
They're scared because they know Floridians are sick of watching elected officials cave in again and again to developers, making a farce of land-use regulations.
But mostly they're scared because, if passed, Amendment 4 has the potential to disrupt the influence-peddling and outright corruption that's made it so easy to subvert the will of the public.
As things stand now, development interests can thwart opposition to projects by simply buying off the politicians whose votes are needed to make it happen.
Typically that's achieved by hiring connected lobbyists, who then approach a receptive county commissioner or city council member. In many cases, the lobbyist has raised money for the officeholder's election campaign, so a favor is perceived to be owed.
And a threat implied, too: If you don't line up behind the project, don't expect any donations for your next campaign.
Occasionally, if the elected official is exceptionally greedy and dim-witted, a cash bribe or some other illicit benefit is arranged.
Public hearings are often a formality, a minor road bump. Plenty of earnest folks show up to question the impact of a proposed subdivision or shopping mall upon their neighborhoods and lives, and the politicians pretend to listen.
By that point, though, the deal is already sealed, the necessary majority of votes secured.
This cynical charade has been going on since the beginning of statehood. It's the reason so many Florida cities look like they were planned by chimpanzees on LSD.
It's also the reason we now have an estimated 300,000 homes and condos sitting vacant statewide, while leading the nation in foreclosures as well as mortgage fraud. The term ``growth management'' is a joke.
Amendment 4 isn't a perfect solution. Much will depend on how the language is interpreted -- for instance, determining how large a project must be before it goes to a vote.
Many thoughtful people, including some professional planners, fear the amendment would generate an endless spate of elections in fast-growing counties. They're also worried that deep-pocketed developers will be able to sway the outcomes with slick advertising campaigns.
Another issue is the wisdom of holding a countywide or citywide referendum on a building project that might affect only one neighborhood. At the very least, the amendment is bound to spawn lawsuits until the courts clarify its reach.
Despite such concerns, it's hard to imagine a system for managing growth that could possibly be more dishonest, or deaf to the public interest, than what we have now.
Nobody with half a brain believes that development pays for itself. Study after study shows that residents are the ones who pay big-time for sprawl, which is why taxes are so brutal in Florida's most densely populated counties.
So is the cost of living. Clogged highways, overcrowded schools and jails, water shortages -- we pay for all of it.
Opponents claim that Amendment 4 will actually raise taxes, one of many straight-faced lies that will saturate the airwaves between now and election day. This is well-financed desperation.
While the amendment's supporters have raised only about $2.4 million, the opposition had a war chest of $12 million by mid-summer.
The biggest donor is the Florida Association of Realtors -- what a shocker -- followed by some of the biggest home builders on Wall Street.
Here's the killer: Many of the companies bankrolling the ad campaign against Amendment 4 are recipients of a congressional bailout, in the form of humongous tax refunds earlier this year.
According to an industry magazine (Headline: ``Builders Cash in on Tax Refunds''), Lennar Homes has already taken $251 million in taxpayer-funded relief.
Yet somehow the firm scrounged up $367,000 to fight the Florida Hometown Democracy movement.
Pulte Homes accepted $800 million in federal bailout refunds while kicking in $567,000 to a political action committee opposed to Amendment 4.
So, when you see all those dire-sounding, fright-filled TV commercials, remember whose paying for them. You are.
These guys are using your money to keep your voice, and your vote, out of the neighborhood planning process. Think about that when you're standing in the voting booth on Nov 2.
Do the thing they dread the most: Read Amendment 4 and decide for yourself.
© 2010 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/09/v-print/1865470/running-scared-over-amendment.html#ixzz12opNEerX
FOLIO WEEKLY: 4 Our Future Growth is not the answer to Florida’s housing glut
Backpage editorial
By Robert M. Weintraub
Stone pillars stand amid barren fields like
monoliths of an ancient culture; iron gates
eerily similar to the those in the opening scene
of “Citizen Kane” lead to — nothing! This is
what meets the eye as one travels across C.R. 210
between the Intracoastal Waterway and
Interstate 95. This is Nocatee. The controversial
“New Town” carved out of 14,000 acres of forest
in northern St. Johns County and southern
Duval County was to have 13,000 residential
units, 30,000 residents, 4 million square feet of
office space, 1 million square feet of retail space,
nine schools, alibraries, fire departments, police
substations, county annexes.
Five years later, Nocatee has 500 houses
huddled in small groupings, in various remote
corners. There is one grocery store and a small
handful of other shops sitting forlornly in the
middle of a large, clear-cut field where
thousands of trees once stood.
Nocatee’s development was controversial,
approved only after a lengthy lawsuit filed by
the Sierra Club resulted in a compromise.
Concerns ranged from environmental
degradation, water conservation, taxes,
schools and traffic. Nocatee was a “leapfrog
development” because it would create a sizable
population in an otherwise rural area.
Nocatee is not a victim of the recession; it is a
cause of it, one of the many unfinished
developments that litter Florida like so much
confetti. Sales began in 2005, two years before
the collapse, but the competition was stiff as
similar communities were being developed and
expanded everywhere: Rivertown, a few miles
away in St. Johns, The Villages in Marion
County, Trinity and Bridgewater in Pasco, Eagle
Creek in Orange, Ordoba Ranch, a few miles
from Tampa, and so many more, most of them
still far from meeting their developers’ dreams.
Travel down Amelia Island’s First Coast
Highway and you pass The Enclave, an
unfinished quadrangle with 20 units standing
where some 100 were planned. Only two homes
are owned by individuals; the other 18 units are
owned by two banks which took over the
property when Summer Beach gave up on the
development, which had promised to be one of
Amelia’s finest.
The former Hampton Lakes in Yulee, where
749 homes were planned in the $600,000 range,
has gone through foreclosure and the developers
who have taken over now plan a quite different
community of $200,000 homes. And the story
goes on, from community to community.
Florida played its full part in the subprime
excesses. It ranked first for mortgage fraud in the
U.S. in three of the past four years. In the fourth
quarter of last year, more than 25 percent of all
mortgages here were behind on at least one
payment; more than a fifth were at least 90 days
behind or already in foreclosure. The effect on
the state’s overall economy has been huge. In the
year to April 2009, Florida’s population fell for
the first time in recent memory, by nearly
57,000; in a normal year, Florida would be
expected to grow by 200,000 to 400,000.
Jobs have evaporated, particularly in
construction, property and finance; the
unemployment rate was 11.7 percent this
summer, about 2 percent higher than the
national average. Florida has an almost two-year
inventory of homes for sale — some 300,000
homes — which has forced resale prices down
by 40 to 50 percent.
Economic growth through residential and
commercial development has ended, probably
forever. This is called a “paradigm shift,” a
change in a fundamental model of events. For
example, the railroad barons thought they were
in the railroad business, not understanding they
were in the transportation business; the advent
of the automobile, buses, trucks and airplanes
ended the railroads’ rule of commerce.
Sean Snaith, an economist at the University
of Central Florida in Orlando, reckons that
Florida’s economy faces “a long and protracted
climb out of a deep hole,” with unemployment
remaining high until 2012. It will be 2014 before
Florida’s payrolls recover to pre-recession levels,
he predicts.
Nationally, economists are saying that at the
country’s current growth rate — 1.5 to 2 percent
— it will take seven years to work off consumers’
and homeowners’ heavy debt load. Not until that
debt load is paid down can we hope to get back
to any normalcy, they say.
Given this depressing outlook, the First
Coast and Florida as a whole must move
away from reliance on residential and
commercial development to keep pace with
the paradigm shift taking place; the old
formula is no longer effective.
But county and state governments fail to
grasp this. County and city commissioners
and their planning boards (dominated by
developers, land speculators and their fellow
travelers) continue their “build, baby, build”
mantra. Some commissions are actually
eliminating impact fees and reducing
permitting costs to stimulate more home
construction in the midst of a housing glut.
Developers — like the old railroad barons —
continue to feel they are kings of economic
growth and reject the cold reality of arithmetic.
They are dinosaurs, and unless state and local
leadership recognizes this and takes appropriate
action, Florida has little chance of economic
recovery any time soon.
Local and state government spending in
Florida went from $93 billion in 2002 to $151
billion in 2008, as government diverted $58
billion a year from the economy.
(Unemployment went from 3.3 percent to 12
percent as a result.) Much of this increase
was necessary to provide services to the new
developments, because they do not pay
for themselves.
It is because of this uncontrolled, unplanned
development, much of it opposed by the public,
that the Florida Hometown Democracy
movement was born. Amendment 4 on this
November’s ballot is the result. Fed up with the
refusal of government to listen to public
concerns and the control of state and local
government by developers and land speculators,
the public is prepared to approve this
amendment to the Florida Constitution that will
give them a vote — veto power — over land-use
changes to the comprehensive plans that all
counties and cities are required to have.
But developers, land speculators and their
government minions — trying desperately to
keep control despite the economic math — are
conducting a $12 million campaign to discredit
Amendment 4 with nonsensical arguments.
One is a gross misrepresentation of the
Florida Supreme Court opinions that approved
Amendment 4 for the ballot. Those opinions
clearly state that only land-use changes to
comprehensive plans will require referenda.
Opponents keep saying all changes will require a
public vote — traffic controls, emergency
evacuation, air and water quality, recreation —
which is nowhere to be found in the court
opinions (floridahometowndemocracy.com).
Another scare tactic is that Amendment 4
will cost jobs. The overdevelopment that crashed
the economy caused the job loss. Housing for
100 million people can be built in Florida right
now without a single land-use change or need
for a referendum, so there are plenty of jobs in
construction and allied industries available … if
there were only home buyers.
But we won’t see much new construction
until the inventory of 300,000 homes is worked
down. Nocatee, Rivertown and other failed
communities will not be able to recover — if
ever — until consumers reduce their debt. This
is the reality of the paradigm shift. Florida must
find new ways to grow its economy.
Since our state and local governments do not
understand the dynamic or causes of this
paradigm shift, the voters will have to take some
control. The answer to “build, baby, build” and a
sick economy is the Hometown Democracy
Amendment, Amendment 4 on the Nov. 2
ballot. It will give citizens a seat at the table on
decisions that affect their neighborhoods, their
communities and their quality of life.
Robert M. Weintraub lives in Nassau County
By Robert M. Weintraub
Stone pillars stand amid barren fields like
monoliths of an ancient culture; iron gates
eerily similar to the those in the opening scene
of “Citizen Kane” lead to — nothing! This is
what meets the eye as one travels across C.R. 210
between the Intracoastal Waterway and
Interstate 95. This is Nocatee. The controversial
“New Town” carved out of 14,000 acres of forest
in northern St. Johns County and southern
Duval County was to have 13,000 residential
units, 30,000 residents, 4 million square feet of
office space, 1 million square feet of retail space,
nine schools, alibraries, fire departments, police
substations, county annexes.
Five years later, Nocatee has 500 houses
huddled in small groupings, in various remote
corners. There is one grocery store and a small
handful of other shops sitting forlornly in the
middle of a large, clear-cut field where
thousands of trees once stood.
Nocatee’s development was controversial,
approved only after a lengthy lawsuit filed by
the Sierra Club resulted in a compromise.
Concerns ranged from environmental
degradation, water conservation, taxes,
schools and traffic. Nocatee was a “leapfrog
development” because it would create a sizable
population in an otherwise rural area.
Nocatee is not a victim of the recession; it is a
cause of it, one of the many unfinished
developments that litter Florida like so much
confetti. Sales began in 2005, two years before
the collapse, but the competition was stiff as
similar communities were being developed and
expanded everywhere: Rivertown, a few miles
away in St. Johns, The Villages in Marion
County, Trinity and Bridgewater in Pasco, Eagle
Creek in Orange, Ordoba Ranch, a few miles
from Tampa, and so many more, most of them
still far from meeting their developers’ dreams.
Travel down Amelia Island’s First Coast
Highway and you pass The Enclave, an
unfinished quadrangle with 20 units standing
where some 100 were planned. Only two homes
are owned by individuals; the other 18 units are
owned by two banks which took over the
property when Summer Beach gave up on the
development, which had promised to be one of
Amelia’s finest.
The former Hampton Lakes in Yulee, where
749 homes were planned in the $600,000 range,
has gone through foreclosure and the developers
who have taken over now plan a quite different
community of $200,000 homes. And the story
goes on, from community to community.
Florida played its full part in the subprime
excesses. It ranked first for mortgage fraud in the
U.S. in three of the past four years. In the fourth
quarter of last year, more than 25 percent of all
mortgages here were behind on at least one
payment; more than a fifth were at least 90 days
behind or already in foreclosure. The effect on
the state’s overall economy has been huge. In the
year to April 2009, Florida’s population fell for
the first time in recent memory, by nearly
57,000; in a normal year, Florida would be
expected to grow by 200,000 to 400,000.
Jobs have evaporated, particularly in
construction, property and finance; the
unemployment rate was 11.7 percent this
summer, about 2 percent higher than the
national average. Florida has an almost two-year
inventory of homes for sale — some 300,000
homes — which has forced resale prices down
by 40 to 50 percent.
Economic growth through residential and
commercial development has ended, probably
forever. This is called a “paradigm shift,” a
change in a fundamental model of events. For
example, the railroad barons thought they were
in the railroad business, not understanding they
were in the transportation business; the advent
of the automobile, buses, trucks and airplanes
ended the railroads’ rule of commerce.
Sean Snaith, an economist at the University
of Central Florida in Orlando, reckons that
Florida’s economy faces “a long and protracted
climb out of a deep hole,” with unemployment
remaining high until 2012. It will be 2014 before
Florida’s payrolls recover to pre-recession levels,
he predicts.
Nationally, economists are saying that at the
country’s current growth rate — 1.5 to 2 percent
— it will take seven years to work off consumers’
and homeowners’ heavy debt load. Not until that
debt load is paid down can we hope to get back
to any normalcy, they say.
Given this depressing outlook, the First
Coast and Florida as a whole must move
away from reliance on residential and
commercial development to keep pace with
the paradigm shift taking place; the old
formula is no longer effective.
But county and state governments fail to
grasp this. County and city commissioners
and their planning boards (dominated by
developers, land speculators and their fellow
travelers) continue their “build, baby, build”
mantra. Some commissions are actually
eliminating impact fees and reducing
permitting costs to stimulate more home
construction in the midst of a housing glut.
Developers — like the old railroad barons —
continue to feel they are kings of economic
growth and reject the cold reality of arithmetic.
They are dinosaurs, and unless state and local
leadership recognizes this and takes appropriate
action, Florida has little chance of economic
recovery any time soon.
Local and state government spending in
Florida went from $93 billion in 2002 to $151
billion in 2008, as government diverted $58
billion a year from the economy.
(Unemployment went from 3.3 percent to 12
percent as a result.) Much of this increase
was necessary to provide services to the new
developments, because they do not pay
for themselves.
It is because of this uncontrolled, unplanned
development, much of it opposed by the public,
that the Florida Hometown Democracy
movement was born. Amendment 4 on this
November’s ballot is the result. Fed up with the
refusal of government to listen to public
concerns and the control of state and local
government by developers and land speculators,
the public is prepared to approve this
amendment to the Florida Constitution that will
give them a vote — veto power — over land-use
changes to the comprehensive plans that all
counties and cities are required to have.
But developers, land speculators and their
government minions — trying desperately to
keep control despite the economic math — are
conducting a $12 million campaign to discredit
Amendment 4 with nonsensical arguments.
One is a gross misrepresentation of the
Florida Supreme Court opinions that approved
Amendment 4 for the ballot. Those opinions
clearly state that only land-use changes to
comprehensive plans will require referenda.
Opponents keep saying all changes will require a
public vote — traffic controls, emergency
evacuation, air and water quality, recreation —
which is nowhere to be found in the court
opinions (floridahometowndemocracy.com).
Another scare tactic is that Amendment 4
will cost jobs. The overdevelopment that crashed
the economy caused the job loss. Housing for
100 million people can be built in Florida right
now without a single land-use change or need
for a referendum, so there are plenty of jobs in
construction and allied industries available … if
there were only home buyers.
But we won’t see much new construction
until the inventory of 300,000 homes is worked
down. Nocatee, Rivertown and other failed
communities will not be able to recover — if
ever — until consumers reduce their debt. This
is the reality of the paradigm shift. Florida must
find new ways to grow its economy.
Since our state and local governments do not
understand the dynamic or causes of this
paradigm shift, the voters will have to take some
control. The answer to “build, baby, build” and a
sick economy is the Hometown Democracy
Amendment, Amendment 4 on the Nov. 2
ballot. It will give citizens a seat at the table on
decisions that affect their neighborhoods, their
communities and their quality of life.
Robert M. Weintraub lives in Nassau County
USDOJ Press Release: Conviction in Hate Crime -- Fatal Beating of Latino Immigrant
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Two Shenandoah, Pa., Men Convicted of Hate Crime in the Fatal Beating of Luis Ramirez
WASHINGTON - A federal jury in Scranton, Pa., has convicted Brandon Piekarsky and Derrick Donchak, both of Shenandoah, Pa., of a hate crime arising out of the fatal beating of Luis Ramirez. The jury found the defendants guilty of violating the criminal component of the federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it a crime to use a person’s race, national origin or ethnicity as a basis to interfere, with violence or threats of violence, with a person’s right to live where he chooses to live. In addition, the jury found that Donchak conspired to, and did in fact, obstruct justice.
During the trial, the jury heard evidence from multiple eyewitnesses that the defendants, aided and abetted each other and some of their friends in fatally beating Luis Ramirez because he was Latino and because they did not want Latinos living in Shenandoah.
According to the evidence presented at trial, on July 12, 2008, the defendants came upon Ramirez in a park after leaving a community festival. The defendants and several of their friends, some of whom testified during the trial, attacked Ramirez. During the course of the beating, the defendants and their friends yelled racial epithets in which they repeatedly called Ramirez a racial derogatory term and told him "This is Shenandoah. This is America. Go back to Mexico." According to testimony, Donchak beat Ramirez while holding a thick piece of metal identified at trial as a "fist pack." Piekarsky kicked Ramirez in the head as he lay prone on the ground. After Piekarsky kicked Ramirez, he told a bystander who was married to a Latino man to "tell your Mexican friends to get out of Shenandoah or you will be lying next to him." After the fight concluded, Ramirez was taken to Geisinger Regional Medical Center, where he died of massive head injuries. The jury also heard evidence that, immediately following the beating, Donchak conspired with some of his friends, some of their parents, and members of the Shenandoah Police Department to obstruct the investigation of the fatal assault.
"Hate crimes of this nature have no place in this country, and today’s verdict demonstrates that violence committed because of a victim’s race, national origin, or ethnicity will not be tolerated," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. "As this case illustrates, the Civil Rights Division will vigorously enforce the right of every person who lives in this country to do so free of racially-based violence and intimidation."
Because the jury found that death resulted from their acts, Donchak and Piekarsky face sentences of up to life in prison on the hate crime charge. In addition, Donchak faces up to 20 years in prison on the obstruction charge and five years on the conspiracy charge. The defendants will be sentenced on Jan. 24, 2011, by Senior District Judge A. Richard Caputo.
This case was investigated by special agents from the FBI’s Philadelphia Division, and was prosecuted by Gerard V. Hogan and Myesha Braden of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section.
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Two Shenandoah, Pa., Men Convicted of Hate Crime in the Fatal Beating of Luis Ramirez
WASHINGTON - A federal jury in Scranton, Pa., has convicted Brandon Piekarsky and Derrick Donchak, both of Shenandoah, Pa., of a hate crime arising out of the fatal beating of Luis Ramirez. The jury found the defendants guilty of violating the criminal component of the federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it a crime to use a person’s race, national origin or ethnicity as a basis to interfere, with violence or threats of violence, with a person’s right to live where he chooses to live. In addition, the jury found that Donchak conspired to, and did in fact, obstruct justice.
During the trial, the jury heard evidence from multiple eyewitnesses that the defendants, aided and abetted each other and some of their friends in fatally beating Luis Ramirez because he was Latino and because they did not want Latinos living in Shenandoah.
According to the evidence presented at trial, on July 12, 2008, the defendants came upon Ramirez in a park after leaving a community festival. The defendants and several of their friends, some of whom testified during the trial, attacked Ramirez. During the course of the beating, the defendants and their friends yelled racial epithets in which they repeatedly called Ramirez a racial derogatory term and told him "This is Shenandoah. This is America. Go back to Mexico." According to testimony, Donchak beat Ramirez while holding a thick piece of metal identified at trial as a "fist pack." Piekarsky kicked Ramirez in the head as he lay prone on the ground. After Piekarsky kicked Ramirez, he told a bystander who was married to a Latino man to "tell your Mexican friends to get out of Shenandoah or you will be lying next to him." After the fight concluded, Ramirez was taken to Geisinger Regional Medical Center, where he died of massive head injuries. The jury also heard evidence that, immediately following the beating, Donchak conspired with some of his friends, some of their parents, and members of the Shenandoah Police Department to obstruct the investigation of the fatal assault.
"Hate crimes of this nature have no place in this country, and today’s verdict demonstrates that violence committed because of a victim’s race, national origin, or ethnicity will not be tolerated," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. "As this case illustrates, the Civil Rights Division will vigorously enforce the right of every person who lives in this country to do so free of racially-based violence and intimidation."
Because the jury found that death resulted from their acts, Donchak and Piekarsky face sentences of up to life in prison on the hate crime charge. In addition, Donchak faces up to 20 years in prison on the obstruction charge and five years on the conspiracy charge. The defendants will be sentenced on Jan. 24, 2011, by Senior District Judge A. Richard Caputo.
This case was investigated by special agents from the FBI’s Philadelphia Division, and was prosecuted by Gerard V. Hogan and Myesha Braden of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section.
HEATHER BEAVEN FOR CONGRESS
I'm supporting Heather Beaven for COngress.
A Navy veteran, she'll protect veterans from an abusive DVA. A leader of education for at-risk youth, she'll help reform education.
An opponent of offshore oil drilling and unsafe cleanup practices, she'll help hold Big Oil accountable for its crimes and torts.
JOHN LUIGI MICA is the worst Congressman in Washington. Endorsed by the St. Augustine Record, he's a national disgrace.
MICA personifies the corruption of long incumbency in Congress.
The number of reasons for voting against JOHN MICA are limitless. They include
MICA's head-butting of a news cameraman; his support for offshore oil drilling off FLorida's coast (even for drilling in the Everglades National Park); his spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars on euphemistic "meals with constituents" (his restaurant and bar bills), his accepting campaign contributions from earmark beneficiaries; and his opposition of a minimum wage increase for U.S. workers outside of Florida (after Florida raised its minimum wage with 3/4 of the votes in 2004),
MICA takes credit for every project in his District. It matters not whether he had anything to do with obtaining the project, MICA"s there with his mug and pinky room in every photo, at every politically-timed ribbon-cutting and groundbreaking, often for projects whose funding he voted against.
MICA refuses to debate Heather Beaven. WOnder why? Because Faye Armitage kicked his ass in their only debate in 2008, and MICA can't handle the pressure.
Watching MICA walk out of the PBS studio in Orlando two years ago, following the debate with Faye Armitage, MICA looked crestfallen.
IF MICA won't debate Heather Beaven -- stiffing more than one dozen fora where both were invited -- MICA is unworthy of consideration for re-election to Congress.
MICA's arrogance bespeak a 9-term incumbent badly in need of replacing.
As Ronald Reagan said, politicians, like diapers, need to be changed frequently, and for the same reason.
It's time for JOHN LUIGI MICA to go to K street with the lobbyists he says number among the finest people he ever met. It's time for St. Augustine to be represented by a competent, working representative in Congress -- vote for Heather Beaven.
A Navy veteran, she'll protect veterans from an abusive DVA. A leader of education for at-risk youth, she'll help reform education.
An opponent of offshore oil drilling and unsafe cleanup practices, she'll help hold Big Oil accountable for its crimes and torts.
JOHN LUIGI MICA is the worst Congressman in Washington. Endorsed by the St. Augustine Record, he's a national disgrace.
MICA personifies the corruption of long incumbency in Congress.
The number of reasons for voting against JOHN MICA are limitless. They include
MICA's head-butting of a news cameraman; his support for offshore oil drilling off FLorida's coast (even for drilling in the Everglades National Park); his spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars on euphemistic "meals with constituents" (his restaurant and bar bills), his accepting campaign contributions from earmark beneficiaries; and his opposition of a minimum wage increase for U.S. workers outside of Florida (after Florida raised its minimum wage with 3/4 of the votes in 2004),
MICA takes credit for every project in his District. It matters not whether he had anything to do with obtaining the project, MICA"s there with his mug and pinky room in every photo, at every politically-timed ribbon-cutting and groundbreaking, often for projects whose funding he voted against.
MICA refuses to debate Heather Beaven. WOnder why? Because Faye Armitage kicked his ass in their only debate in 2008, and MICA can't handle the pressure.
Watching MICA walk out of the PBS studio in Orlando two years ago, following the debate with Faye Armitage, MICA looked crestfallen.
IF MICA won't debate Heather Beaven -- stiffing more than one dozen fora where both were invited -- MICA is unworthy of consideration for re-election to Congress.
MICA's arrogance bespeak a 9-term incumbent badly in need of replacing.
As Ronald Reagan said, politicians, like diapers, need to be changed frequently, and for the same reason.
It's time for JOHN LUIGI MICA to go to K street with the lobbyists he says number among the finest people he ever met. It's time for St. Augustine to be represented by a competent, working representative in Congress -- vote for Heather Beaven.
JOHN MICA'S FAMILY OF LOBBYISTS -- TRULY SCARY PEOPLE EXPLOITING MICA'S PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PRIVATE GAIN
a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.floridalobbyistdirectory.com/LobbyistPictureHandler.ashx?id=1115">
Big Oil's top Florida lobbyist, DAVID MICA, brother of JOHN LUIGI MICA
JOHN CLARK MICA, Fertilizer Institute lobbyist
D'ANNE LEIGH MICA, charged with DUI and Failure to Appear, lobbies for Big Oil
Here they are! Lobbyist-cash-dining vampire Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA et ux, et brother-lobbyists (DAVID and DAN), et Congressman MICA's public dole-dining PR lobbyist children (D'ANNE and J. CLARK MICA).
And President GEORGE W. BUSH is LURCH.
Is that a dysfunctional family or what?
Of course, Al Gore wrote in "Earth in the Balance" that our Nation acted like a dysfunctional family when it came to environmental pollution, but the MICA FAMILY takes the cake (and shoots the caribou).
Why, Congressman JOHN MICA even joked to the Washington Post that he calls his FPC lobbyist brother DAVID "the polluter."
Ipse dixit.
Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA's brother, DAVID MICA, plumps for offshore oil drilling off Florida's coast. There's an obvious correlation between MICA's advocacy in Congress and that of his brothers and children. MICA's children both lobby for oil, gas and petrochemical interests.
They're creepy and they're kooky,
Lobbyists and goofy,
They're all together oooky,
The Mica Family.
Our House is a disgra--ace
Where lobbyists embrace
They've completely lost face
The Mica Family.
(Neat)
(Sweet)
(Petite)
So get a pinstripe suit on
A broomstick you can crawl on
We're gonna recall 'em
The Mica Family.
What do you reckon?
Big Oil's top Florida lobbyist, DAVID MICA, brother of JOHN LUIGI MICA
JOHN CLARK MICA, Fertilizer Institute lobbyist
D'ANNE LEIGH MICA, charged with DUI and Failure to Appear, lobbies for Big Oil
Here they are! Lobbyist-cash-dining vampire Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA et ux, et brother-lobbyists (DAVID and DAN), et Congressman MICA's public dole-dining PR lobbyist children (D'ANNE and J. CLARK MICA).
And President GEORGE W. BUSH is LURCH.
Is that a dysfunctional family or what?
Of course, Al Gore wrote in "Earth in the Balance" that our Nation acted like a dysfunctional family when it came to environmental pollution, but the MICA FAMILY takes the cake (and shoots the caribou).
Why, Congressman JOHN MICA even joked to the Washington Post that he calls his FPC lobbyist brother DAVID "the polluter."
Ipse dixit.
Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA's brother, DAVID MICA, plumps for offshore oil drilling off Florida's coast. There's an obvious correlation between MICA's advocacy in Congress and that of his brothers and children. MICA's children both lobby for oil, gas and petrochemical interests.
They're creepy and they're kooky,
Lobbyists and goofy,
They're all together oooky,
The Mica Family.
Our House is a disgra--ace
Where lobbyists embrace
They've completely lost face
The Mica Family.
(Neat)
(Sweet)
(Petite)
So get a pinstripe suit on
A broomstick you can crawl on
We're gonna recall 'em
The Mica Family.
What do you reckon?
ORLANDO WEEK: HOW MICA MADE HIS MILLIONS FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LARGESSES
11/12/1998
News
Mica’s millions
|
| John Mica: "I consider myself a pioneer in the cellular business, having helped to build two successful systems" |
 |
John Mica is sitting pretty. Re-elected last week as Florida’s 8th District congressman, Mica had campaign money to burn, no opposition from the Democrats and rides into a fourth term with a reputation -- carefully cultivated -- as a tough-talking political reformer. He’s a crowd-pleaser on crime, steering federal money toward Central Florida as a "High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area" and voting to try 13-year-olds as adults. And as the first and only representative of a heavily Republican district drawn in 1991, Mica has taken off the gloves to fight powerful interests such as ... average federal workers, with dramatic hearings on what he regards as wasteful labor-union activities performed on government time. Mica also has been fiercely partisan in his attacks on President Clinton, co-sponsoring an early impeachment resolution and calling the president "the little bugger" from the floor of the House. A member of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Mica attacked the White House over an obscure miniscandal involving Indian tribes in Wisconsin. One tribe reportedly used its casino-generated money to block a nearby tribe’s efforts to open a competing gambling hall. The Interior Department officials who blocked the new casino were accused of taking their marching orders from the White House, which received big campaign contributions from the wealthy tribe. Then the bureaucrats quit their government posts to take lucrative lobbying contracts with the tribe. Mica was incensed. "Under the Ethics in Government Act, what was done by [those bureaucrats] is prohibited except for one loophole," Mica fumed during a hearing on the matter last year. "Do you think that that’s right for folks to step right out of government and then into a position of conflict?" Mica came to Congress on a platform built on such stands, equating his financial security with political independence. "I’ve made a lot of money and I don’t need the salary," he said. Proud of his status as a self-made entrepreneur, Mica would like to privatize as many services as possible, including public education. He would convert foreign aid into aid for U.S. businesses for "export assistance." Last year he put your money where his mouth is by voting for taxpayer-subsidized loans to nations that import U.S. weapons -- but only after taking $14,200 from political-action committees associated with those weapons merchants, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But while championing welfare for Grumman and Lockheed Martin, Mica’s tightwad side rules his philosophy regarding government aid to poor people. In a 1994 survey on welfare, Mica chose all the most restrictive options regarding welfare reform, endorsing mandatory work and a requirement that teen moms must live with a parent. Then he added: "Six-month maximum on welfare." Mica even endured a moment of infamy in the spring of 1996 when he likened welfare recipients to reptiles. "Do not feed the alligators," he said. "We post these warnings because unnatural feeding and artificial care create dependency." The metaphor was denounced by many Democrats and caused even some Republicans to wince. Yet few could know that at least $2 million of Mica’s own wealth had come from a government giveaway of a public resource. And nobody at the time noted the irony of Mica’s dependence on that taxpayer-sapping bonanza -- which one federal official likened to "one of the biggest welfare programs in the United States." The giveaway The man who said those words was former Federal Communications Commission chairman Mark S. Fowler, who was in charge of the giveaway. The date was March 30, 1985. Fowler was addressing a Senate subcommittee on communications, trying to get Congress to help him turn off the spigot of public money. It was a frustrating time for Fowler; nothing was done, and the result was a five-year opportunity for a few thousand sharpies in and out of government. Fowler’s welfare program was John Mica’s ticket to easy millions. It was called the cellular telephone service lottery. On announced occasions, beginning in 1984, in a windowless room on the eighth floor of the FCC building, three big air-blown tanks full of pingpong balls were activated as groups of 30 to 50 anxious players looked on. Like Meyer Lansky or a Wisconsin tribe, the federal government was in the gambling business. But players of FCC Cellular Bingo, unlike the naive pigeons of Vegas, placed their bets for free or nearly free. And payoffs ranged from a few million dollars to hundreds of millions. The prize was the right to use the radio spectrum between 800MHz and 920MHz, the frequencies cellular telephones use to communicate with each other and with wire lines. Conservative estimates at the time put the assets’ combined value at $20 billion. The giveaway was supposed to spur competition. AT&T, whose Bell Labs had developed crucial cellular-switching technology two decades earlier, had just been dismantled by the largest antitrust action the U.S. government had ever undertaken. Regulators didn’t want a huge company to dominate the new service. Comparative hearings -- in which FCC bureaucrats weighed the merits of corporate proposals to provide service -- already had delayed widespread cellular service by 10 years. A call for proposals brought an avalanche of 5,000 -- a possible 20-year backlog -- in just a few days. "This was an inefficient system, and it delayed the delivery of new services to the public," remembers David Aylward, formerly an assistant to then-Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth, who chaired the Senate subcommittee on communications. By law the FCC could not sell public assets. A lottery was deemed the only fair thing. To spur competition, the FCC divided the country into 734 regions, the largest 306 being outrageously valuable, city-based "Metropolitan Service Areas" (MSAs) and the remaining 428 deemed "Rural Service Areas" (RSAs), which ranged in value from perhaps $1 million to tens of millions of dollars. Each area or city would get two cellular providers: the local phone company and a newcomer. To discourage speculators, the FCC demanded 500-page applications packed with engineering reports. Applicants also had to submit a letter of credit attesting they had the million dollars it would take to build the system within five years. But specialized "application mills" popped up immediately to do the paperwork for just a few thousand dollars. They knew that the right to use the radio spectrum, if won in the lottery, could be sold quickly to a big company like Southwestern Bell or Western Wireless that would build the actual towers and staff the billing and marketing departments. A lottery application, once created, could be duplicated for as many gamblers as would pay, making application services a profitable business in itself. Commercials appeared on the Financial News Network, urging folks to "roll the dice." Regulators were appalled. The FCC, Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission stepped in to collar the mountebanks. Journalists reported the scandal; editorialists clucked tongues. As the greed frenzy began, Mica was an administrative assistant to Florida Sen. Paula Hawkins, who sat on the key Senate communications subcommittee. Also working for Hawkins was John Dudinsky; following Hawkins’ defeat in 1986, the two men would find themselves in business together as lobbyists. More important, Mica and Dudinsky also formed a partnership as MD Cellular. It was MD Cellular that -- two years after Mica left Hawkins’ employ -- would put Mica himself into the communications business. A driven man John Mica would be a millionaire today even without his cellular profits. But the millions he made in the lottery appear to have been his best return on investment. Mica takes pride in his attention to such things. Mica has been a dedicated public servant, a stalwart for conservative causes, a tireless go-getter and a careful cultivator of his own financial garden for more than 30 years of public life. "He is extremely energetic," says brother Dan, a former Democratic congressman who now heads the National Association of Credit Unions. "He eats breakfast early, works to 8 or 9 p.m., then he’ll go out to get a refrigerator or stove to install in the house, and do the installation before bed." John Mica also is a deliberative and sharp thinker, his mind toned early by the high-school debating society. "For many, many years he held the record for the most points ever accumulated," says his brother, a fellow debating team member. As a student at the University of Florida, John Mica raised the money to rebuild his fraternity house and even sketched the design for it himself, his brother says. He worked as a necktie salesman and dishwasher, and networked Republican circles as his brother moved in Democratic ones, although little separated them politically. Shortly after graduation, John Mica landed a job as executive director of the Palm Beach and Orange County Government Charter Study Commissions, and sold the idea of charter government to the citizens of West Palm Beach. He then turned his charter knowledge into a minor franchise, selling his expertise to Pasco and Manatee counties as well. In 1975 Mica hooked up with Orlando architect Robert Koch and formed MK Development, which 10 years later would build Koch’s office building and a small strip-mall on Temple Trail, eventually earning Mica more than $50,000 a year in rent payments. Beginning with his election to the Florida House of Representatives from Orlando’s District 17 in 1976, Mica’s personal finances improved yearly. In 1977, he and developer Loren H. Roby borrowed about $110,000 to invest in two oceanfront lots on New Smyrna Beach. After the pair built condos on the site, both were on their way to financial security; by June 1980, Mica pegged his net worth at $302,550. When Hawkins was elected to the U.S. Senate during the Reagan landslide of 1980, Mica followed her to Washington. After she lost her bid for re-election in 1986 to Bob Graham, Mica joined his friend Dudinsky as a lobbyist, working for such clients as American Specialty Chemical, Coopers & Lybrand and 3M Corporation. Mica built his five-bedroom, four-bath home on Via Tuscany in Winter Park just a few months after leaving Hawkins’ employ. The house is now assessed at $350,000. Money was always important to John Mica, brother Dan says, and he was ambivalent at best about the value of public service in amassing suitable wealth. "For a while he questioned why I spent so many years in public service," says Dan, who served a decade each as a congressional staffer and as a congressman from Palm Beach County. "He said I might do better financially for my family." Dan says he was surprised in 1991 when John announced he was running for the newly created House seat, until he said he had made his fortune and worried no longer about paying the mortgage. "John wanted to make sure he could be assured for his family," Dan says. Mica lent himself $100,000 to run against Democrat Daniel Webster. Mica positioned himself as a reformer, and depicted Webster as a tool of trial lawyers and labor unions; Webster called Mica "the epitome of the professional politician." Webster did not make an issue of the cell-phone lottery, from which Mica divulged at least a million-dollar profit in financial disclosures filed four months before the election. Mica won with 53 percent of the vote and went on to distinguish himself as a bold entrepreneur, a self-made millionaire who created jobs and opportunity. It was this image Mica put forth when first queried about his cellular deals. "I consider myself a pioneer in the cellular business, having helped to build two successful systems from the ground up, now all part of a national system we take for granted," Mica replied early this year in a letter after Orlando Weekly began inquiring about his finances. Yet a closer look reveals not a "pioneer" but a man whose luck made him rich with no work required. ‘Little appointee’ Mica refuses to say exactly how much he invested or earned in cellular, although the financial disclosure forms he filed as a congressman indicate a gross profit of at least $2 million. Because those forms list only income ranges, and because two of the three companies that eventually bought Mica’s phone interests refused to divulge the prices they paid, it’s impossible to be more precise. But precision has not been a hallmark of Mica’s cellular business. In interviews and letters over many months, he gives varied and confusing explanations of his role, at first depicting himself as a wheeler-dealer and, more recently, as a "little appointee." From interviews and available public records, it appears the latter role is most accurate. In fact, so informal was MD Cellular -- Mica’s first phone venture with Dudinsky and Carl Medei of Maitland -- that as far as the state of Florida is concerned, it was not even a legal business entity, having failed to register as required with the state. The oversight was understandable. MD was less a business than a betting pool, Mica’s claims to the contrary. "We were lucky. We were lucky. We were lucky," says Medei. "The FCC does a drawing, and if they pick you, you get money. And if they don’t, you lose." Medei remembers little else about MD Cellular. He can’t say when it was begun -- "All that’s so long ago, I don’t think I even have the paperwork anymore" -- or what work Mica did on its behalf. He would not divulge the amount of his own investment or profit, although he says his was much smaller than that of his partners. Mica says his duties as "managing general partner" included setting up the partnership, providing facilities and expensing the partnership. But he also says that another company, Genesis Management, did all the actual work. And the $90,000 fee he reported in 1991 as the start of his cellular income? That was an accountant’s creation, for tax purposes, Mica says. In fact, Mica now says MD was not a partnership at all. "Similar to thousands of other investor applicants, we retained a packager to prepare legal, engineering and financial applications to file with the FCC," Mica wrote in another letter. "Rather than form a formal partnership or corporation, as investors we signed Service Contract Agreements (forms used by nearly all cellular packagers) provided by Genesis, the Virginia-based cellular packager." Chance encounters Genesis Management founder Wladimir Naleszkiewicz was a Polish émigré who taught economics at Notre Dame before stints with the FCC and the White House office of telecommunications policy under presidents Ford and Carter. He had spent the early 1980s trying to assemble financing for a visionary direct satellite broadcasting system -- much like the one Bill Gates is invested in today. But Genesis, founded in 1986, was a much more modest enterprise, filling out complex FCC forms and grouping investors for the cellular lotteries in a subtle -- and sometimes blatant -- attempt to beat the system. The goal was to enter the lottery process under as many names as possible. FCC rules and federal law forbade the submission of duplicate applications, threatening a $10,000 fine and up to five years in prison for anyone caught doing so. But the FCC didn’t enforce the rule. And Naleszkiewicz was the engineer for several lottery syndicators, according to Mica, cranking out engineering specs for all comers. That gave packagers like Naleszkiewicz tremendous power, controlling which small investors were grouped with others and in some cases directing the whole profitable enterprise. Some application mills would sign up anyone with a pulse, charge them next to nothing to enter, but require that if the applicant won, he or she would hire the packager -- at high cost, with perhaps a bit of equity -- as a consultant to set up the system. The other tactic was to charge unsophisticated investors high fees based on inflated claims about the chances of winning and the value of the asset to be won. By mid-1986 FCC Chairman Fowler threatened to report "charlatan-type applications" to the Justice Department. But in the end the market ruled, and the speculators won. "We have seen that too many applicants have too little intention of actually providing telecommunications services and merely apply in order to sell out later to the highest bidder," Fowler complained in a speech to telecom industry officials. "Try as we might, we have no way to distinguish between authentic service providers and these racehorse Charlies." Enter John Mica. "We had done some research on packagers," says Mica. "Wladimir had the best reputation." As the first of five RSA lotteries closed, Mica saw that instead of the expected thousands of applicants, only 800 to 1,200 people applied for each license. This created favorable odds for any savvy investor who could enter all of the remaining 340 drawings. Even if the number of applicants doubled -- which it nearly did -- the odds of winning still were better than seven to one. By mid-1988, Mica had entered several hundred lotteries. By 1990 he had won three times. MD Cellular was part of two groups that won RSAs. Those service areas were based in Front Royal, Va.; Aberdeen, S.D.; and Monroe, La. Within weeks the partnership sold the Virginia RSA, which covered a six-county territory 100 miles from the Washington beltway -- prime territory -- to Southwestern Bell. "I didn’t want to sell Virginia," Mica says. "If we’d gotten stock for this, we’d be so rich I wouldn’t even be here. I’d be out on my yacht somewhere." Mica did get some stock in the next RSA sold, a seven-county area in the northeast corner of Louisiana. The partnership to which MD Cellular belonged was in turn controlled by a larger partnership, Tri-Coastal Cellular; in 1991 Tri-Coastal’s 18 partners formed a shell corporation, Monroe Cellular, to operate a cellular-phone company there. "We built the system in Louisiana," says Jim Arch of Maitland, one of the partners. By "built," Arch doesn’t mean he actually flew down there with a tool belt around his waist and worked the cranes that erected the towers. He hired the people who hired the people who did that. Or rather, like Mica, he invested with people who hired people who hired people who did the work. But Mica’s role was such that, today, he can’t even remember the name of the company, or its owner, that the partnership hired. Eventually New Jersey-based Centennial Cellular came calling, and in 1994 they paid $11.5 million for the property, according to Centennial Comptroller Tom Bucks. Mica’s share of that sale would have been $862,500; he took half of that in Centennial stock, which he eventually sold. The final RSA -- comprising five counties in South Dakota -- was sold in 1995, also for an undisclosed sum, to Western Wireless. Mica reported a gain of between $100,000 and $1 million on that sale, but has said that his 12 percent stake in the Aberdeen property was his least profitable. Mica entered the 1990s more than $1 million ahead in the cellular game. Real losses were almost unthinkable. Instead, the risks were associated with business partners shuffled into the deck by Genesis Management. The riskiest would prove to be the packager himself, Wlad Naleszkiewicz. In January 1989, Naleszkiewicz told 40 clients he had submitted to the FCC their cellular lottery application fees -- $200 each for 1,438 applications -- but he didn’t. "The last ones, he never filed," says Arch. "He put the applications in the garbage." Naleszkiewicz pled guilty in federal court to two counts of mail fraud in connection with this failing. He told the court he kept the $287,600 to save himself embarrassment and "avoid financial difficulties." He and his wife, Nancy, were fined double damages, and Wladimir faced 10 years in prison, though he served just four months’ home detention. Genesis’ was the first and only criminal indictment to arise from cellular licensing application fraud. Genesis filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in August 1993, claiming assets of $5,088 and liabilities of $1.4 million. Wladimir Naleszkiewicz died in February 1996. His wife could not be reached for comment. Mica rests much of his credibility as a true cellular player -- and not a passive speculator -- on his choice of Genesis. "The firm had a reputation as the best engineering and packaging company for cellular applications," he wrote. "We researched the firm and found that all of the critical engineering studies required by the FCC for previously awarded MSA Cellular licenses and prepared by Genesis were approved." But Genesis did not exist until 1986, well after the MSA process had gotten under way. And what was Naleszkiewicz doing immediately before then? He was vice president and director of economics for American National -- an application mill the FTC had shut down for fraud in 1985. Mica says he knew nothing about that. Tallying the costs Today Mica is out of the phone business. He’s coy about his income from the deals, noting that he put money into the systems he owned for years before deriving any profit. He says the cost of applications was high as well. "Application fees and packaging fees for engineering and legal work were costly," he wrote. "As I recall, just the FCC application for each block exceeded $80,000, not including packager fees for legal, engineering and financial application work." But what did it really cost to get into the sweepstakes? According to FCC records, the early lotteries were free. Later a $200 per application fee was instituted. Syndicators like Naleszkiewicz charged between $3 and $5,000 per application, depending on the worth of the properties being raffled off and what kind of deals they made with clients. Mica’s real costs may never be known. But the aftermath of the Genesis fraud provides a glimpse at the figures. In a letter dated May 15, 1997, Mica wrote to James Hanson, chairman of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, regarding a payment Mica left off his 1996 financial disclosure statement. "In 1996 I received $7,502.23 as a court-ordered restitution (Naleszkiewicz Order of Restitution) from a case in which I and other investors were defrauded," Mica wrote. "Staff of the committee advised that this need not be considered ... for reporting purposes." The restitution was for double the amount Naleszkiewicz collected from each applicant. That puts Mica’s cost for that final lottery, in which 83 RSAs were raffled, at $3,751.12. Multiplied by four application blocks, that represents an initial investment of less than $15,000 to make his first cellular million (or two). Such speculation annoys John Mica, who doesn’t like to talk about his money. Although he once pegged his net worth at $6 million and equated his financial independence with political independence, Mica is reticent about the details. "Someone might read that [I’m rich] and try to push down my door," he says. So don’t ask him what he’s worth now. He’ll say only that it’s less than a few years ago. And don’t ask him to say just how much he invested, and earned, in the cellular-phone business. He says he just doesn’t know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)