... And Other Friday Comments

(1) Tell me if you have a different take on the interview in this morning's paper with former Hillsborough sheriff's deputy Daniel Brock. To me it looked like the guy's own words show that he's been over-zealous, to say the least, about drunken-driving arrests. Prosecutors had to drop 65 of the 313 cases that Brock investigated over a year' s time. To Brock, it's just that the prosecutors were wrong. Says Brock of the law on blood-alcohol content: "There is no legal limit. It's bad language that's used. You're not supposed to drink and drive." As for not videorecording 124 of his DUI stops, well, the equipment was broken a lot. And the guy who investigated him didn't like him. And so forth. Good luck with that. [Times photo | Daniel Wallace]

(2) The Pinellas County Commission in its discussion of the Brooker Creek Preserve last night decided to proceed with the process of passing an ordinance that is supposed to "protect" park and environmental lands, but which critics say still allows the County Commission pretty much to do as it pleases. At least now the public will get more chances to comment. It will be interesting to see whether the critics can get public support for a County Charter amendment that would be stronger.

(3) Is the property tax rollback and tax cap for local governments just passed by the Legislature unconstitutional?  Alex Leary's article this morning raises the question, quoting a legal analysis by a South Florida law firm. Here's a copy you can read for yourself: Download legal_analysis_property_tax_reform.pdf. The gist of it is that since the Florida Constitution sets a 10-mill tax cap for local governments, the Legislature can't run around inventing new caps of its own. I dunno -- for sure the Legislature couldn't raise the cap, but since local governments are creations of the Legislature in the first place, seems like it can set the rules. None of this matters unless somebody actually tries out the theory in court, of course.