Thursday, May 8

Good morning and good Thursday to you. My print column today is about specialty license tags. I propose that before we create a new plate from now on, enough people have to pay in advance. I also propose that we set a fairly high requirement for minimum sales before plates are discontinued. Somehow I do not think the Legislature will rush to take these suggestions. This is hardly the most important topic in Florida but I do try to keep a mix and this seemed like something a lot of people would relate to. I have been thinking a lot lately about "mix" and resolve not to just keep writing columns that say, "Here's yet ANOTHER public issue we should be mad about."

The main story in the newspaper today was the shooter who got shot at the courthouse in downtown St. Petersburg. Congratulations to the bailiffs who reacted quickly and protected the public. It sounds as though the guy had simply gone south, mentally speaking -- not even, necessarily, a rage-filled spouse in a divorce case, which is sort of the stereotypical courthouse risk.

The guy's mother said she didn't think he intended to shoot anybody, but that is not very convincing since the man showed up at the courthouse with a gun in a knapsack, produced it and started firing. She also blamed his downturn on reading conspiracy-oriented web sites. But if web sites could make otherwise "normal" people nutty, we would have more nuts than we already do. It's a modern twist on blaming bad music for bad behavior, etc... or Socrates for rebellious kids in Athens, for that matter.

I did check out the web site the mother mentioned, www.freedomforceinternational.org. I did not see any open advocacy of violence, just the general accusation that much of the world is falling under "collectivist" power and that a minority of informed individuals in the world need to resist it. The group's Latin motto is, Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt, which translates more or less as, "The powerless cannot defend liberty." (Hey, that degree is paying off already.)

Elsewhere: my Sunday column was about St. Petersburg's attempt to annex part of Tierra Verde; the latest news is that the city has delayed today's hearing in response to the county's objections. But the article doesn't reflect much concern on the part of the city officials to reports of voter intimidation -- instead, it's portrayed as a routine delay in an otherwise apple-pie annexation that the city intends to pursue. I'd like to see a little more acknowledgment of these problems from the city, along with SOME expression of concern on the impact on Tierra Verde, instead of just, "Hey, the property owner wants in and we want to grab some land, so what's wrong with it?"

The Rays lost last night but are still above .500 this late in the season, and in second place in the AL East. The Orlando Magic aren't done yet. My puppy Louie, now almost four months old, is briefly wearing that medical device known in my house as "The Cone of Shame" to protect a couple of stitches in his belly where we had an umbilical hernia fixed. It's getting hotter and more humid around here, in other words more like a "normal" May.

Lastly, either you know what I mean, or you don't care in the slightest, when I say that I wonder if tonight we will meet Jacob. Does this mean I am hypnotized by the mass culture? Probably. Please forgive this stream-of-consciousness blog post. I am off to try to learn something new in the world, if that's possible, despite the claim of Ecclesiastes that there is no such thing. Maybe not, but maybe it will be new to me.

Comments

[CarolAbernathy]

Howard, you mentioned that some of the proceeds from the specialty plates goes to some beneficiaries. Do you know who gets what? Do the proceeds from "Imagine" go to Yoko Ono?

[Howard Troxler]

Howard here. The proceeds of the "Imagine" tag benefits the Florida Association of Food Banks Inc.

You can check out who gets what for each tag via the specialty-tag web site of the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles and Highway Services.

Here's that link:

http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/specialtytags/

[Jon McPhee]

Mr. Troxler, here is a question that occurred to me in reading a new entry in "Ballpark Frankness." Aaron, I'm working in health care now and have not had time to study government-in-the-sunshine and open-meeting law in Florida. Just curious: Other than the appearance of impropriety of a little sidebar between the Council chair and the slick Mr. Kalt, is there nothing legally wrong about such a meeting? In the states where I did legal work, this kind of thing was actionable. Maybe Florida is different in that way too, but I would like to know. I'll pose the same to Mr. Troxler.

[Jon McPhee]

Oops, here's the item I referenced:

This tidbit from colleague Cristina Silva: City Council chairman Jamie Bennett is right now meeting with Rays senior vice president Michael Kalt. Presumably, the two are talking about a potential financing package for the $450-million ballpark.
Bennett (pictured) has been an interesting character in all of this. When news of the stadium first spread, Bennett sounded like a supporter. Here he is quoted in a November story about the project.
"They've done their homework," Bennett said. "And from first blush, it seems like it could work."
And on the stadium design: "If you look at it from the side, you can see through it," said Bennett. "It's not an obtrusive, big object."
Now, his tone is much different. Though the details of the proposal haven't changed much, Bennett now seems quite skeptical of the plan. The prospective 2009 mayoral candidate last month had this to say:
"We need to ask, 'Is this in the best interest of the city?' " Bennett said. "We need to start asking these questions today. Right now, I am not so sure. This is a horrible time to be talking about selling real estate. It is a rough time to be talking about taxes."
What will he say today? Hopefully, we'll find out soon.
Posted by Aaron Sharockman at 10:47:41 AM on May 8, 2008

[Howard Troxler]

Dear Jon McPhee: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV. I think the private meeting between Kalt and any individual council member is legally OK with a couple of important exceptions to the general rule.

First, sometimes the council sits as a "quasi-judicial" body, making certain legal decisions, such as land use. In that case the council would not be able to meet with only one side privately in an adversarial proceeding.

The other no-no is holding private meetings that serve as a "conduit" for information that otherwise would violate the open-meetings law. For example, Developer A could not go from member to member, delivering messages to and from each other as to how they intended to vote on an upcoming measure. (The same "conduit" prohibition applies to the city staff as well. Bottom line is, you can't use private meetings to communicate decision-making information among members of the board.)

So legally, my understanding is that the Rays can "brief" individual council members all they want. As to whether this is the RIGHT way to do it, as to whether the council really ought to be receiving information from the Rays in the wide-open public view... well, that's the way I think they ought to do it, but nobody listens to me. :)

[Chris Jenkins]

"She also blamed his downturn on reading conspiracy-oriented web sites. But if web sites could make otherwise "normal" people nutty, we would have more nuts than we already do. It's a modern twist on blaming bad music for bad behavior, etc... or Socrates for rebellious kids in Athens, for that matter."

Howard, brilliant insight, and it's always nice to see clear thinking on this particular topic. The idea that the dissemination of ideas is dangerous is the first step in a precipitious drop off of First Amendment rights.

[Reality]

Howard,

"For example, Developer A could not go from member to member, delivering messages to and from each other as to how they intended to vote on an upcoming measure."

It happens all the time. This is standard operating procedure for most every government body in Pinellas. Typically it is administration and staff that act as the conduit. It is simply a manipulation of the law using the debate between the “Letter of the Law” versus the “Spirit of the Law”. Moreover, it is common knowledge that local developers and land-use attorneys write most of our land-use policy. It seems thousands of dollars in campaign contributions does buy you something after all… sadly.