QuoteMayor Lenny Curry is continuing his unprecedented push to remove his predecessor's appointees from the city's numerous boards and commissions amid growing criticism, but for the first time he'll need the City Council's approval to remove a board member who said Wednesday she is refusing to step down.
The Mayor's Office Tuesday asked Lara Diettrich, Joey McKinnon and Lisa King to resign from the city's Planning Commission, which reviews land use and zoning issues. While Diettrich resigned and McKinnon hasn't responded, King sent Curry a letter on Wednesday saying she won't resign.
QuoteCurry plans to replace Diettrich, a former city planner, with Ben Davis, owner of Intuition Ale Works. McKinnon, a geologist, will be replaced by Abel Harding, a former Times-Union columnist, former spokesman for Mayor Alvin Brown and a president at Iberia Bank. King will be replaced by Donald Adkison, a CEO for a local tow truck company.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-09-16/story/planning-commission-member-refuses-jacksonville-mayor-currys-request-resign
Hoping the Council backs Lisa and let's her stay on the Planning Commission. She is good people.
If you want her to stay, or just think Curry is overstepping, contact your Council members.
My personal view of Lisa King is that she can too easily be .... swayed. I would not be sorry to see her go. As to Ben Davis, seems to be a good choice, and Abel Harding I find pretty neutral, not great but not bad either.
It will be interesting to see if the Mayor is willing to spend the political capital with City Council to have her removed.
Everyone here seems pretty satisfied with the credentials of Ben Davis and Able Harding. What about the other appointees for other boards recommended by the Curry administration? How good are they for their new role?
My biggest surprise is the dismissive comment from Councilwoman Boyer who feels that the role of the Council is to rubber stamp the mayor's recommendation for City appointments. That's not the way I've seen the Council act in past years.
I agree with Stephen. I think it's inefficient and unnecessary to change out the entire municipal government every 4 years, but it's tough to be mad when you see who is getting appointed. Ben and Abel are great guys and both very passionate about our city and making it better.
Apparently, the board appointments are set up to "serve at the pleasure of the Mayor" or something like that, and Curry's team has interpreted that to mean that the mayor can change them out when he sees fit. He wants to fill the boards with folks he can work with to pursue his vision. However, it hasn't really been done before by previous mayors, and whether Curry intends it this way or not, without a doubt the moves look politically motivated, which takes away from the good work he's done with the staff and appointments so far. That said, the people he's been picking have for the most part been solid, so at least there's that. At any rate, it's in the Council's hands now, hopefully Curry learns from the experience.
If they 'serve at his pleasure', then he doesn't need the council's approval. What specifically does the City Charter say on this?
I watched the Planning Commission discuss this on the live feed earlier today. In their nominations meeting, prior to the entire commission sitting down, nominees were selected for Chair and Vice Chair, which did not include Lisa King. However, once it got to the full Commission meeting, amendments were introduced to include her with the notation that things could change if the legislation, at the City Council level, does not go her way.
Quote from: stephendare on September 17, 2015, 03:27:35 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 17, 2015, 02:21:39 PM
If they 'serve at his pleasure', then he doesn't need the council's approval. What specifically does the City Charter say on this?
The City Charter is ambiguous on this. This has literally never happened before, so its new territory. Whatever the outcome it will decide the precedent.
So far its been the general practice that the only person to remove an official is the mayor that appointed them.
I was thinking the same thing, Stephen.
Though we did have the 2 charter amendments pass in April that would require council to approve the CFO and the CAO.
Quote from: stephendare on September 17, 2015, 03:51:08 PM
From Lisa King:
Dear friends - Mayor Curry asked for my resignation from the Planning Commission. As you may know I have 2 years left on my second term and currently serve as Vice Chair. Here's the letter I sent the Mayor:
Dear Mayor Curry:
I respectfully decline to resign from the Planning Commission.
I am convinced that the unprecedented appointment of four new members simultaneously will slow the work of the Commission to a degree that it will negatively impact the development pipeline and job creation in our City.
I know that streamlining government operations is of major concern to you as it is to me.
When I presented ideas to speed the work of the Planning Commission to your Transition Committee they were adopted into your final report. Today's action seems to be in direct conflict with your stated goals and objectives.
I regret having to take this action, but respectfully feel it is in our City's best interest.
Sincerely,
Lisa King
Good for her! Starting with Ernie Isaac, this mayor is booting anyone with a different political opinion as he.
It would seem that this is the already established precedent to me:
Quote'Curry is the fifth mayor Crescimbeni has worked with on council and he said he's "never seen anything like this before" in terms of sought resignations. Typically, he said, inherited appointees are allowed to serve out their terms and "everyone has lived with that."
If such appointments were intended to run concurrently with a mayor's term, it would be in the charter, he said.
My concern is with Curry wanting a business friendly Planning Commission. If the board aligned to his vision becomes a rubber stamp for everything he wants at the expense of our historical neighborhoods and smart urban growth, then we are in big trouble. A Planning Commission should first and foremost do what is best for sustained growth in Jacksonville. Business friendly should not be the priority, although it is still important to consider. I hope King gets the backing of the city council.
I share your concern.
Business Friendly Vs. Neighborhood Friendly
A spokeswoman for Curry says that he has
specific priorities for the the Planning Commission.
QuoteCurry's spokeswoman Marsha Oliver said the mayor's decision to replace King is not political. "He has said very early on he wants to identify those who can truly advance the goals," she said.
The mayor has the authority to appoint, with city council's approval, members of the city's independent boards and commissions. Oliver said the planning commission is one of his priorities.
"There are some specific priorities he has for that," said Oliver. "He has said he wants to make it a more business-friendly environment and culture that really allows companies to want to do business here in Jacksonville.
King said the commission is already doing that, so his request is puzzling.
According to COJ.
QuoteAccording to the Jacksonville Ordinance Code, the Planning Commission reviews proposed land use changes, text changes to the Comprehensive Plan, requests for exceptions, variances and waivers to the Zoning Code (except those pertaining to properties located within the Downtown Overlay Zone as defined in Section 656.361.2), appeals from written orders granting or denying an administrative deviation, written interpretations of the Zoning Code, final orders of the Cell Tower Review Committee and other matters related to land use and area planning which are referred to the Department or to the Commission pursuant to law, along with other duties.
I agree with King. I don't think the comprehensive plan and zoning code are what keep Jacksonville from being business friendly. I actually think Jacksonville is very business friendly. A lot of companies get huge incentives to expand here and we have landed some great development lately, i.e. GE, Macquarie, etc. If anything we need to support small businesses. However, the best way to support small businesses is to focus on creating strong neighborhoods. Small businesses don't struggle in places like San Marco, Riverside, Avondale, etc.
If Curry thinks the only way to prosper is to create boards/commissions that will all just say yes to whatever he wants, then we are in serious trouble. I didn't vote for him, but I want to give him a chance to win my approval. So far, aside from a smooth budget process, I'm not convinced.
^It's worth pointing out that he's not filling the positions with yes men. Especially in this case.
Quote from: brainstormer on September 17, 2015, 08:04:40 PM
If the board aligned to his vision becomes a rubber stamp for everything he wants at the expense of our historical neighborhoods and smart urban growth, then we are in big trouble.
I don't have an opinion on this issue, but did want to point out, to this concern, that at least 2 of the 3 new appointees do live our historic districts and "get" smart urban growth.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2015, 10:21:18 PM
^It's worth pointing out that he's not filling the positions with yes men. Especially in this case.
I would submit that the Al Ferraro folks are just that
FYI: How the by-laws for the Planning Commission reads:
3.5 Removal: A member may be removed by the Mayor during the member's term with
the approval of City Council.
I am a bit surprised that a few are concerned about how Ben Davis and Abel Harding view the various communities. From what I've seen from Lisa King, the communities have far more to fear from Lisa King than either of these two.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2015, 10:21:18 PM
^It's worth pointing out that he's not filling the positions with yes men. Especially in this case.
From my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience thus far with the various players, both are far more open minded and more likely to make up their own minds without outside pressures than Lisa King.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 18, 2015, 08:16:14 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 17, 2015, 10:21:18 PM
^It's worth pointing out that he's not filling the positions with yes men. Especially in this case.
I would submit that the Al Ferraro folks are just that
I don't know anything about them, I was referring to Ben Davis, Abel Harding, and some others.
One thing that really bothers me about Lisa's requested resignation, along with many of the others who have been asked to resign, is that Mayor Curry seems to be squashing the needed diversity among these commissions. I haven't seen much discussion about that. I understand that they serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and that he can remove and replace whoever he wants at any given time, but it seems to go against his "One City, One Jacksonville" motto.
The appointee for the seat she occupies is the CEO of a towing company his father started located on Phillips highway. Also, he is a close friend of CM Ferraro.
^ I am not surprised. Ferraro is puffed up and venting righteous indignation on council supporters of his former rival.
The Council definitely has a role to play in approving appointees and I hope they are willing force the issue of who gets to be the decider. Several other smart and well qualified appointees were kicked out with not a single murmur.
Tonight at City Council:
QuoteBills to replace King and McKinnon are slated for a public hearing tonight, with dozens of supporters planning to appear at the council meeting to voice their opposition.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546309 (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546309)
^ many people spoke out opposing the Mayor's legislation....and just 3 spoke in favor...all of which said something like "I like Lenny Curry. I trust that he knows what he is doing and we should support him"
Interestingly enough, a new petition against Lisa King holding out to keep her seat. Makes sense as she did not win her race for city council so though few may have spoken against her at the last city council meeting, it would seem not all that many actually support her. It will be interesting to see how it ends.
www.change.org/p/jacksonville-city-council-enough-is-enough-hold-lisa-king-responsible-rules-do-apply?recruiter=12429660&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-no_msg&fb_ref=Default
Have you seen the numbers in that district? It was an improbable lift for a Dem to win in that district. She did better than AB in many precincts. She won the major endorsements and is well liked institutionally because of her hard work, grasp of the role of government and ability to connect with people and make deliberative decisions.
QuoteUpdate: Panel backs Mayor Lenny Curry's appointments
By David Chapman, Staff Writer
Last week, there was lengthy community pushback about the removal of Lisa King and Joey McKinnon from the Planning Commission.
On Tuesday, City Council members put up much less.
Members of the Rules Committee effectively decided to back Mayor Lenny Curry's latest decisions on boards and commissions appointments. They voted 4-1 in separate measures to move forward with the mayor's choice of replacements, Abel Harding and Donald Adkison.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546366
Quote from: strider on October 18, 2015, 07:51:15 AM
Interestingly enough, a new petition against Lisa King holding out to keep her seat. Makes sense as she did not win her race for city council so though few may have spoken against her at the last city council meeting, it would seem not all that many actually support her. It will be interesting to see how it ends.
www.change.org/p/jacksonville-city-council-enough-is-enough-hold-lisa-king-responsible-rules-do-apply?recruiter=12429660&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-no_msg&fb_ref=Default
This so called petition sounds like 18 year College Republicans being douche bags.
Quote from: vicupstate on October 21, 2015, 07:33:34 PM
This so called petition sounds like 18 year College Republicans being douche bags.
let me help you with that
I guess it would be too much to expect her to graciously step aside, as requested. You know, like the others who apparently have some home training.
Quote from: RattlerGator on October 22, 2015, 01:28:25 PM
I guess it would be too much to expect her to graciously step aside, as requested. You know, like the others who apparently have some home training.
Her term has not expired. Being asked to leave mid-term is unprecedented. And there are TWO people not doing so.
^ maybe a better reference would be something like the FCC. Not sure how often that happens.
I guess I am a bit confused. How are appointed positions serving at the pleasure of the Mayor, whether or not their removal and / or appointment is confirmed by City Council, anything but political? Why would anyone be surprised by being asked to leave by a new mayoral administration, other than it being usually not done at this Board level? And what if there truly is cause for the requests (As Stephen has implied for at least some of them)?
Frankly, I personally have seen cause for concern about Lisa King, but know little about the others. I guess some could be personal and others could be expedient (to give someone else a favor). But they all could just as easily be valid for positive reasons.
Well now.
QuoteHow are appointed positions serving at the pleasure of the Mayor, whether or not their removal and / or appointment is confirmed by City Council, anything but political?
They quite clearly are 100% political, as any honest reviewer knows. But, when your politics don't agree with that of the requesting party, you shout and scream about how these things are supposed to be above politics.
Nice trick, but rather sophomoric.
She missed out on some home training. And she needs to be booted off, given that she doesn't know how to graciously resign. Further, she quite likely doesn't know how to graciously resign
precisely because she's highly partisan.
Above politics, indeed. Keep whistling Dixie, Stephen, keep right on whistling.
If these positions were intended to be political, the Charter would have structured them as such (as purely appointed by the Mayor with no term of office prescribed). They were given election-spanning terms of office specifically to take political considerations out of it. No doubt also to achieve some experience and continuity for better governance. That is the way it has been done too, until now it seems.
This is simply a power grab and partisan reward. This provides a compelling reason for going to non-partisan elections at the City level.
Exactly what have the ones asked to resign done, that you don't approve of? Besides not being partisan Republicans?
Quote from: vicupstate on October 23, 2015, 01:00:57 PM
If these positions were intended to be political, the Charter would have structured them as such (as purely appointed by the Mayor with no term of office prescribed). They were given election-spanning terms of office specifically to take political considerations out of it. No doubt also to achieve some experience and continuity for better governance. That is the way it has been done too, until now it seems.
Agreed. The mayor appoints people to a lot of boards and commissions, like JEA, JTA, JAA, JPA. This is one of those situations where the letter of the law doesn't match the spirit. Clearly these positions are designed differently than say, the Director of Public Works who is an appointed official that, indicated in charter, serves at the pleasure of the mayor.
First off, the charter does specify that the mayor can remove board members in the middle of their term, with council approval. That part is neither inappropriate nor unprecedented. The "unprecedented" part is only in the extent to which Curry has dropped the axe. One may question the wisdom of spending so much political capital on board seats just three months into the term, but it's certainly within his authority to do it - again, if the Council approves.
In addition to the political capital, the board change will have additional cost to Curry if it doesn't end up being productive. In the past, the boards weren't necessarily seen as political positions, and therefore they didn't reflect poorly on the mayor when they screwed something up. Now that Curry has been so public with wanting to fill the boards with his own appointees, if the boards do something wrong (or unpopular), it's going to reflect back on Curry. So it's not like he's unaccountable for his actions.
All that goes to the performance of the boards. So far, I think most of Curry's picks have been very solid and I expect many others would agree if it weren't for the circumstance of how they were made. In some cases, ripping the band-aid off will probably be a good thing. I don't think anyone could argue that the JEA board didn't need a few kicks to the tires, for instance.
QuoteFirst off, the charter does specify that the mayor can remove board members in the middle of their term, with council approval. That part is neither inappropriate nor unprecedented.
As I understand it, no prior mayor has done this, so that makes it unprecedented. Just because there is a means to remove someone for say, committing a felony, doesn't mean it was intended to be available for strictly political purposes. If these positions were intended to be political in nature, the Charter could have done that. It specifically did not. Steve's comment on spirit/letter is spot on. Previous mayors of both parties have respected the spirit.
Development in JAX is already too political, this will only make that worse, IMO.
While a 'good' mayor can remove 'bad' appointees, a 'bad' mayor can also remove 'good' appointees. It cuts both ways.
Quote from: vicupstate on October 23, 2015, 03:00:38 PM
QuoteFirst off, the charter does specify that the mayor can remove board members in the middle of their term, with council approval. That part is neither inappropriate nor unprecedented.
As I understand it, no prior mayor has done this, so that makes it unprecedented. Just because there is a means to remove someone for say, committing a felony, doesn't mean it was intended to be available for strictly political purposes. If these positions were intended to be political in nature, the Charter could have done that. It specifically did not. Steve's comment on spirit/letter is spot on. Previous mayors of both parties have respected the spirit.
Development in JAX is already too political, this will only make that worse, IMO.
While a 'good' mayor can remove 'bad' appointees, a 'bad' mayor can also remove 'good' appointees. It cuts both ways.
It isn't "unprecedented" for the mayor to remove people from boards, so far as I know. It's the timing and the scale that's unprecedented. Again, the Charter specifically authorizes this measure, without putting any conditions on it. This is the actual wording:
"A member may be removed by the Mayor during the member's term with the approval of City Council".
Section 3.5, Page 6 here (http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/docs/current-planning-division/planning-commission-docs/city-of-jacksonville-planning-commission-bylaws-5-.aspx).
I don't know that this is a matter of the spirit of the charter. If the board seats weren't intended to be chosen by the mayor, the bylaws would be written that way. And if the boards do a bad job it will reflect back on the Mayor in a way that it usually hasn't before. It certainly has so far.
That said, you're right that it cuts both ways: if a good mayor can remove bad appointees, a bad mayor could remove good appointees. That precedent is possibly troubling in that regard. But the previous tradition didn't prevent messes like the JEA. The problem with our development policies is less politics than a lack of consistency or sense on the city's end. The previous "apolitical" way of staffing the Planning Commission didn't stop, for instance, Toney Sleiman from somehow receiving $11 million in Mobility Fun Bucks at a time that less well connected business people had trouble just getting through the various levels of pointless bureaucracy.
Quote from: vicupstate on October 23, 2015, 03:00:38 PM
QuoteFirst off, the charter does specify that the mayor can remove board members in the middle of their term, with council approval. That part is neither inappropriate nor unprecedented.
As I understand it, no prior mayor has done this, so that makes it unprecedented. Just because there is a means to remove someone for say, committing a felony, doesn't mean it was intended to be available for strictly political purposes. If these positions were intended to be political in nature, the Charter could have done that. It specifically did not. Steve's comment on spirit/letter is spot on. Previous mayors of both parties have respected the spirit.
Development in JAX is already too political, this will only make that worse, IMO.
While a 'good' mayor can remove 'bad' appointees, a 'bad' mayor can also remove 'good' appointees. It cuts both ways.
From what I read, the appointments to the Planning Commission are as political as any appointments. See the pertinent parts below. The Mayor has full power to appoint or remove as he or she sees fit. Nothing in the by-laws says otherwise. The only safe guard is the fact that the City Council must approve both the appointing and the removing of any candidate. The fact that no one has ever removed a Planning Commission member during their term before, assuming that is truly the case, has no bearing on this what so ever. Calling it other than perfectly allowable and saying that it is not in the spirit of the Charter is a bit disingenuous.
Quote3.0 ORGANIZATION:
3.1 Appointment and Confirmation: All members to the Commission shall be
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council.
3.2 Membership: The Commission shall be comprised of nine members, and three
alternates, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. Six of the nine
members shall be appointed from and reside in each of the designated City of
Jacksonville Planning Districts. The three alternates and three members shall be
appointed to represent Duval County at large. Failure to reside in these designated
geographic districts shall automatically remove the person from membership.
Additionally, a representative of the Duval County School District appointed by the
Duval County School Board shall be included as a non-voting member of the
Planning Commission. A representative of a military installation acting on behalf of
all local military installations shall be included as an ex officio, non-voting member
of the Planning Commission.
3.3 Terms: Members shall be appointed for a three-year staggered term (except
appointments to fill vacancies). The term shall run from October 1 through
September 30. No member shall serve more than two consecutive full terms.
Appointments made to fill unexpired terms and initial appointments for less than
three years shall not be deemed to be full terms.
3.4 Resignation: Any Commissioner may resign from the Commission by tendering
their resignation in writing to the Office of the Mayor with a copy to the Chair of the
Commission and the Director.
3.5 Removal: A member may be removed by the Mayor during the member's term with
the approval of City Council.
It appears to me that the Mayor has put new people in place that he feels will work better with Bill Killingsworth and that is a good thing.
The message I get from the Mayor's Planning Commission removals and appointments is that he expects the commissioners to say yes to every and any development, rezoning, etc., and concerns that neighborhood organizations, residents, and environmentalists may have will not matter.
Quote from: strider on October 22, 2015, 05:07:56 PM
Frankly, I personally have seen cause for concern about Lisa King, but know little about the others. I guess some could be personal and others could be expedient (to give someone else a favor). But they all could just as easily be valid for positive reasons.
Striker, can you inform us of the "personal cause of concern about Lisa King'? I truly am interested.
Could it have something to do, Jax native, with her likely being a clearly partisan Democrat? Maybe kinda sorta? Given that she's a State Committeewoman for the Democrats? You know, the sort that might casually spew a caricatured understanding along the lines of, oh -- I don't know -- something like this, maybe:
QuoteThe message I get from the Mayor's Planning Commission removals and appointments is that he expects the commissioners to say yes to every and any development, rezoning, etc., and concerns that neighborhood organizations, residents, and environmentalists may have will not matter.
Because, of course, those crazy ass Republicans don't care "nothing 'bout no" residents, neighborhoods or the environment. No siree, Bob! They're barbarian crazies, I tell ya !!!
The precedent he is following, Stephen, just in case you're confused, is one of following the law. That, if anything, is the precedent he's setting. One, by definition,
isn't being overly partisan when the law specifically not only contemplates one exercising the authority being exerted, but explicitly grants it.
Nope. Not overly partisan. No matter how much quite partisan opponents scream otherwise.
Be gracious, State Committeewoman. Step aside.
Quote from: RattlerGator on October 23, 2015, 09:24:54 PM
Could it have something to do, Jax native, with her likely being a clearly partisan Democrat? Maybe kinda sorta?
I'm pretty sure there are lots of registered Democrats in the city. So what happened to mayor Curry's "One City One Jacksonville" thing?
Regardless of this dispute, something tells me city planning is going to improve from its current level. It certainly couldn't get much more dysfunctional than it has been.
Quote from: stephendare on October 23, 2015, 06:15:13 PM
Directors of Department are different from independent commissions, Strider.
Its not a question that he has in many case made great staffing decisions, its the precedent being set and the partisan basis.
Of all people, you should understand this.
From the by-laws of at least the Planning Commission, the only real difference is the term limits. The Directors do not have set limits and can serve indefinitely, assuming successive Mayors wish them to. What history and personal experience has shown me is that every Mayoral appointment is very political, from the Director slots all the way down to the HPC. You can talk about precedent all you wish, it won't change the fact that this is perfectly legal under the law.
As to Lisa King and why I am not sad she will not be on the commission, well, when a person who can not vote for her has her campaign signs in his yard, during a Planning Commission hearing Ms King quotes that persons and helps insure the Commission finds in the way he wishes and then three days later, the maximum campaign contributions are made by that person, I have to step back and wonder. At the very least, no one chosen to replace her will be any worse and who knows, maybe better for the Urban Core.
Quote from: stephendare on October 24, 2015, 11:16:59 AM
Quote from: strider on October 24, 2015, 11:15:03 AM
Quote from: stephendare on October 23, 2015, 06:15:13 PM
Directors of Department are different from independent commissions, Strider.
Its not a question that he has in many case made great staffing decisions, its the precedent being set and the partisan basis.
Of all people, you should understand this.
From the by-laws of at least the Planning Commission, the only real difference is the term limits. The Directors do not have set limits and can serve indefinitely, assuming successive Mayors wish them to. What history and personal experience has shown me is that every Mayoral appointment is very political, from the Director slots all the way down to the HPC. You can talk about precedent all you wish, it won't change the fact that this is perfectly legal under the law.
As to Lisa King and why I am not sad she will not be on the commission, well, when a person who can not vote for her has her campaign signs in his yard, during a Planning Commission hearing Ms King quotes that persons and helps insure the Commission finds in the way he wishes and then three days later, the maximum campaign contributions are made by that person, I have to step back and wonder. At the very least, no one chosen to replace her will be any worse and who knows, maybe better for the Urban Core.
kind of like the urban core architecture i suppose.
LOL - so does this mean the current commission is a bit worn and in need of rehab and the new members will make it like new again?
Good one, Stephen!
Not correct, but nicely done.
Quote from: Tacachale on October 24, 2015, 10:31:59 AM
Regardless of this dispute, something tells me city planning is going to improve from its current level. It certainly couldn't get much more dysfunctional than it has been.
If, and only if, the technical analysis doesn't get polluted with politics.....and I do not have high hopes for that.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 24, 2015, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 24, 2015, 10:31:59 AM
Regardless of this dispute, something tells me city planning is going to improve from its current level. It certainly couldn't get much more dysfunctional than it has been.
If, and only if, the technical analysis doesn't get polluted with politics.....and I do not have high hopes for that.
It's already "polluted by politics", as well as polluted by dysfunction. If we improve on the latter it will be a substantial net gain.
^ not if the new commissioners are automatically "business friendly" and approve anything and everything. That seems to be the goal of some.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 24, 2015, 09:37:42 PM
^ not if the new commissioners are automatically "business friendly" and approve anything and everything. That seems to be the goal of some.
[citation needed]
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 24, 2015, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 24, 2015, 10:31:59 AM
Regardless of this dispute, something tells me city planning is going to improve from its current level. It certainly couldn't get much more dysfunctional than it has been.
If, and only if, the technical analysis doesn't get polluted with politics.....and I do not have high hopes for that.
LOL. Kind of like the Mobility Plan.
Least we forget, Mayor Curry's administration is the one bringing back Bill Killingsworth who did the Mobility Plan and is progressive in his thinking. That certainly should give us hope.
Curry was quoted in the paper saying Lisa King is an obstacle on the Planning Commission. What do you think he means?
Quote from: Tacachale on October 24, 2015, 10:09:52 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 24, 2015, 09:37:42 PM
^ not if the new commissioners are automatically "business friendly" and approve anything and everything. That seems to be the goal of some.
[citation needed]
Quote from: stephendare on October 24, 2015, 09:42:00 AM
It seems to be working out so well for that junk heap of an area you guys have in Clay County, thinking this way. If you don't mind, let the actual city figure out how it should work, Rattler Gator.
Stephen, trust me when I tell you this: we're quite pleased the current beauty of Orange Park & Clay County does not find favor with you.
But as for the "city" figuring out how Big Duval should work -- that's exactly what happened when Mayor Curry was elected, was it not? And it's that decision that so perplexes the State Committeewoman for the Democrat Party, is it not?
But, do continue with the ginned up hysteria. In the "city," that is. While y'all are "figuring out" the new lay of the land.
Strider, you really don't get it. You think Lisa King is the problem? Someone who can't vote for her has a sign in his/her yard. YOu do realize the neighbors can't vote either. You think she single-handedly push something through Planning Commission alone? Do you know how many people are on Planning Commision?
Heard of Paul Harden? Lobbyist with questionable tactics. Who wants a Strip club where IT IS NOT ZONED FOR NOR DOES COMMUNITY WANT. Lisa King and others stopped this in the planning Commission. Do you know who will okay it? "Business Friendly" Curry handpicked, not qualified peeps. Do you know the influence and money Paul Harden can throw around? Have you ever seen the scoreboards at the stadium? Who do you think pushed that through?
The idea that Lisa King "personally" did something you will not mention so we really don't know if what you are talking about exists, but you think she's the bad one?
Pay attention. You're not.
Quote from: Tacachale on October 24, 2015, 07:41:03 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 24, 2015, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 24, 2015, 10:31:59 AM
Regardless of this dispute, something tells me city planning is going to improve from its current level. It certainly couldn't get much more dysfunctional than it has been.
If, and only if, the technical analysis doesn't get polluted with politics.....and I do not have high hopes for that.
It's already "polluted by politics", as well as polluted by dysfunction. If we improve on the latter it will be a substantial net gain.
Adding partisan politics into the mix NEVER improved anything, in my experience, it only gives a new dimension for dissension. From here on out, this entire board will flip with every new mayor. A seat will be a political 'reward' more than ever.
The downside of term limited mayors will only be compounded.
Of course, one could also look at the fact that the Mayor knows his time is limited (4 to 8 years) and if he wants to do something long lasting with the Urban Core (just an example) and he thinks the various department heads and committee members will be a stumbling block to get that accomplish, it makes sense to bite the bullet and make the changes right up front, since as we all know, it is perfectly legal and allowable and even ethical, assuming the appointments are indeed being made on merit not political favors. People may complain a bit at first as to the fairness of it all, but in the end, if the results in 6 months are positive, will anyone care?
Quoteare indeed being made on merit not political favors.
How will ending the only means of autonomy accomplish that? Not sure how this can lead to anything other than it becoming MORE based on political favors. If the mayor and/or his contributors don't like a decision that a Member makes, they can be replaced immediately. An entire panel of newcomers is going to be a lot easier for the Paul Harden's of the world to run over, than a panel that at least has some experience under it's belt and doesn't have the fear of reprisal omnipresent.
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2015, 03:26:15 PM
Quote from: strider on October 26, 2015, 02:53:22 PM
Of course, one could also look at the fact that the Mayor knows his time is limited (4 to 8 years) and if he wants to do something long lasting with the Urban Core (just an example) and he thinks the various department heads and committee members will be a stumbling block to get that accomplish, it makes sense to bite the bullet and make the changes right up front, since as we all know, it is perfectly legal and allowable and even ethical, assuming the appointments are indeed being made on merit not political favors. People may complain a bit at first as to the fairness of it all, but in the end, if the results in 6 months are positive, will anyone care?
are you serious?
So just because its easier and faster, why bother with the process?
But he did indeed follow the process per the by-laws, the ordinances and the Charter...in other words, the only argument against his asking for a few to leave before their terms expire is that it hadn't been done before. Show us the proof that it has never been done before and at least your argument will have some merit. Until then, it is nothing but sour grapes.
Are a few people who perhaps should be left in their positions being asked to leave? Maybe. Are the new appointees better than the current appointees? Maybe. Are they worse? Maybe. All we have are maybes, except for the fact that the changing of the board members is being done legally. Until the dust settles and we see how the new people do, we can't know if this is better or worse.
Quote from: vicupstate on October 26, 2015, 04:57:50 PM
Quoteare indeed being made on merit not political favors.
How will ending the only means of autonomy accomplish that? Not sure how this can lead to anything other than it becoming MORE based on political favors. If the mayor and/or his contributors don't like a decision that a Member makes, they can be replaced immediately. An entire panel of newcomers is going to be a lot easier for the Paul Harden's of the world to run over, than a panel that at least has some experience under it's belt and doesn't have the fear of reprisal omnipresent.
What autonomy are you talking about? There is no difference between this and the directors that serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. Some of you keep trying to misinform the public by saying this is being done wrong and is ending some perceived "Autonomy" of the commissions. Bad news, there isn't any autonomy and there never really has been.
The facts are this. The Mayor can call for the resignation and appoint a new Commission member at anytime. To really accomplish that, it has to be important enough for him to spent some amount of political capital to get it done as the City Council has the final say. That is how it has always worked and how it is working now.
Of course, some appointments are of so little consequence that no one really pays attention. Others, people step up and take notice. But in the end, if it is important, it gets done because one side or the other spends that political capital.
How that process can equate to the commissions and boards being anything but political is beyond me.
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2015, 09:53:26 AM
bizarre. actually beyond bizarre. meaningless.
I guess I scored on you, huh? Got you babbling in one to three word utterances.
You know, what's really "beyond bizarre" about all of this are the Orwellian claims of partisanship by people who are quite clearly strong partisans!
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2015, 05:24:35 PM
you realize of course that this is literally the opposite of your argument about why historic structures should not be demolished with the emergency track, right?
Wrong. Now say that the Mayor was trying to circumvent the resident requirement and appoint someone from St Augustine because he was choosing to ignore the legal definition of residency, now that is what Kimberly Scott was doing with the emergency demolitions. Simply ignoring the definition of what was to constitute an emergency demolition to get around the legal way of demolishing a historic structure.
No matter how you wish to spin it, these replacement appointments are legal and are within the Mayor's rights to do. Now, if you think the replacements are not qualified, use that argument. Won't change anything if the Mayor is willing to expend the political capital to get his people in place but at least it is a legal and supportable argument.
Quote from: RattlerGator on October 26, 2015, 08:38:34 PM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2015, 09:53:26 AM
bizarre. actually beyond bizarre. meaningless.
You know, what's really "beyond bizarre" about all of this are the Orwellian claims of partisanship by people who are quite clearly strong partisans!
If you are willing to take the time to look it up, you will see numerous posts that I have made, going back many years/administrations supporting non-partisan elections at the municipal level.
Quote from: strider on October 27, 2015, 07:47:02 AM
Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2015, 05:24:35 PM
you realize of course that this is literally the opposite of your argument about why historic structures should not be demolished with the emergency track, right?
Wrong. Now say that the Mayor was trying to circumvent the resident requirement and appoint someone from St Augustine because he was choosing to ignore the legal definition of residency, now that is what Kimberly Scott was doing with the emergency demolitions. Simply ignoring the definition of what was to constitute an emergency demolition to get around the legal way of demolishing a historic structure.
No matter how you wish to spin it, these replacement appointments are legal and are within the Mayor's rights to do. Now, if you think the replacements are not qualified, use that argument. Won't change anything if the Mayor is willing to expend the political capital to get his people in place but at least it is a legal and supportable argument.
No one said it was illegal. Only you are trying to add that straw man to the discussion. The question is, is it good for the city both now and in the long term? Even if good people are being appointed now that doesn't mean good people won't be replaced later with bad ones. Experience and continuity will be sacrificed only to add another means of dissension within the body. Partisanship and potential reprisal is clearly being added into the mix of this board.
The point is this is a new precedent that no prior Mayor has chosen to change. A mayor who has spent years in partisan politics is seeking to inject that into these appointments.
The autonomy that DID exist is now gone. A member could vote their conscience with the reasonable expectation that they wouldn't be replaced just because some applicant/developer didn't like their vote. That is gone now. I submit that is nOT a good thing and only strengthens the hands of developers and lobbyists.
Please tell me what the people being replaced have done to be warrant replacement?
Quote from: vicupstate on October 26, 2015, 11:57:49 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 24, 2015, 07:41:03 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 24, 2015, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on October 24, 2015, 10:31:59 AM
Regardless of this dispute, something tells me city planning is going to improve from its current level. It certainly couldn't get much more dysfunctional than it has been.
If, and only if, the technical analysis doesn't get polluted with politics.....and I do not have high hopes for that.
It's already "polluted by politics", as well as polluted by dysfunction. If we improve on the latter it will be a substantial net gain.
Adding partisan politics into the mix NEVER improved anything, in my experience, it only gives a new dimension for dissension. From here on out, this entire board will flip with every new mayor. A seat will be a political 'reward' more than ever.
The downside of term limited mayors will only be compounded.
You know, you and I used to go round and round on these kind of issues, and I don't know if you came around, or I did, or a bit of both, but in the last year or two I find you're taking the words out of my mouth. I hate just writing "+1", but spot on.
Didn't I read somewhere further up the thread that certain appointees can only be removed with a vote by the CC?
Isn't that the case with King? Didn't she lose the vote in Council?
I guess my point is that the mayor is doing what's allowed by the Charter. If this was such a bad decision, then it wouldn't have been approved by the council.
The blame seems to be a little misplaced on this one.
QuoteIf these positions were intended to be political, the Charter would have structured them as such (as purely appointed by the Mayor with no term of office prescribed). They were given election-spanning terms of office specifically to take political considerations out of it. No doubt also to achieve some experience and continuity for better governance. That is the way it has been done too, until now it seems.
This is simply a power grab and partisan reward. This provides a compelling reason for going to non-partisan elections at the City level.
Quote
why bother with the process?
QuoteHow will ending the only means of autonomy accomplish that? Not sure how this can lead to anything other than it becoming MORE based on political favors. If the mayor and/or his contributors don't like a decision that a Member makes, they can be replaced immediately. An entire panel of newcomers is going to be a lot easier for the Paul Harden's of the world to run over, than a panel that at least has some experience under it's belt and doesn't have the fear of reprisal omnipresent.
Just a few quotes that actually imply that it was not done properly and therefore possibly unethical if not illegal. I think the straw was from someone other than me.
My only problem here is that the same type of rhetoric used to support Lisa King here on this thread is the same kind of rhetoric used to deny the rights of the Disabled and others. Some are forecasting doom and gloom here when the facts are, we do not know what the result of replacing some of the planning commission members will be. As even some of the people yelling foul over this issue have stated the replacements are good, solid people, one would expect the recognition that the Mayor has the right ask for the replacements and the City Council has the right to stop it. As of yet, they haven't so either they agree with the Mayor or the Mayor decided it was imprtant enough to spend the political capital to get it done.
Quote from: stephendare on October 27, 2015, 09:14:41 AM
Strider doesn't actually care about any of that. I suppose it's time to reconsider his position on my list of people whose opinions I seriously weigh.
The authorship of his current miseries is this very practice, written small. Department heads are political appointees, and people with administration favor have more power than people without it. Ok simple and common enough.
But in the case of Code Enforcement, this led to the empowerment of a demolition happy, vindictive woman named Kim Scott who began tearing down historic structures out of spite.
Strider knows that the source of her ability to do this derived from her connection to the Browns (both Alvin and Corrine), the political protection afforded her by Karen Bowling, and Denise Lee.
He hoped to end this practice of political conferment onto incompetent people (at least in Scott's case) except there was no backup from the head of Planning, a cousin of Mayor Brown's wife.
So in return for the promise of removing Kim Scott, Strider gave full throated support to Mayor Curry, even to the point of being personally insulting on this site to people who supported Brown.
But it turns out that the answer to insider political trading isn't really more of the same. People who cut cynical political deals with one party can just as easily cut them with another, and so, Kim Scott remains.
And make no mistake about it, I like Curry's appointments by and large. In fact Im quite excited by the prospect of an administration that features, Bill Killingsworth, Abel Harding, Ben Davis, Sam Mousa, Brent Fine, and Kerri Stewart. All solid, great choices.
But simply further politicizing the process isn't the way to a better future, and only speeds up those appointments by a small percentage of time. The same thing could have been done with private meetings, thank yous, and appointments to other volunteer boards.
Other than the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about, other than the fact that you threw your support fully to Brown and got nothing for it, other than the fact that you are so out in left field, you can't see home base, nice post.
Reality is what they say it is, strider. Anything else becomes -- remarkably -- indecipherable. Or bizarre. I'm currently reading Charles C.W. Cooke, The Conservatarian Manifesto, and it is doing a damn good job of explaining the manufactured response here. They (many of them, at least) honestly don't see it as manufactured.
But it quite obviously is, and the black-letter law ends discussion on the matter to all but the bent out of shape partisans. It doesn't matter that one has historically pushed for this or that, vicupstate. Has it truly escaped your attention that nonpartisan elections are quite partisan? Seriously? Or that the protocol Curry isn't following *also* didn't mean good people wouldn't be replaced later with bad ones.
Come on, people. Drop the foolishness.
Quote from: RattlerGator on October 27, 2015, 04:02:57 PM
Reality is what they say it is, strider. Anything else becomes -- remarkably -- indecipherable. Or bizarre. I'm currently reading Charles C.W. Cooke, The Conservatarian Manifesto, and it is doing a damn good job of explaining the manufactured response here. They (many of them, at least) honestly don't see it as manufactured.
But it quite obviously is, and the black-letter law ends discussion on the matter to all but the bent out of shape partisans. It doesn't matter that one has historically pushed for this or that, vicupstate. Has it truly escaped your attention that nonpartisan elections are quite partisan? Seriously? Or that the protocol Curry isn't following *also* didn't mean good people wouldn't be replaced later with bad ones.
Come on, people. Drop the foolishness.
Why should the black-letter law end discussion? Whether it's legal and whether it's a smart thing to do are separate questions and only one is answered by the law.
It was way toooooooo early in the political season for any of the less seasoned CC members to stick their neck out for Lisa or anyone for that matter. Its going to be a long 4 years, so why risk going against the mayor for something that is his right? It was all politically motivated, we all see that, but it was his right, just as stacking the boards of other agencies, JPA recently, and Planning, and we will see more of this too.
Anyone have a run down on on where Mayor Alvin is these days? His old staff? There were some good people on the staff.