Live Blogging: Mayor Brown in Springfield

[TheCat]

Oh, I completely agree. I also think it's an unnecessary distraction.

We know it's legal and fine. This person brought up the photography issue as we were discussing Hemming. I have no doubt he was trying to change the subject...among other things.

[m74reeves]

http://www.myflsunshine.com/pages.nsf/Main/321B47083D80C4CD8525791B006A54E3#11

See the State Attorney General's FAQ page above.

•As a private citizen, can I videotape a public meeting?
A public board may not prohibit a citizen from videotaping a public meeting through the use of nondisruptive video recording devices.

Don't see how any different from photography as long as not disruptive.

[Cheshire Cat]

http://www.myflsunshine.com/pages.nsf/Main/321B47083D80C4CD8525791B006A54E3#11

See the State Attorney General's FAQ page above.

•As a private citizen, can I videotape a public meeting?
A public board may not prohibit a citizen from videotaping a public meeting through the use of nondisruptive video recording devices.

Don't see how any different from photography as long as not disruptive.

Thanks for finding and sharing this. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Ive asked the mayor's office for a clarification and identification of the law in this, One supposes we will hear back soon.

One supposes.   Has DeCamp gotten back to you on the Hemming Park furniture that was removed?

[John P]

Everything past reply #44 is ponitification by pontificators about other things other than meeting. how about a split thread? There are better notes on the meeting at the spar face book page.

[John P]

Everything past reply #44 is ponitification by pontificators about other things other than meeting. how about a split thread? There are better notes on the meeting at the spar face book page.

It could be called the "Ruminations about Springfield by people who live out of town, what is gentification and is it positive or negative, what happened to Hemming Plaza park benches and what is CoJ photography policy" discussion thread.

[m74reeves]

^love it. thanks for clarification.

[Cheshire Cat]

Everything past reply #44 is ponitification by pontificators about other things other than meeting. how about a split thread? There are better notes on the meeting at the spar face book page.

It could be called the "Ruminations about Springfield by people who live out of town, what is gentification and is it positive or negative, what happened to Hemming Plaza park benches and what is CoJ photography policy" discussion thread.

I love ruminations.  Even these past couple of ruminative posts of yours.

The subject of this thread incidentally is Mayor Brown.  "In Springfield" would form the rest of a prepositional phrase and acts as an adjective.

In any case, weve just heard back from the Mayor's office, the City's attorney, and the final word is that the public is free to photograph anyone at a public meeting that they wish to.

Someone from the Mayor's office (who will remain unnamed at present) mentioned an unconnected state Statute that restricts the kind of information that is available from a public information request to the city.

So someone may not get a photo of enforcement officers from the city in a public information request.  But they certainly may photograph them in a public arena themselves.

We informed the General Counsel's office that Ms Scott has been disrupting meetings with demands that the public erase photos of her and the GC told us that they would communicate the correct policy to Ms. Scott.

Perfect.  We knew this from the first stunt pulled by Scott.  Glad she is going to be informed about the law. 

[JaxUnicorn]

Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses

sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....he also said that some homes may need to be demolished as they are beyond saving and nobody will come in to rescue them

and yes, he did admit to being a developer

Below is word for word what Michael Trautman said:

Hi there, thanks again for coming out to Springfield.  My name's Mike Trautman I live at uh 132 West 5th, I want to take a different point of view than Kim did as far as demolition.  Uh, been a developer for 20 years in this community and the most progress that took place in that 20 year period was when John Delaney initiated the Springfield uh Development Plan where he came in and did targeted restoration and then uh Bank of America came in with their CDC and started building infill houses.  I really think that's the solution for the city to increase their tax base, I think that's the solution to propel this community forward.  There's numerous builders that are interested, very interested, in coming to Springfield and I would hope that uh you would encourage and develop uh that strategy along with the necessary demolitions (inaudible words)....numerous structures that are beyond revitalization ....no one's gonna buy them.  We'll be staring at the same buildings for 15 years before they fall down.

"numerous structures that are beyond revitalization ....no one's gonna buy them."  Really?  Says who???

"We'll be staring at the same buildings for 15 years before they fall down."  I sure has hell hope so!  Because once the old gal is torn down, there's no chance at all for any type of restoration.  Just because something may not be the prettiest gal on the block certainly does not mean she should be destroyed.

[sheclown]

Thanks

[hooplady]

"We'll be staring at the same buildings for 15 years before they fall down."
Yes, please.  Can I get that on a t-shirt?

Edited: I have the greatest respect for Mike Trautmann but he and I disagree on the role of government in this issue...especially on the subject of demolitions.

[tufsu1]

Never said he didn't....I think my paraphrasing closely matches what he said. 

[ChriswUfGator]

Never said he didn't....I think my paraphrasing closely matches what he said. 

I want some of whatever you're smoking.

[tufsu1]

Never said he didn't....I think my paraphrasing closely matches what he said. 

I want some of whatever you're smoking.

In post #22 I said the following:

sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....he also said that some homes may need to be demolished as they are beyond saving and nobody will come in to rescue them

Now, if you had attended the meeting, you could have heard for yourself

[strider]

Michael trautman asks for the city to demolish these houses

sorry, but that's not exactly what he said....what he did say was in his opinion the neighborhood experienced the most positive change when many of the new homes were being built....and yes, he did admit to being a developer

Look at The Cat's response.  He heard what I heard.