You really need to wonder where they get their "information"
On Sunday, 24 July an article ran in the "Neighborhood Times" section attempting to create a story (Read it here) about the reality that St Pete Beach is taking steps to move forward in terms of redevelopment.
This is finally occurring after years of decay caused by an out of town lawyer and a handful of residents who have ignored the clear wishes of the majority and held the City hostage by means of lawsuits, ethics charges, delaying tactics and blatantly ridiculous statements and claims.
These tactics have diverted hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to be spent on the City's legal defense of the voting majority's wishes as evidences by their ballots.
Our City Manager, Mike Bonfield, sent a reply to the reporter correspondent whose by-line appears over the story explaining some of the facts and requesting corrections to some of the statements.
I am reproducing his email here so that you can experience the reality, just in case the Times decides not to correct their story.
Here is City Manager Bonfield's email:
"Dear Sheila:
After reading the article in today's paper, I must point out some gross inaccuracies that do nothing but lead to confusion by the readers and give those interested in maintaining gridlock with city government in SPB more material with which to confuse the residents. Specifically, the following:
"Then the city's law firm, Bryant Miller Olive, persuaded the Florida Legislature to pass a special law that allowed the city to re-approve the 2008 comprehensive plan as a new ordinance and, most importantly, bypass normal state agency reviews."
The legislation did nothing to allow the city to bypass any "normal state agency reviews".
The legislation basically provides that a comprehensive plan amendment that already went through the normal state review process but required local voter approval due to a City Charter requirement would not need to go through the entire state review process again if the local City Charter requirement was no longer in place. Since St. Pete Beach was the only city in the State of Florida which required voter approval of comprehensive plan amendments the legislation did nothing but clarify how the voter approved repeal of our City Charter requirement to vote on comprehensive plan amendments impacted the amendments that had already been approved through the normal state approval process, including holding up to administrative challenge by Dr. Pyle with an administrative law judge and the First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee. Our goal was simply to not unnecessarily duplicate the review process and expose the city to more litigation costs from Ken Weiss and his colleagues.
"Suzanne Van Wyk, one of the city's attorneys, confirmed Friday she presented the idea to City Manager Mike Bonfield and he agreed on April 25 to authorize the $7,000 lobbying fee without bringing it to the commission for a public vote.
Under the city codes, Bonfield has the ability to spend up to $10,000 without prior approval.
Normally such an action is followed by commission ratification at the next public meeting, but that did not happen in this case."
This last sentence is wholly inaccurate. There is no requirement or "normal" practice for the City Commission to approve an expenditure under $10,000 at the next public meeting. Whoever provided you with that information was misinformed.
It is unfortunate that I was out of town and unable to speak with you before the article ran. I request a correction be placed in a prominent location of the Neighborhood Times on Wednesday, July 27 which clarifies that 1) the recently approved legislation did not allow the city to bypass any normal state agency reviews; and 2) my authorization for Bryant Miller Olive to act as the city's lobbyist in the amount of $7,000 was completely consistent with city codes and normal purchasing practices. Please call tomorrow if you wish to discuss.
Mike"
My observation? This:
While I don't often like to quote Wikipedia since its content can be provided by anyone regardless of bias or qualifications, I think the definition found there explaining the difference between a reporter and a correspondent is most appropriate:
" A correspondent generally includes some of his/her own perspective on the news. For example, a correspondent is expected to provide considerable context to the events being chronicled. A reporter, on the other hand, offers largely fact-based reporting."
This is, of course, simply one perspective but you might want to keep this thought in mind when you read some of the "stories" you see in the media.