Sunday, March 24, 2019

Noise Citation rates are abysmal

No wonder City of St. Petersburg residents have complained about the noise so much. The noise citation rates are abysmal, and getting worse!


St. Petersburg Fl
Public Opinion by author: Robert Neff


From 2017 to 2018, the repeat calls increased while the number of calls dropped by 18 and percentage of citations dropped. Also, the City is not addressing Loud Party calls, and should.

If anyone has to wonder why there are so many calls and so little citations, the police VERY RARELY issue citations, according to the data. 

Then again, residents who complain about bar noise already know this. For those who need proof, just read Mayor Kriseman's email to Police Chief Holloway. Then you will understand. What a waste of resident tax dollars to have police officer respond to a noise call knowing the Mayor is not enforcing the noise ordinance! 

The new noise ordinance revision does not change the distance or times, just penalties. Residents need a noise ordinance with a decibel standard, but that won't happen with this Mayor and City Council, as long as the bars have so much influence. Remember, the Mayor and City Council members do not live near a bar, and cannot relate to listening to noise for 6 hours, not being able to watch television, or having the walls shake!
The opinions here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bay Post Internet or the Blog Publishers where it appears.
Please Comment Below 

submit to reddit

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Sound doesn't discriminate and residents have no rights in St. Petersburg!

St. Petersburg Fl
Public Opinion
By author: Robert Neff


There has been no real discussion on the noise ordinance from Mayor Kriseman. Considering Mayor Kriseman emailed Police Chief Holloway to ask him to enforce the noise ordinance for two weeks, the time for an honest noise discussion is way past due. The Mayor, and City Council Members do not live near a noise source. Mayor Kriseman is noticeably absent on the noise issue, unless there is a camera so he can say something non whimsical about getting along. No one on City Council is asking the hard questions. Seems they just want this to go away? My response is, "Sound doesn't discriminate but Mayor Kriseman and City Council are discriminating against residents when it comes to noise." Residents have no rights in St. Petersburg!

1. Every resident needs to ask themselves, 

a. Why is the noise ordinance standard for violation different for sound between a residence to another residence, vehicle to a neighborhood, or a business to a residence? Sound pressure could care less if you are in a residential or non-residential zone.

b. If sound is impacting a person in the home or on the street, what difference does the time of day make? Time does not discriminate.

c. How can someone live too close to a bar and there be no violation? The sound pressure is much greater if you live closer to the source. The City’s noise ordinance does protect residences in their home if they live too close. The City is responsible for residences who were forced to move, especially when their health and welfare were at risk. What about the people who cannot afford to move and have to suffer?

The current and revised noise ordinance state different distances for residential, non residential, motor vehicle, and boat. A violation should not have a different distance for a resident call on another residence or resident call on a bar?

That is, a resident who calls the police in a residential area for noisy neighbor has a lesser distance requirement than a resident who calls the police to report noise for a bar, restaurant or cafe, who may be much louder than a resident. The time, day or night, should not be a consideration, because the sound pressure does not change whether its afternoon or night?

Noise does not discriminate and does have a negative medical impact on adult and kids health.  Why has the City refused to hire a medical expert to present to City Council’s Public Services & Infrastructure Committee?

Here are a few more questions and observations:

2.  City did not conduct a cost analysis for all three noise ordinance revisions and properly model the costs. Request the city develop a cost model and present to PS&I before May’s meeting on the revision.

The City did provide a cost to implement the decibel standard, but the City did not provide provide the current costs to have two officers and a vehicle respond to a noise call. Thus, the $334,852 price tag to implement the decibel standard probably resulted in Council’s sticker shock, and greatly influenced their decision to chose Option #1.

Here is a crude data model I built that suggests the cost saving to implement Option 3’s decibel Standard could be over $86,000 to over $200,000. Certainly the City could refine the data model with a detailed cost breakout.



In addition, the Noise Ordinance Enforcement Unit cost has no daytime scheduled. Many of the infractions are daytime and on weekends. The City’s cost does not consider reduction in repeat calls, and for 2018 would be reduced by 46%.  Here are the City's costs for the Noise Ordinance Enforcement Unit.



3. Why is there no community outreach and education for the current and new noise ordinance? The "Plainly audible" standard and the time and distance are the three main issues with the proposed noise ordinance revision. The decibel standard would correct these issues.

4. When the City approves/rejects the noise ordinance revision, how will the police maintain the warnings and citations? Will this be available to the public on the City web site? Police do not maintain noise reports that dig into the data or conduct trend analysis.

5. How will the new noise ordinance’s performance be measured? This is important for residents to understand how our tax dollars are being utilized. Will there be updates every three months? Six months? 

6. We already figured out the Police undercount the noise calls. City didn't count Loud Party calls in the presentations to City Council's Public Services & Infrastructure committee responsible for the noise ordinance revision

7. Will the Police Department enforce the noise ordinance year-round and not just for two weeks? Read the Mayor Kriseman's email to Police Chief Holloway to understand what the Mayor did. 

8. Will Police Officers work with Council members and bar owners and business districts to develop strategies to deal with residence who call the police to report noise? Internal Affairs is OK with this. Why am I not surprised?

Here is the Mayor's email to Police Chief Holloway.

The opinions here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bay Post Internet or the Blog Publishers where it appears.

Please Comment Below 

submit to reddit

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

AFT Tax Hike Scam Puts County Between a Rock and a Hard Place


Tampa, Fl
From: Eye On Tampa Bay
Posted by: Sharon Calvert











The All For Transportation (AFT) tax hike may turn into one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Hillsborough County voters and taxpayers.

We predicted the AFT would create a big mess and more evidence of that played out at a Hillsborough County BOCC workshop held February 21, 2019.

The workshop to discuss how the county could spend $110 million of new AFT tax proceeds quickly turned into a debacle. The commissioners darted in all directions when confronted with the reality the $16 Billion AFT tax hike does not fund new road capacity in Hillsborough County for 30 years.


These commissioners knew this issue before the election. Except for Commissioner White, they all ignored the issue and did not properly inform the voting public. That is incompetence.

Now some of these same commissioners want to raise the local gas tax.

The workshop began with the groundwork that all transportation projects must go thru the "Independent Oversight Committee". What a misnomer! This "Oversight" committee is unelected bureaucrats who are accountable to no one yet have the authority to approve or disapprove all transportation projects that can be funded by the $16 Billion AFT tax.

Note: Oversight committees are created to review, analyze, survey, monitor or make recommendations but are not created to have approval/disapproval authority. This committee was misnamed and should be called the Unelected Bureaucrat's Approval Committee.

John Lyons, who oversees the county's Public Works department, began his presentation and the workshop started going downhill. Lyons presents how 85% of the $110 million the county would receive this year would fund maintenance, safety and some intersection improvements for existing roads and fund new bike paths and sidewalks.

How the County could spend
$110 million of AFT tax revenues
(Click to enlarge)
Lyons states Hillsborough County is 1231 square miles of which 1000 of those miles are located in unincorporated Hillsborough County. Lyons tried to make lemonade out of lemons but his wordy fluff could not cover the reality of the bad policy the AFT tax hike is.

The video of this workshop can be found here and the entire transcript can be found here. It is worth watching the video or reading the entire transcript.

There are some nuggets from this workshop that are interesting.

Commissioner White immediately pointed out that AFT specifically restricts or prohibits any funds in the top 4 categories (of the slide above) from being used for new roads or adding new road capacity. White tells the commissioners that only the last category "Remaining" funds "could" be used to fund additional lane capacity or road widening.

White provides a public service by informing the public at this workshop that the $16.5 million of the "Remaining" funds could only fund one-half to three-quarters of a mile of added lane capacity a year. And that is IF the county used every penny of their Remaining funds on new road capacity. AFT intentionally allows these remaining funds to be used for any transportation project including transit.

White tells his peer commissioners they must be transparent, especially to their constituents in fast growing unincorporated Hillsborough, where 2/3 of the population of the county reside. All the commissioners must be honest to their constituents about how AFT, a political committee funded by downtown special interests and accountable to no one, specifically restricts how they decided to appropriate the tax hike proceeds.

SO FOR EVERY COMMISSIONER AT THIS DAIS, THAT'S ACCOUNTABLE TO CITIZENS IN EXPLODING SUBURBAN AREAS OF THIS COUNTY, I JUST WANT YOU TO BE AWARE OF WHAT THIS MEANS, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, AND WHEN YOU'RE OUT SPEAKING TO RESIDENTS, IN SUBURBAN, UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY IN THE SENSE THAT, FOR THIS SALES TAX THAT COULD RAISE AS MUCH AS $15 BILLION IN 30 YEARS.  

300 MILLION IN A YEAR, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, $16.5 MILLION CAN GO TOWARDS ADDED LANE CAPACITY.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUGAR COAT THIS, CITIZENS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD DELIVER ADDED ROAD CAPACITY. I SAW THE CAMPAIGN FOR IT. 
TWO‑THIRDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY THAT LIVE IN UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WILL BE PAYING THIS $300 MILLION PER YEAR, $15 BILLION TAX AND IT'S RIGHT HERE, RIGHT HERE ON THIS TABLE,
NO ROAD CAPACITY. 

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE RESIDENTS OF UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOUGHT INTO. 

AFT's $4 million marketing campaign claimed their tax hike was "fixing" roads, reducing congestion and ensuring everyone's commute time would be reduced so they would get home for dinner quicker - for 30 years. AFT provided no evidence to back up their exaggerated false claims.

In reality, the AFT tax hike is a transit tax to force county taxpayers to spend $7-8 Billion on costly transit in the city of Tampa and prohibit and limit the funding of new road capacity - for 30 years. AFT's marketing campaign, funded by special interests who will benefit from the transit tax, was a deceptive and misleading facade.

All of these commissioners and county staff knew this. But all of them except Commissioner White went along with AFT's charade.

No wonder the discussion at this workshop went downhill.

Commissioner Overman, who is not a traffic engineer, said "it would be a wise idea for the individuals that need to understand transportation planning what additional capacity means….you actually can create the goal or achieve the goal of congestion reduction without adding lanes to the process." 

Did Overman tell voters that during the election? Would she ever have told her constituents in New Tampa that congestion on Bruce B Downs did not need to include road widening? Did Overman tell voters in South County this tax hike does not fund new roads or additional road capacity?

Overman fails to acknowledge timing of lights and some intersection improvements may increase some throughput on existing roads but they will never relieve traffic congestion for a county that expects 700K or more residents over the next 30 years - not including more tourists. Overman is not being truthful but she is being condescending to her constituents, especially those in unincorporated Hillsborough.

AFT's tax hike ballot summary language clearly states the tax hike will fund projects to "improve roads" as if that is the tax hike's top priority. Common sense and normal assumptions dictates that includes funding new road capacity especially when "improve intersections" is also included as a separate funding category.

All for Transportation Ballot Summary Language
(Click to enlarge)
All these commissioners and county staff knew the fine print in AFT's 5 page charter amendment specifically prohibited funding new road capacity and severely limited any of the $16 Billion being used for new roads or road widening. They refused to inform the public.

Facing reality there is no new road capacity funding for 30 years in the $16 Billion AFT tax hike, Commissioner Murman brought up raising the local gas tax. Overman and Commissioner Smith, both supporters of the AFT $16 Billion tax hike, agreed they want to raise the gas tax.  

Astounding! Taxpayers are handing over $16 Billion of new AFT tax hike proceeds for transportation and some commissioners now want to raise the gas tax because the AFT tax hike does not fund new road capacity.

Why didn't these commissioners tell their constituents this before the election?

Commissioner Smith chimed in she thinks voters voted to put massive amounts of new tax dollars (about $7-8 Billion) to pay for costly transit and not to fund new roads. What evidence is there of that attitude? AFT's $4 million marketing campaign focused on "fixing" roads. Did Smith tell her voters that the vast majority of the transit funds that will be spent in the city of Tampa will be paid for by taxpayers in unincorporated?

According to Smith, instead of road widening the county needs to focus on getting some cars off the road. She prefers pursuing another CSX/SunRail SunFail commuter rail. Smith fails to state what a fiscal failure SunRail is with ridership so bad its fare box recovery only covers 5% of its operating costs - meaning taxpayers are subsidizing the other 95%. SunRail's farebox does not even cover the cost of its ticketing system. SunRail is one of the most accident prone rail systems in the country and it has only been in service since 2014. 

Every commission district, except for the smallest District 3 of Commissioner Miller, includes taxpayers of unincorporated Hillsborough County. All of these commissioners better have an answer for why their constituents, especially those in unincorporated Hillsborough, must pay the vast majority of the billions for transit in the city of Tampa while not getting new road capacity in unincorporated.

The most disturbing comment came from the BOCC Chair Commissioner Miller:
THESE WORKSHOPS I HOPE ARE NOT A PLATFORM TO DEBATE WHETHER THE PEOPLE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING OR NOT KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT PASSED.
Miller, a former state legislator, apparently does not care whether voters knew what they were voting for or whether what voters were voting on was all legal. The only thing that matters to him is the $16 Billion tax hike passed. 

When the end justifies whatever means, there will be problems.

Commissioner Murman admitted it:
WE'RE JUST KIND OF BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.
Why weren't voters and taxpayers told this before the election? 
Posted by Sharon Calvert at 11:42 AM 

This post is contributed by EYE ON TAMPA BAY. The views expressed in this post are the blog publisher's and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher of Bay Post Internet.

Cross Posted with permission from: Eye On Tampa Bay


submit to reddit

Sunday, March 3, 2019

Tampa Mayoral Race Exposes Fractured Community








Tampa, Fl
Jim Bleyer                                                                 
Tampa Bay Beat



By: Jim Bleyer:

The 2019 Tampa mayoral campaign hasn’t brought out the best and the brightest but it has cast a spotlight on the fractured culture and numerous special interest factions fighting for the heart, soul, and wallet of Florida’s fourth largest city.

The seven-candidate lineup resembles a parade of panderers.  They have been appearing at forums ad nauseum hosted by more special interests than the grains of sand on Ben Davis Beach.   All feel obligated to attend the succession of dog-and pony shows to avoid incurring the wrath of these pressure groups.

 Here is a partial list from just the past five weeks:
1/15 – Society of Real Estate Professionals
1/16 – Downtown Tampa Partnership
1/22 – TBBA & South Tampa Dems
1/23 – Westshore Alliance
1/24 – Hyde Park Preservation Inc. 
1/29 – Seminole Heights
1/20 – South Tampa
2/5 – Arts and Culture
2/6 – Davis Island
2/7 – Westshore Palms
2/8 – HIstoric Ybor City Neighborhood Association
2/9 – United Voices
2/11 – West Tampa
2/12 – Forest Hills
2/13 – LGBTA
2/15 – Tiger Bay
2/19 – New Tampa
2/20 – Sierra Club
2/21 – Mayor’s Hispanic Advisory Forum
2/21 – NAACP
2/22 – Hispanic Caucus

A comprehensive, integrated community vision is as rare as horse droppings on a carousel.  Instead, the public has been treated to condensed white papers (by only three of the candidates), each on a narrow topic, that go largely unread or undigested.
Rehearsing for these gatherings figured to be a bonzo job for the Unmagnificent Seven because of the special interest aspect.  Yet, it has been more than challenging for the participants.

Having a professional and personal background with the arts, I was particularly drawn to the arts and culture forum three weeks ago.  It proved incredibly embarrassing as none of the candidates appeared to possess a true grasp of the issues faced by the arts community.  Outpromising  opponents with unrealistic plans and policies was the order of the day. 

With the candidates learning nothing, voters are learning nothing.  

Six of the seven candidates haven’t offered anything new or inspirational—only Topher Morrison, owner of a small business and political neophyte, touts unique innovation and total inclusiveness.  Sadly, he is a long shot to make the anticipated two-person runoff despite energizing the youth vote.

The remaining aspirants are intent on perpetuating Tampa’s good ‘ol boy network that chains Tampa to third-rate status among the country’s big cities.  These candidates include a legacy candidate, two city council members with notably unremarkable records, an out-of-touch billionaire who hasn’t grasped the issues but is convinced he can buy the office, a former county commissioner with a checkered record whose rhetoric exceeds his accomplishments, and a former police chief who was castigated by the Department of Justice for racial profiling.

With that ensemble, Tampanians can only pray for the drumbeat of the status quo instead of the bugle of retreat and regression.  Tapping Tampa’s enormous potential and thrusting the city into the national conversation remains a pipe dream.

Except for Morrison attracting the youth vote, there’s no reason to believe Tampa’s traditional 20 percent turnout for municipal elections will increase dramatically.

Term-limited Mayor Bob Buckhorn spent eight years protecting special interests.  Under his stewardship, Tampa garnered an abundance of negative national headlines.

The primary is March 5 with the runoff in April.  Reversing the buildup of adverse publicity will be a monumental task for the eventual winner.

 Cross Posted with permission from: Tampa Bay Beat

This post is contributed by Tampa Bay Beat. The views and opinions expressed in this post are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Bay Post Internet or the publisher.


submit to reddit

Friday, March 1, 2019

AFT Train Wreck: Commissioners Sue Their Own Constituents to Take Their Rights Away


The All for Transportation (AFT) tax hike is one big mess.

Tampa, Fl
From: Eye On Tampa Bay
Posted by: Sharon Calvert

And the AFT train wreck is getting messier and messier. Six county commissioners are digging a deeper hole by intentionally putting taxpayers at more risk and taking actions that will take away the rights of their own constituents and future commission boards. 


How did we get to this train wreck?

Big issues were swirling around AFT's tax hike charter amendment from the get go. Potential legal conflicts with state law were raised. The insanity that AFT's $16 Billion tax hike provides no funding for new road capacity and instead specifically prohibits funding road widening and new lane capacity for 30 years were brought up before the election.

Commissioner White was the only commissioner to publicly sound the warning about these issues before the election. Unfortunately, all the other commissioners at that time remained silent, including Murman, Miller and Crist who were all former state legislators. Shame on them!

Local media knew about these issues. They were included in Commissioner White's press conference and press release. But local media refused to do their job and they were silent. They are complicit in creating the big AFT mess.

Now serious legal questions must be resolved that are bigger than just Hillsborough County.  Can a county charter super-cede state law? The rule of law must be protected.

Commissioner White filed a lawsuit in December, case #18-CA-011749, challenging the AFT tax hike charter amendment on numerous counts. White's lawsuit and associated legal proceedings and filings can be found on the Hillsborough County Clerk of the Court's website by following these instructions.
BOCC Chair Commissioner Miller brings agenda item F-3  to the February 6th BOCC meeting by stating:
AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE H.A.R.T. BOARD AND THE MPO, I'VE BEEN APPROACHED BY THE COUNTY'S OUTSIDE LITIGATION AND BOND COUNSEL WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO USE THE BOND VALIDATION PROCESS AUTHORIZED BY FLORIDA'S LAW TO ADDRESS ISSUES REGARDING TRANSPORTATION SURTAX.

Note: Miller, a supporter of the AFT tax hike boondoggle, is Chair of the BOCC, Chair of the HART Board and Chair of the Hillsborough MPO - all entities receiving billions of AFT tax dollars. That is not good governance. Having no diversity empowers groupthink and bad policy.

Miller asked commissioners to approve bonding out $10 million of AFT tax proceeds while the tax is in litigation and under legal uncertainty and authorize the county to file a bond validation lawsuit and sue its own citizens.

The video and the transcript of the meeting can be found here. The entire transcript of the meeting can also be found here . Search on "bond validation" to find the entire discussion of this agenda item. It is eye opening.

Alan Zimmet, the outside litigation counsel hired by Hillsborough County for White's lawsuit, recommended taking this action. (Note Zimmet is also the attorney for transit agencies PSTA & TBARTA.)

Zimmet admits a lot that local media never reported, including the following:
  • There is no evidence any legal review was done of the AFT tax hike.
  • The proposed $10 million bond issue is unique from other county bond issues because it is a result of a citizen initiative and infers there is no legal review done of the tax that backs this bond issue. 
  • The misnamed Independent Oversight Committee (IOC) does not just provide oversight. The IOC has ULTIMATE APPROVAL (AND DISAPPROVAL) powers over all projects funded by the AFT tax hike for 30 years. (Note: the approval powers of the IOC are enumerated in Section 11.06 and Section 11.10 of AFT's Article 11 tax hike charter amendment.)
  • The AFT tax hike gives IOC unelected bureaucrats, who are accountable to no one, approval and disapproval powers over powers conferred by state statute to duly elected officials. 
  • How the AFT tax proceeds must be spent for 30 years is dictated by how AFT specifically appropriated the funds in their charter amendment.
The dialogue between Alan Zimmet and Commissioner White and can be found here. This is riveting (emphasis mine):

>> STACY WHITE: SO THE VOTING PUBLIC CAN OPT TO ELIMINATE ARTICLE 11 BY INITIATIVE AT ANY TIME, IS THAT CORRECT? 

>> ALAN ZIMMIT: I WOULD SAY TO YOU THAT ONCE BONDS ARE ISSUED, THE IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT PROTECTIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION PROTECT THE BONDHOLDERS FROM REPEAL OR REDUCTION OF THE TAX. 

>> STACY WHITE: SO WHAT WOULD WE DO WITH A CITIZEN‑LED INITIATIVES WHERE ALL THE SIGNATURES HAD BEEN PROPERLY AND DULY COLLECTED THAT STATES WE AS THE VOTERS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WISH TO ELIMINATE ARTICLE 11 FROM THE COUNTY CHARTER BUT THESE FUNDS HAVE BEEN BONDED ‑‑ WHAT WOULD WE DO WITH THAT INITIATIVE? WOULD WE ALLOW IT TO GO TO THE VOTERS, WOULD WE ALLOW A VOTE TO TAKE PLACE ON IT? 

>> ALAN ZIMMET: I THINK THE COUNTY WILL CONTRACTUALLY TIE ITS HANDS FROM BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE REPEAL OR REDUCTION OF THE SURTAX ONCE BONDS HAVE BEEN ISSUED.

>>STACY WHITE: I FIND IT TO BE SHOCKING, FRIGHTENING, ACTUALLY, THAT THE VOTERS' RIGHT TO AMEND THEIR CHARTER WILL BE STRIPPED IF THESE REVENUES ARE BONDED. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THERE WAS A DUTY TO INFORM THE VOTERS OF THIS AT THE BALLOT BOX. THAT IS A COMPLEX LEGAL ISSUE THAT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS.

THE VOTING PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THEIR RIGHT TO AMEND THEIR CHARTER COULD BE STRIPPED FROM THEM BY MEANS OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION OR ANY OTHER GOVERNING BODY BONDING THESE REVENUES.

IF WE BOND THESE REVENUES, WE HAVE LIKELY STRIPPED THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY OF THEIR ABILITY TO AMEND THEIR CHARTER. AND I AM CONFIDENT THAT NOT ALL OF THE 57% OF VOTERS THAT APPROVE THIS WERE AWARE OF THIS.

The commissioners voted 6-1 to approve F-3 with Commissioner White being the lone No vote.

County commissioners should never intentionally put taxpayers at risk. Yet six commissioners approved a bond issue backed by tax revenues under litigation. The county has provided no information or list of projects for what this bond issue is even funding and the IOC does not even exist yet to approve any projects.

What horrible governance - bond the money, create more debt, put taxpayers at risk and figure it out later.

No one even knows where $10 million came from  but no worries it's only $10 million. As Patch.com reported, Commissioner Kemp stated "If it's not valid, if your (White's) lawsuit prevails, we're not on hook for anything but this relatively small bond issue," she said. 

And even more egregious is that bonding the AFT tax proceeds by any agency takes away the rights of citizens and future commission boards to change or repeal the AFT tax hike charter amendment.

Apparently, filing this bond validation lawsuit provides a faster path in the appellate process. It enables the case to go directly to the Florida Supreme Court bypassing the appellate court.  Six county commissioners decided that was more important than preserving the rights of their own constituents. 

So Zimmet filed bond validation lawsuit, Case No. 19-CA-1382 (emphasis mine) and successfully consolidated it in the courts with White's lawsuit. 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Plaintiff 
vs 
STATE OF FLORIDA, and the taxpayers, property owners and citizens of Hillsborough County, Florida, including non-residents owning property or subject to taxation therein, and others claiming any right, title or interest in property to be affected by the issuance of the bonds herein described or to be affected in any way thereby Defendants
 Hillsborough County has now sued the state of Florida and all taxpayers, citizens and property owners in Hillsborough County to take away the rights of citizens in Hillsborough County or future county commission boards to change or repeal the AFT tax hike charter amendment.

Citizens and taxpayers are subservient to the bondholders and six county commissioners affirmed that.

Six county commissioners (Miller, Murman, Hagan, Overman, Smith, Kemp) voted to take the rights of their own constituents away without ever informing their constituents.

Outrageous! 

Posted by Sharon Calvert at 9:13 PM 


This post is contributed by EYE ON TAMPA BAY. The views expressed in this post are the blog publisher's and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher of Bay Post Internet.

Cross Posted with permission from: Eye On Tampa Bay

submit to reddit