Save Yankeetown - Save Yankeetown

Corps issues Tarmac mine report

Steve Myers — Mon, 14 May 2012 00:32:32 -0400

Corps issues Tarmac mine report

Re: Voting on Tuesday May 8th in Yankeetown

Steve Myers — Thu, 10 May 2012 01:23:30 -0400

Yankeetown Municipal Election Results for May 8, 2012

Re: Voting on Tuesday May 8th in Yankeetown

Michael Peters — Wed, 09 May 2012 21:30:15 -0400

So What Was the Turnout and how did the voting go?

Re: Voting on Tuesday May 8th in Yankeetown

Ed Candela — Sun, 06 May 2012 18:33:25 -0400

I was hoping someone from the P&Z would respond with some rationale, Gracie. Or Doug, with his usual intelligent, clear and well-written thoughts.

Looks like either ain’t gonna happen, so here’s a feeble and uninformed attempt:

You are voting on changes resulting (I think) from a state-mandated Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Unfortunately, the voting required is an unintended consequence from our "Hometown Democracy" charter amendments approved in 2007. These relatively modest comp plan changes are being put to the voters since our first attempt at the Charter amendments could have been worded MUCH better, as such was the case for the soundly whupped Amendment 4. But alas, the @#$%& in Tallahasse have now removed the ability for us to give it another shot (as well as having removed the ability of the entire state’s local governments to allow citizens to vote on land use changes). Thus we are stuck with voting on these mostly innocuous modifications. Hopefully, with the demise of DCA, there won’t be many more of these ballots in the future. Finally, I recommend ignoring the mailing from “Concerned Citizens,” merely another misleading, malicious rant from likely the NoSeeUm News crowd. As usual, they’re afraid to identify themselves.

Why is it important to vote? There possibly could be lots of voting by those trying to discredit anything the town does. Many of the changes remove deadlines for town action on various "promises." I believe the removing of deadlines for town actions is a good thing.

Here we go:

Ballot Question 1. Straightforward.
Yes: You want the town to acquire more land for conservation thru grants, and to help pay for acquisition and maintenance.
No: You don’t.

2. It seems to have 2 subjects, so your vote affects both.
Yes: You want the town to eliminate substandard housing (never mind how or if the town even has the power to do so) and to use unspecified planning tools to help poor folks acquire housing. It also removes deadlines for some town action (a good thing).
No: You don’t like any of it.

3. Another one with multiple subjects. It doesn’t say why, but apparently there’s a benefit for having more detailed stormwater definition and to remove deadlines for town action regarding this issue (a very good idea), Finally, it authorizes a fee for you to chip in for improvements and maintenance (but the fee may already be in the comp plan, since that section appears to have no additions/changes except to remove a deadline for action).
Yes: You think stormwater drainage is a worthy and actually addressable issue that needs further clarification with the attendant time requirements and expense.
No: You don’t. (editorial: ‘no’ is my vote, you can’t do anything about the primary cause of flooding, tidal surge, and the rest ain’t worth the cost IMO)

4. Yankeetown to cooperate/coordinate with the county regarding solid waste.
Yes: why not, if you want to volunteer.
No: the town has it’s own solid waste disposal (I think) and is busy enough already.

5. Yow, it seems like a whole bunch of stuff, but is not much actual change to the comp plan.
Yes: You like the tweaks, especially eliminating deadline for town action.
No: You don’t.

6. Ditto number 5.

7. This appears only to modify deadlines for town action
Yes: Yup (my vote)
No: The town is not in compliance.

8. Appears to be innocuous.
Yes: Yup (my vote)
No: Can’t say

9. Appears to be innocuous.
Yes: Yup (my vote)
No: Can’t say

To More Informed People: PLEASE correct any misinformation presented above.

Voting on Tuesday May 8th in Yankeetown

Sunrise Gracie — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:30:56 -0400

Please explain to those of us registered voters what we are voting on, and why it is important for everyone to vote? And what does each issue mean when you vote one way or another, for Yankeetown?

Thank you,
Gracie

Interesting Read

Ed Candela — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:45:10 -0400

From Sanibel-Captiva-Islander.com:

Close call for will of the people
April 13, 2012
By LARRY SCHOPP - Committee of the Islands

As anniversaries go, number seven doesn't usually get much attention. This year it should.

It was seven years ago that Sanibel citizens went to the polls and adopted the "Peoples Choice" amendments to the Sanibel City Charter. And there is reason to take special note this year, because we came very close to losing those amendments through an act by the Florida State Legislature that put them in jeopardy. More on that in a moment, but first a little background on the Charter amendments.

The "People's Choice" amendments were about the fundamental right of citizens, by means of a referendum at the polls, to prevent or undo unwise or unpopular decisions of their elected representatives. The means of ensuring such referenda was to enshrine critical land-use protections in the Sanibel Charter, which would render them unchangeable without a vote of the people.

The Charter amendments were written by members of Committee of the Islands to help insure that Sanibel's small town sanctuary character would never be compromised over the objection of its citizens. The formula is simple: There can be no weakening of fundamental land-use restrictions on (1) building height, (2) residential density, or (3) clearance and coverage of building lots, without voter approval.

The campaign for passage

Even a highly successful petition drive to put the amendments on the ballot was no guarantee they would be passed. During a hard-fought campaign for votes, a recurring argument against the amendments was that they were unnecessary because bureaucrats in the Florida Department of Community Affairs which had oversight over local land-use policy under the Growth Management Act would provide all the protection necessary.

Those of us who wrote and believed strongly in the amendments were not persuaded. We asked why Sanibel residents should trust the vagaries of state law or the state bureaucratic process to protect their vital interests. Instead, we proposed that the people themselves could do it more reliably by simply amending the City Charter. A majority of Sanibel voters apparently felt the same way and voted "yes" on the amendments.

In addition to giving citizens the peace of mind of knowing they are in control of their own destiny, at least on major land-use issues, the Charter amendments contained language which enabled action by the City Council on two long-neglected issues - post-disaster build-back and redevelopment - both of which have now been addressed.

Changes in the wind

Now let's fast forward to Tallahassee in early 2011, where major changes were in the wind. Under the banner of job creation, economic growth and reduced state regulation, the state legislature scrapped the Growth Management Act of 1985 and replaced it with a much more development-friendly "Community Planning Act." It also dismantled the Department of Community Affairs and replaced it with a relatively toothless "Department of Economic Opportunity." These were fundamental changes in the state's approach to land-use regulation that few would have anticipated a few years ago.

The argument against reliance on state bureaucrats to protect Sanibel's character proved prophetic. For all intents and purposes, state oversight of the local comprehensive planning process is over. The very state law and state agency that opponents said made the "Peoples Choice" amendments unnecessary are now gone, and the focus at the state level is once again on growth not growth management.

Attack attempted on citizens' rights

But that's not all that happened. A year earlier, citizens concerned about Florida overdevelopment had tried, unsuccessfully, to enact a "hometown democracy" amendment to the state constitution that would have required voter approval of all comprehensive land-use plan amendments.

Subsequently the legislature, in what appeared to be a punitive overreaction to this failed effort, prohibited any "referendum or initiative process in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment."

In other words, the prohibition abolished the right of citizens statewide to reverse unwise or unpopular land-use decisions made by local governing bodies! Since the "Peoples Choice" amendments could trigger a vote on changes to the Sanibel Plan which would involve building height or residential density, they were in potential conflict with state law and likely unenforceable a major setback for the right of self-determination for Sanibel citizens.

End of story?

That might have been the sad end of the story but for one final twist, involving the tiny north Florida town of Yankeetown. Like Sanibel, Yankeetown had a charter provision that required voter approval of certain comprehensive plan amendments, and it was not about to give that up without a fight. It retained Lee County attorney Ralf Brookes, who went to state court and challenged, on several grounds, the constitutionality of the new Community Planning Act.

The people in power in Tallahassee were understandably concerned. The Community Planning Act was a major legislative enactment, and they were reluctant to risk a successful court challenge. So, with a nod of approval from the legislative leadership, attorneys for the state agreed to a settlement by which the legislature would do some back-pedaling and "grandfather" any local charter provision like Yankeetown's or, for that matter, Sanibel's.

And that's just what happened.

With little fanfare, the following new language was recently added to the Community Planning Act's sweeping prohibition of referenda on plan amendments: "However, any local government charter provision which was in effect on June 1, 2011, for an initiative or referendum process in regard to local comprehensive plan amendments may be retained and implemented." This legislation passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses and was signed into law by Governor Scott on April 6.

So, whether or not Sanibel's "Peoples Choice" charter amendments are in conflict with state law has become a moot question, thanks to the Yankeetown case. If our amendments were in conflict, they no longer are. They are clearly grandfathered and fully enforceable, as written and that's the end of the story.

Happy seventh anniversary!

Re: Crazy Mine Rumor

Michael Peters — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:50:15 -0400

heard similar scuttlebutt....
WHILE
ANOTHER
Local mine is under consideration....?

What a concept!
Disinformation, (or maybe not) about a big company that rarely makes poor investments, from Greece (& Lord Knows EVERYTHING'S Just PEACHY over there, right?) realizing they may well be throwing money down a 'rat hole' because from the outset (or shortly thereafter) they discovered that the hole didn't have what they needed (ROAD Quality Aggregate), but either way, at least now we know where we (the red headed step children of Levy) all stand w/both our BOCC and Planning Commission.

It's sad that nearly none of them (PC or BOCC) feel the need to recuse themselves when voting, after life long careers either in MINING, or making profits off local mining operations? Silly me, that can't be a conflict, can it?

Me thinks the disinformation gig, so that the currently pursued additional 'hole' can move forward...
regardless the current economic standing of Greece overall, or here, now...when talking about 100 year long permits, that's 1heluva lot of PROFIT to walk away from; suspending operations is nothing more than just that, for now.
Ed, the tooth fairy is only for those less than eight (not 68 B)- )

Re: Our Own Jimmy Smith in Action

Michael Peters — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:39:09 -0400

Ed,
Nancy gets me & Marge's votes (and would hands down, repub., dem., ind. or alien from MARS she's head and shoulders (although mostly a head containing a brain) above smith!

How is it that we seem to have our Fl. House & Senate filled (at least in the N.Fla. Realm) w/nothing but the 'good ole boys' who don't seem to have a clue as to how to CUT SPENDING and REDUCE Government Size and Scope (which ironically most of them CAMPAIGNED ON)?

Truth in Advertiing...that's the problem w/North Florida Politics....starting with MEDIA that aren't willing to ask the HARD (Read=HONEST) Questions, BEFORE the Elections; then whine about our 'poor' selections when we find out where the bozos stand AFTER the election.
my 2 cents is that the blame lies nearly everywhere, including voter apathy.

Monday I see if Nancy can use some physical campaign support.....

Even the Chronicle chimes in on this guy

Ed Candela — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 11:33:15 -0400

Citrus Chronicle Editorial: 4-7-2012

TINKERING WITH SCHOOLS

Fully weigh risks of privatization

THE ISSUE:
Proposed privatization of school buses.

OUR OPINION:
Value input of local experts.

State Rep. Jimmie T. Smith is pondering legislation that would have school districts relinquish the job of transporting students.
He feels the private sector might “provide cheaper and better service.”

School officials cringe at that notion.

Rep. Smith, R-Inverness, should value their concerns. After all, they are among his constituents — and the closest to the issue.

First off, at present there’s nothing preventing school districts from contracting with private companies. Requiring privatization, however, seems nothing more than a lobbying interest looking to steer tax dollars their way with no long-term assurance of better service, improved oversight of children or benefits for drivers, who — under public oversight — aren’t exactly raking in big bucks.

While the terms of contracts could perhaps vary if privatization were legislated, if school systems chose to sell off the buses in their fleet — which, new, cost about $100,000 each — and the experiment failed, the costs of rebuilding a fleet would be astronomical.

There hasn’t been a hue and cry from Citrus County for the school district to give up its role in transporting students, so we question why this is of concern to Rep. Smith.

There’s value in having drivers as employees of the school system, helping to offer assurances that they are answerable to school officials and parents, and who become familiar with their young passengers.

With the blessing of school administrators, Citrus County’s school bus drivers exercise judgment when it comes to whether it’s in the interest of public safety to transport a child who lives less than two miles from their school. The state only requires districts to pick up those living two or more miles from school. In Citrus County, that could result in youths walking a couple miles down U.S. 41 or Croft Avenue or Pleasant Grove Road or any number of other busy and dangerous roads.

Would drivers under a privatized service undergo background checks for criminal history and driving infractions?

Last month, Melissa Ross wrote a guest column in Jacksonville’s Florida Times-Union that noted dozens of bus drivers in Duval County were found to have criminal records, with some driving on suspended licenses. She also noted an incident in which 100 or more elementary school students were left to stand in the rain while the buses were busy shuttling people to the Daytona 500. Rep. Smith and other proponents should fully evaluate the situation in Duval before further flirting with a law to require privatization.

We ask that our lawmakers fully absorb the opinions and concerns of local school officials and weigh those against whether they’re really hearing a public plea for privatization or simply responding to whispers from lobbyists.

We suspect the latter.

Re: Our Own Jimmy Smith in Action

Ed Candela — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:47:07 -0400

"It was found unconstitutional to drug test elected officials because it prevents us, as citizens, from having that First Amendment right."
Jimmie T. Smith, said on Friday, February 24th, 2012 in a House committee debate

Florida Rep. Jimmie Smith says lawmakers protected by First Amendment against drug testing

Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen torched Florida lawmakers for passing a drug-testing bill for state workers that excluded one class of government employees: elected officials who passed the law.

Hiaasen took particular issue with the proposal’s House sponsor Rep. Jimmie Smith, a Republican from Lecanto, and his explanation for a failed attempt to require drug tests for Gov. Rick Scott and legislators.

"It was found to be unconstitutional to drug test elected officials because it prevents us, as citizens, from having that First Amendment right," Smith said.

The defense was novel -- and also wrong. It turns out Smith confused elected officials with candidates, misinterpreted Supreme Court case law and cited the wrong amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Here's what you need to know.

The drug-testing bill signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott on March 19, 2012, allows state agencies to randomly test no more than 10 percent of their workforce every quarter. An employee who fails a test could be fired on the first offense. Scott said he will hold off implementing the new law until the outcome of an ACLU-led court challenge to Scott’s 2011 executive order requiring random drug testing at agencies, an issue the Legislature tried to correct through law.

Democrats hurled pointed questions at Smith during a February committee hearing on HB 1205, including why he would not favor drug-testing elected officials.

"Are you saying with your bill you are not in favor of making elected officials have drug tests?" asked Rep. Joe Abruzzo, D-Wellington.

"Our bosses, our constituents, want it and we should do it," Smith said, explaining he paid $40 for a drug test after a constituent asked him to do it.

"So would you be open to amending your bill?" Abruzzo asked.

"No," Smith said.

"Why not?" Abruzzo said.

"Because it is succinctly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that drug-testing elected officials would violate the First Amendment right of freedom of speech by being elected," Smith said.

We called Smith for more information. He said he was referencing Chandler vs. Miller, a 1997 Supreme Court decision that overturned a Georgia law requiring candidates for state office to prove they passed a urinalysis drug test within 30 days of qualifying for the ballot. Passing it in 1990, Georgia was the only state with such a law.

Two lower courts had ruled with the state, finding that the drug tests were okay because of the substantial trust voters hold for their elected officials in terms of safety, economic well-being and law enforcement.

But the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 vote, overturned those rulings in a suit brought by Libertarian lieutenant governor candidate Walter Chandler (the defendant, Zell Miller, was governor of Georgia), arguing the drug-testing requirement violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.

"However well-meant, the candidate drug test Georgia has devised diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the majority opinion. "The Fourth Amendment shields society against that state action."

The law was not a response to a legitimate public safety concern about drug use among political candidates, Ginsburg continued, which might make blanket drug-tests permissible.

The court did not factor the First Amendment into its decision, even though the Libertarian candidates-turned-plaintiffs tried. They argued the drug tests violated their First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights in their initial district court filing.

"If you refuse to take a drug test," Chandler argued, according to a 1997 USA Today account, "it's like refusing to salute the flag of the drug war. For Libertarians, it's also like Georgia is saying: 'You can believe what you want. But you have to show contempt for what you and other Libertarians believe before you can even get on our ballot.' "

So to recap: The Supreme Court tossed out a drug-testing requirement for candidates -- not elected officials -- based on the Fourth Amendment, not the First. The law wasn't tossed out on the grounds that they were candidates -- rather it was ruled invalid because it diminished someone's personal privacy.

We consulted First Amendment expert and attorney Patsy Palmer to be sure we weren’t missing something. "There is nothing that I know of which would extend First Amendment privileges exclusively to lawmakers in the field of urine testing," she said. "There’s utterly no case law on that as far as speech is concerned."

She added: "Anything that would give an exclusive First Amendment right to lawmakers rather than other citizens of the state seems to be a stretch."

We should note the ACLU, which has strongly suggested it will sue over Smith’s law, agrees that lawmakers should not be drug-tested. But not because of the First Amendment.

The group thinks state employees -- and elected officials -- should be protected by the Fourth Amendment.

"If the Fourth Amendment applies in the halls of the Florida House of Representatives -– and it does –- it applies to other state office buildings as well," said ACLU spokesman Derek Newton.

Smith, for his part, told PolitiFact Florida that the question about lawmaker drug-testing is irrelevant. Per state law, leaders of the state House and Senate are already allowed to "adopt rules, policies, or procedures for the employees and members of the legislative branch" for drug tests.

The outcome of the ACLU’s legal challenge to Scott’s drug-testing executive order remains to be seen. It’s likely to influence implementation of the state’s new law. We’re not here to make that case.

Our ruling (Times Politifact):

Smith made the claim that elected officials have a special First Amendment protection from being tested for drugs. No court has gone close to that far. In a Georgia case, the Supreme Court ruled that candidates for office -- not elected officials -- cannot be forced to take a drug test because it violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- that’s not the one dealing with freedom of speech.

Opponents to Florida's drug-testing law say the Fourth Amendment protects elected officials, candidates and state workers from being require to be tested for drugs.

While that issue will likely be settled in the court system, Smith's claim can be decided by the Truth-O-Meter. It's False.
============
I hope voters will remember how dim-witted this guy is come election time.

Re: Our Own Jimmy Smith in Action

Ed Candela — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:42:58 -0400

Argenziano drops bid for Congress, plans to run for House seat

Bruce Ritchie, 03/21/2012 - 05:56 PM

Former Republican Sen. Nancy Argenziano says she is dropping out of her bid for Congress and will run as an independent for the Florida House seat held by Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto.

Argenziano said she couldn't raise enough money in a congressional race to counter right-wing groups that she said would fight her bid against Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Panama City. Last week she lost a challenge to state election laws that prevented her from running as a Democrat.

She would be running as an independent for the House seat in Citrus County where she was first elected as a Republican to the House in 1996. She was elected to the Senate in 2002 where she was known as a political maverick before leaving for an appointment to the Public Service Commission from 2007 to 2010.

"I started my political career in the State House, and have been asked by many citizens of Citrus County to come home and run," she said in an emailed statement. "They are dissatisfied with the current representative."

Smith, who was elected in 2010 and is the deputy House Republican whip, could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

He was sponsor of HB 1205, allowing random drug testing of state workers. Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law on Monday but on Tuesday told agencies to hold off on testing until a legal challenge is resolved.

As a senator, Argenziano in 2006 delivered a 25-pound box of cow manure to an Associated Industries of Florida lobbyist who she had sparred with, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

As a PSC commissioner, she predicted in 2010 that she wouldn't be reappointed because of her outspokenness. She was passed over for nomination later that year by the Public Service Commission Nominating Council.

Argenziano said Smith's answers to questions about the state worker drug-testing bill were embarrassing.

"He does not have the knowledge, experience or independence to represent them (voters) the way they deserve," Argenziano said. "He seems to be just another 'go-along' elected official who does what he is told, rather than act on the basis of what his district needs."

Reporter Bruce Ritchie can be reached at britchie@thefloridacurrent.com.
===============================
HOORAY!!! Did anyone else feel embarrassed by this guy?

Re: Our Own Jimmy Smith in Action

Ed Candela — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:54:08 -0400

Surprise — lawmakers turn down free drug test offer

BY CARL HIAASEN
CHIAASEN@MIAMIHERALD.COM

Among its dubious achievements this year, the Florida Legislature passed a law authorizing random drug tests for state workers.

Guess who’s exempt? Lawmakers themselves.

So now the clerk down at the DMV gets to pee in a cup — but not the knuckleheads in Tallahassee who control $70 billion in public funds.

Whom do you think is more dangerous to the future of Florida?

In the session that just ended, the Legislature jacked up tuition on state college students while creating a new university to placate one cranky senator. It threw more than 4,400 state workers out of their jobs while handing out more than $800 million in tax break to businesses.

Clearly, legislators are impaired. Is it meth? Coke? Mushrooms?

We’ll never know.

A few months ago, I offered to pay for drug tests for all 160 state senators and representatives. The deal was that all of them had to do it. Not a penny of taxpayer money would be spent.

Shockingly, the Republican leadership showed zero interest in my proposal. However, they were very excited about Gov. Rick Scott’s plan to impose mandatory urine-testing on welfare applicants, who statistically use drugs at a lower rate than the public.

That particular law is currently stalled in the courts because of serious constitutional questions, which is where the new statute will end up as well, if Scott signs it.

Meanwhile, let’s hear from its proud sponsor, Rep. Jimmie Smith of Lecanto, which is near Inverness, which is sort of near Wildwood. Smith’s Web page says he’s a “security officer” who is retired from the Army. He has been in the Legislature about 18 months.

“This is not to do drug testing because they’re state workers,” he said. “This is to do drug testing for one problem: Drugs in Florida.”

The new law would allow state agencies to randomly test up to 10 percent of their workers every three months. Failing one test can get you fired; the present law requires treatment after the first positive urine screen.

An amendment that would have included drug-testing the governor and lawmakers was indignantly rejected.

“Political theater,” whined Rep. Smith. “It was found to be unconstitutional to drug-test elected officials because it prevents us, as citizens, from having that First Amendment right.”

Based on that fog-headed explanation, which not even Cheech could explain to Chong, Smith’s urine should be the first to get screened.

He was attempting to reference a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Georgia law requiring political candidates — not just elected officials — to take drug tests. The ruling wasn’t based on the First Amendment but on the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

It’s the same constitutional provision at the core of multiple legal challenges to Scott’s drug-testing initiatives. While private companies may screen employees whether or not there is cause or reasonable suspicion, the judiciary often takes a dim view when government tries that.

A few Florida lawmakers pointed out the hypocrisy of excluding themselves from a statewide drug-testing program.

“I have to conclude that this an elitist body not prepared or courageous [enough] to lead by example. Shame on you,” Rep. Mark Pafford, a Democrat from West Palm Beach, told his colleagues.

Carlos Trujillo, a Republican from Miami, agreed that the governor and elected officeholders should be drug-tested with other state workers. Still he voted to ice the amendment, citing concerns over the Georgia ruling.

That decision, written for the majority by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, criticized the Georgia law because it “diminishes personal privacy,” and was mainly a symbolic remedy to a situation that hadn’t even been documented — drug use among political candidates.

Ironically, the same argument can be made against random testing of Florida employees. Jimmie Smith and other supporters of the bill didn’t produce any proof that drug abuse was rampant in the state work force. They just wanted to look like tough guys.

The High Court has sanctioned government drug-testing for certain professions in which public safety is at stake. For example, a train engineer may be ordered to submit a urine sample even if there’s no indication of a substance problem.

You could make a strong case that lawmakers fall into the same high-risk category, considering the damage they do in their annual train wreck known as the Legislative session.

The offer still stands. I’ll pay for every one of them to pee in a cup.

The governor, too. In fact, we’ll let him go first.
==========================
Followup: When asked whether state employees should be subject to periodic random drug testing, 70 percent of the respondents to a recent LobbyTools poll disagreed with the notion. Lawmakers, though, on the final day of the regular session approved HB 1205, which would do just that. And Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law on Monday, it was announced after business hours. Opponents of Scott's executive order for state employee drug tests that he issued after taking office last year, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have said they would challenge the new requirement in court should Scott sign it into law.
More of our tax money defending this legislature against likely unconstitutional new laws. Way to go, Jimmy.

Re: Ellie Schiller

brett — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:38:08 -0400

she was a great frend she came to seattle to visit me every year.she was more like a second mom when i was a kid always picked me up to take me on conoe trip to th arboredum at the uw of washington.was there when i was born held me before my dad did very closed to my family she worked at the fish plant hear on the skokomish rez. i am a comercail fisherman.she always tryed to warn me about not over harvesting the resorce around here tell me how important it is.i remember she had a dog when i was about 7 years old we lived in seattle then her an that dog came to stay with us for a couple years she loved him his name was buck a german shepard . she made a big difference in my life today helped me become a good man.she never forgot me came to see me every year she could.did the same for my kids they looked forward to seen her we all miss ya ellie never stop thinkin of you!

Even the Chronicle Agrees

Ed Candela — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:38:20 -0500

Spend money on state’s most urgent needs

THE ISSUE: Drug-testing bill.

OUR OPINION: Don’t create another unfunded mandate.

A decision this week by a Florida House committee to support a bill OKing random drug testing of state workers — while a feel-good measure — is a disappointment.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jimmie T. Smith, R-Inverness, amended the original bill to say state agencies would pay for the tests out of their existing budgets and that a maximum of 10 percent of the workers could be tested randomly up to four times a year.

Gov. Rick Scott — whose lawyers are currently defending the constitutionality of a bill passed last year requiring welfare recipients to pass drug tests — wholeheartedly supports the bill.

We fail to understand why the sudden concern by Florida’s governor and Legislature to test for drugs when the state is slashing budgets to meet the revenue shortfall. It seems there are myriad problems far more pressing. This bill and the one passed last year cost the state money in drug tests and lawyers.

Drug testing within private companies has been around since the U.S. Supreme Court case Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association (1989). In that case, drug testing of “safety sensitive” positions was allowed. The idea of testing public workers is a relatively new legal battle that apparently Florida has jumped into with both feet.

At odds are the state’s desire to employ a 100 percent drug-free workforce and the U.S. Constitution’s protection of its citizenry from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” In the United States, a person is innocent until proven guilty, but random drug testing of state employees presumes guilt somewhere in the workforce.

A second concern is the burden it will place on our already cash-strapped state. Rep. Smith proposes the state agencies pay for the tests out of their existing budgets so that it won’t cost the state more money. That begs the question: If state agencies are using money from their budgets to test workers, from what programs will that money be removed? For example, how many prisoners do we set free, or how many court cases get delayed because we spent money on testing judicial system employees?

Drug testing public employees would come at a price and could cost the state’s existing budgets up to $1,792,000. That figure is based on having 10 percent of the 112,000 state workers tested up to four times a year at a cost of $40 per test.

This bill amounts to another unfunded state mandate. The money should be spent where it will do the most good.

He's at it again

Ed Candela — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:54:28 -0500

Bill adding barrier to welfare, food stamps for drug felons passes third House committee
By Ashley Lopez | 02.21.12 | 12:15 pm

A bill that would require anyone with a drug-related felony conviction in his or her history to complete rehab before receiving cash assistance or food stamps from the state passed a third Florida House committee today.

The proposal, which was filed by state Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, would disqualify anyone with a drug-related felony conviction from receiving public cash assistance or food assistance unless the applicant has “satisfactorily completed a treatment program or regimen for drug addiction or drug abuse.” Current law does not require that treatment be completed in Florida, although federal law allows states to do so.

If someone where denied benefits because of this new law, sponsors say that someone else would be assigned to receive and pay out the funds on their behalf. However, state Rep. Mark Pafford, D-West Palm Beach, pointed out that those individuals could include other types of criminals.

Pafford also called the bill “mean-spirited” because it “assumes all poor people have a problem,” and specifically someone who was convicted of a drug crime in the past. He also said that the bill would impact people reentering the workforce.

Proponents of the bill on the committee claimed it would be a way to address drug abuse problems.

Smith said in one of the last committee stops for this bill that his legislation is meant to force “societal change” and alter the public’s “attitude towards drugs.” He said today that the bill is a way for the state to say, “We help those who help themselves.”
=================================
Could someone explain how this is "less government?"

Our Own Jimmy Smith in Action

Ed Candela — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:22:00 -0500

Lawmakers just say no to state worker drug tests
Gray Rohrer, 02/15/2012 - 11:42 AM

A bill allowing state agencies to randomly drug test their employees is in trouble after initially receiving a negative vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday. A sampling of Republicans teamed up with Democrats in voting against the measure, before it was reconsidered and postponed, meaning the measure is still technically alive, but on life support.

The issue is the subject of an ongoing court case. Gov. Rick Scott issued an executive order last year calling for drug tests for state workers, but the ACLU Florida chapter and state employee unions filed a lawsuit, alleging it infringes on Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unwarranted search and seizure.

Democrats and even some Republicans on the panel cited concerns that the bill, HB 1205, was unconstitutional based on previous case law.

“The fact that it may not pass constitutional muster gives me great concern at a time when our funds are already limited,” said Rep. Marti Coley, R-Marianna.

Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Inverness, and sponsor of the bill, insisted his measure would be deemed constitutional by the courts, but pushed the measure as a way to save money and protect taxpayer money from being wasted on a worker’s drug habit. He claimed to have drug tested himself Tuesday night.

“I have no doubt that it will be found to be constitutional,” Smith said. “I can guarantee you that as of last night I have proof that I’m drug-free.”

A separate bill of Smith’s, HB 813, which would deny Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits to anyone convicted of a felony, passed the committee over the objections of Democrats. State law already allows the Department of Children and Families, which administers the TANF benefits, to deny benefits to anyone convicted of a drug-trafficking felony. Legislation passed by lawmakers last year requiring TANF applicants to undergo drug tests before receiving benefits is also the subject of a court case.
=======================
There's a whole bunch of bills this legislature authored that are on shaky constitutional grounds. Maybe they should have civics lessons?

Baked Steak Dinner tonight at Parsons Memorial

Ellen Shannahan — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:12:00 -0500

This evening, Friday, 2/10, from 4pm to 6:30pm, treat your sweetheart to a baked steak dinner at Parsons Memorial Presbyterian Church for just $6.50 per person. There will also be a raffle for a $50 gift card to Helen's Nursery. Take out is also available, call 352-447-2506. Come join us for food and fellowship!

Crazy Mine Rumor

Ed Candela — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:14:13 -0500

The rumor buzz is that Tarmac is moving the drag line out and the security personnel are to be let go.

Anyone have any substantiated info or has the tooth fairy played a trick?

The upcoming (2/28) Yankeetown Election ... is over ... and our new local govt leaders are ....

Doug_Dame2 — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:56:42 -0500

PUBLIC NOTICE
THE TOWN OF YANKEETOWN
FEBRUARY 28, 2012 ELECTION

Because not more than one (1) individual qualified for the open Mayor seat and not more than two (2) individuals qualified for the two (2) Council Seats that were open, the Town of Yankeetown WILL NOT hold an Election on February 28, 2012. The following individuals did qualify and each will serve a two (2) year term starting 2/29/12:

For Mayor:
Janie A. Hinson

For Council:
Dawn Marie Clary
Larry Feldhusen

These individuals will be sworn in on Wednesday, February 29, 2012, 12 noon at Yankeetown Town Hall.

SOUP A THON

Sunrise Gracie — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:28:16 -0500

Hi Everyone, it's Gracie

Just in case you haven't seen the signs or gotten an email or read about it in the paper. the Yankeetown Inglis Woman's Club is having their Soup A Thon tomorrow, Saturday Jan 21st, and it's going to be wonderful. For just $6.00, you can be the Judge and vote on the Best Soup, and try every one of them. I believe last year there was 28 Soups entered. You will have a drink and dessert too. There will be a Bake Sale and the Thrift Store will be open. I am entering a Soup and bringing a Bake Sale item, and having fun with friends. The Woman's Club does so much for the community, Scholarships, the Library, Giving a helping hand to those in need. They have a Loan Closet that I have used a couple of times, a wheelchair for my mother when she visited, a stroller when my daughter came with my grandchildren. I didn't have to buy or rent, I just borrowed. Please come on and have lunch and visit with friends, you'll have such a good time, you will put it on your calendar for next year.

11am til 1pm
Don't be Late
Gracie

Our own Jimmy Smith chimes in

Ed Candela — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:56:37 -0500

More chipping:

From the Florida Independent

Subcommittee debates bill that would create loophole in local fertilizer regulations

By Virginia Chamlee | 01.18.12 | 3:55 pm

A Florida House subcommittee today debated the pros and cons of a bill (H.B. 421), sponsored by state Rep. Jimmie Smith, R-Lecanto, that has come under fire for taking power away from local communities, which currently have jurisdiction over fertilizer rules.

As it is written, 421 “provides that persons who have obtained the limited certification for urban landscape commercial fertilizer application by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) are required to follow best management practices and that they are exempt from local government ordinances that address the fertilization of urban turfs, lawns, and landscapes.”

The bill is a follow-up to last year’s controversial fertilizer bill, which sought to preempt all local government fertilizer regulations.

Critics argue that the “limited certification” that exempts those applying fertilizers from local government ordinances is simply not strong enough.

According to the Sierra Club’s David Cullen, certification occurs after the completion of a 72-minute course that requires no pre-requesities, costs only $20 and can be passed with a grade of 75 percent.

“Holding ‘limited certification’ is not the same thing as being a professional in the original sense of the word,” Cullen told the committee today, adding that the primary focus of a fertilizer applicator isn’t to watch out for water quality, but to make customers happy.

Cullen told the committee that fertilizer application bans “have not put applicators out of business,” but have led to “marked reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll-A.”

“It doesn’t matter how much training [the applicator] has had. … When it rains, that fertilizer goes into the water,” he said.

According to many of the bill’s opponents (which include the Florida League of Cities and Clean Water Action), it benefits one interest group, fertilizer applicators, while other facets of Florida’s economy (waterfront property values, tourism, and recreational and commercial fishing) aren’t being considered.

Further, they argued that local governments must be able to regulate the amount of nutrients that go in to their waterbodies, because they are the ones ultimately responsible for the waterbodies’ health.

Some committee members, including state Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, pointed out that the nitrogen load of reclaimed water (which is often used to irrigate lawns) can be larger than that of commercial fertilizers.

“[The nutrient loads] vary according to the source of reclaimed water,” said Cullen, but the treatment of reclaimed water “is exponentially higher than the cost of controlling pollution at the source. Every application of lawn fertilizer is a potential pollution event.”

Kurt Spitzer, representing the Florida Stormwater Association, agreed with Cullen, arguing that controlling nutrients once they have entered the water is a far more expensive feat than simply limiting them at the source.

“Your communities are under the gun,” said Spitzer. “Your cities and your counties face enormous costs for compliance with water quality criteria, whether they’re EPA or DEP criteria. … Even though they are much more reasonable, the [DEP] criteria are still very expensive and it’s going to be a multi-billion dollar cost for local governments. … If you look at the DEP costs for construction … they can run up to $50,0000 per pound to construct a device to remove phosphorus.”

Associated Industries of Florida Vice President Jose Gonzalez asked that the committee support the bill, arguing that it would help small businesses. “Our association has a number of members that ask for a regulatory environment that rewards their time and training and all of the scientific knowledge that’s behind this process,” said Gonzales, who said that a “patchwork of opposition [makes] it difficult for small companies to do their business.”

======
AND MORE:

As has been noted before, this is the most dangerous time of the year for Floridians.

The Legislature is in session, so keep your guard up.

Take Senate Bill 1362 and House Bill 1103, for example.

Sponsored by Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, and Rep. Tom Goodson, R-Rockledge, the companion bills would give away 500,000 acres of publicly owned land around our lakes, rivers and streams.

They would do so by changing the boundary for state-owned lands from the ordinary high water line to the low water line.

That’s the verdict of organizations such as the Florida Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice and United Waterfowlers-Florida.

“These bills, if passed, will give these lands, which the public presently owns and uses for boating, fishing, sightseeing, bird-watching and hunting, to private landowners who will then be able to keep us, Florida’s public, out,” Preston Robertson of the Wildlife Federation wrote in an email.

AND....

House Bill 1021 would make it a crime, punishable by up to one year in prison, to take photos or videos on farms without permission.

Re: King Road Mine - Levy County Special Exception

Ed Candela — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:27:53 -0500

HB 503 provides more certainty and predictability for businesses seeking to expand, said Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Panama City and the bill's sponsor. The bill prohibits cities and counties from requiring state or federal agency approvals for a local development permit, expands the use of general permits for filling wetlands, and creates regional action teams for expedited permits for certain businesses.
***

I thought Republicans were supposed to be "for" smaller government, but these guys keep trying to grow state power at the expense of local governments. What gives?

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Sunrise Gracie — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 08:32:29 -0500

Good Morning to you on this first day of 2012. I'm hoping it's going to be a better year. 2011 certainly had it's twists and turns, but on the last night of 2011 I got to visit old friends I hadn't seen in a long time and get re-acquainted with them, met new friends which is always fun, and brought the new year in with best friends and made it home safely and got up this morning ready to go to work all over again.

Did you make resolutions (besides losing weight and eating healthier) that were realistic, and hopefully will make a difference in your new year? I know I did, and I'm going to try to stick to them. Frank and I are closing down the restaurnt for a short period of time, re-adjusting, making changes that when we re-open will be good ones or rather profitable ones, so today will be the last day open for the Sunrise Outpost. We're not leaving town, I'm just going to work in Leesburg a few more days and hours the same as I have for the past 38 years, but I plan on getting in some more Kayak Time and Bicycling Time and more Fishing with Frank and Friends. That's one of my resolutions, make time for the good things in life, the simple things that you really enjoy, because life is just too short to miss out on, or it might be. Life is really a Gift that when you wake up each morning, it's given to you. Don't take it for granted, appreciate it, and make some joy of it. Let go of the bitter pills from 2011, you don't have to forgive, and "no" you won't forget, just put them in a box, tape it up, and put it in the basement with other useless clutter. Make the best of your lives, go with what's good for you and yours. It's what I wish for everyone.

Happy New Year "2012"
Gracie

Will they "Learn?" Apparently Not

Ed Candela — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:08:07 -0500

IZAAK WALTON INVESTORS, LLC v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY
[opinions.1dca.org]

Gary Mosher

billlake — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:30:01 -0400

Former Commissioner Gary Mosher of Inglis passed away this weekend

I LIKE IKE

Sunrise Gracie — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:46:20 -0400

HI EVERYONE, IT'S GRACIE

I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE MARKED ON YOUR CALENDAR THE YANKEETOWN INGLIS WOMAN'S CLUB IS HAVING THEIR COMMUNITY POT LUCK PARTY TONIGHT AT 5PM. BRING YOUR FAVORITE DISH TO SHARE AND WEAR YOUR SUNDAY BEST FROM 1950, LOTS OF FUN, FOOD, FRIENDS AND DANCING. IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT.

THE RESTAURANT IS NOW OPEN THURSDAY NIGHTS FOR PIZZA AND PASTA DINNERS AND TO MY SURPRISE THURSDAY NIGHT I GOT TO MEET MITCH (FROM THE IZAAK WALTON'S NEW RESTAURANT "IKE'S PLACE" ) HE'S A VERY FRIENDLY PERSON, GREAT PERSONALITY, LOTS OF STORIES, WE TALKED ZIPPER PEAS, SWAMP CABBAGE, GROWING UP POOR, AND WORKING HARD, AND WE EVEN TRADED WHITE LIGHTNING STORIES. HE HAS SOME GREAT PLANS FOR IKE'S PLACE, MITCH IS VERY OLD STYLE FAMILY ORIENTED, AND I THINK THEY ARE GOING TO BE A BIG ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY, WITH BOAT DOCKS, POSSIBLY RIVER CRUISES, ENTERTAINMENT, AND GREAT FOOD. HE SAID IF HE'S THERE AT IKE'S AND SOMEONE WANTED TO COME IN, HE'D GIVE THEM A TOUR, THE DOOR IS OPEN. WE ARE REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO IKE'S PLACE. THE IZAAK WALTON LODGE HAS SO MUCH HISTORY, AND IT NEEDS TO BE OPEN., AND HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THE MONTH.

HAVE A FUN WEEKEND, HOPE TO SEE YOU SOON

SAD TIME IN YANKEETOWN

Sunrise Gracie — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:20:00 -0400

Hi Everyone, by now most everyone in the community knows that the Yankeetown General Store has closed. It's up FOR SALE once again. It's a Landmark in Yankeetown, a gathering place for boaters, commercial fishermen, shrimpers, city employees, businessmen, locals. Jen and Jan are wonderful people that gave 110% effort in trying to keep it open, but due to the economy and weather and the fact that summer time is the hardest because quite a bit of the community have homes and family up north they visit.

Frank and I visited Jen yesterday and bought a few pieces of equipment for the restaurant and she and her family are going to be staying in the community (a very big plus) and she'll be looking for employment. Friday and Saturday she's going to have a really HUGE YARD SALE, so please stop by and visit with her before the doors close, and I'm quite sure you'll find quite a few treasures.

Good Luck to Them, I know there will be good things in their future
Gracie

Re: King Road Mine - Levy County Special Exception

Larry Feldhusen — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:53:37 -0400

Judge denies Tarmac motion to dismiss petition

By Lou Elliott Jones, Editor - Chiefland Citizen
Thursday, July 21, 2011 at 12:01 pm

The Town of Yankeetown's petition to overturn a conditional permit for a 2, 757 acre limerock mine on 4,750 acres near Inglis is alive after Tarmac's motion to dismiss was denied by Circuit Judge Robert E. Rountree Jr.
In a short morning hearing the judge also granted a request to move a hearing on whether Yankeetown has standing to file the petition for certiorari from Wednesday until Aug. 8. While only an hour was requested for the second hearing, Rountree said, "Knowing how many lawyers we have here I'll set aside two hours."
Brian A. Bolves, the attorney representing the Levy County Commission, said in a motion that Yankeetown did not have standing because it is only slightly impacted by the county's decision to grant a special exception permit conditioned on Tarmac winning approval of a Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
"On pages 2,3 and 4 of their motion, they admit the mine will cause an impact," said Yankeetown City Attorney Rolf Brooks.
"It's a half-inch ... quarter-inch that water level will drop ... or six inches during the rainy season," said Rountree.
"The question is does the (county comprehensive land use) code say they can't have a hearing or does the code say they can't grant a permit," the judge said. "As I read the code they cannot grant the permit, and you (Brooks) said they cannot hold a hearing."
Rountree said Yankeetown's concern is when do they get a hearing. Bolves said the town had its opportunity at the Levy County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners hearings.
Frank Matthews, Tarmac's attorney, said the public will also have an opportunity when the Corps holds a hearing and when the county's two commissions consider an excavation permit for the mine.
Another suit, filed by the Withlacoochee Area Residents Association, which contends the county violated its Comprehensive Land Use plan by allowing the mining operation in an environmentally sensitive area and before the Corps permit was approved.
The City of Crystal River has joined the WAR suit due to concerns about the amount of truck traffic the mine would send through the middle of the city — 52 percent of 500 trucks making daily round trips when the mine starts operation in 2014. A city official testified at the planning and county commission hearings that the truck traffic would have an adverse impact on the city's tourism, quality of life and economy.
A hearing on the county's filing for summary judgment in the WAR suit has been set for September.

Re: King Road Mine - Levy County Special Exception

Larry Feldhusen — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:47:40 -0400

As most everyone is aware, the Town of Yankeetown filed for a writ of certiori to have the court review the County's decision in granting the Special Exception to allow the King Road Mine.

Levy County file a Motion to Dismiss the petition. At a Hearing on Monday morning (July 18th) the Town's response prevailed and Judge Robert Roundtree denied the Motion to Dismiss.

The County also filed for a continuance of the hearing on the Town's Petition. It appears the County Attorney, Anne Bast Brown, would be unavailable on the intitially scheduled date of July 20th. Judge Roundtree questioned whether Ms. Brown's attendance was really necessary due to the fact that the County had hired outside legal counsel to answer the Petition and was joined by Tarmac's attorneys. Ms. Brown responded that, no, her presence wasn't really necessary but she would like to be there. The Town offered no objection and the Judge re-scheduled the Hearing. This was no small undertaking; trying to accommodate five lawyers from the County in between their depositions, vacations, etc. It bordered on comedy, looking at the array of legal firepower present to represent the County; at least until one realized that it was ultimately the taxpayers paying for it (I guess we're paying Anne Brown a salary to be on staff and then we pay for additional lawyers when something needs to be answered in court. One would assume that she advised the County in approving the Special Exception; why not her explain the County's position to the Judge?)

Judge Roundtree finallyfound a date that suited all and set the Oral Argument Hearing for August 8 at 2 pm for 2 hours of arguments. I assume that means each side gets an hour. Does that mean the Town's one attorney gets an hour and the five attorney's for the County get 12 minutes each? Or does only one attorney for the County get to speak and the other four are just there for moral support (and, of course, to send a bill to the taxpayers)?

Will THEY Never LEARN? Now HERE's an interesting story!

Michael Peters — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:47:28 -0400

Jeez, how HARD is it to do a GOOGLE Search?

Well, here's an interesting read (relating to the creation of this website in the 1st place), and the time lines, along with the named parties is most entertaining reading.....

I wonder if Architects can lose their license for good cause? In Your HOME TOWN No Less?

[cp.cuyahogacounty.us] <--CLICK ON THE LINK, You won't Believe IT!

3.1 MILLION DOLLARS & no CONTRACT....sound Familiar?

Some Leopards Never Change their Spots.

This was uncovered on a whim, a search of "Peter F. Spittler" on Google.

You could find it as easily, first page;

no more selling ice machines to eskimos for 'ol Pete.
Just remember....there, but for the grace of God, could be YT.

Enjoy.
-Mick