Former Governor Bob Graham Urges Better Support for Florida's State University System

Bob Graham was in town Friday, primarily to give the commencement address at New College. And although the local newspaper didn't report on it, he used the occasion to document and decry the decline in Florida's University system, which New College is part of. He painted a picture of slipping support and cited the fact the state university system has (overall) the worst student-faculty ratio in the nation. He pointed out that while New College had experienced minimal cuts so far, many receiving degrees that night would go on to attend graduate school in Florida and would therefore experience the cuts firsthand. He even outlined a campaign for graduates to reverse the trend. The suggestions included having alumns adopt legislators to personally introduce them to the College.

---Note--- 

The rest of this blog does not deal with Governor Graham's educational agenda,

but rather it is a reminiscence of my relationship with him over the years.

Governor Graham is a hero of mine because I've followed much of his career and noted how he appears gracious and evenhanded, even when disagreeing with someone. I first met Bob Graham in 1978 when he was running for Governor for the first time. At that point he had already been elected to the Florida House twice and the Florida Senate twice. And although I  subsequently met Governor Graham several times over the years, including visiting him at his house on Anna Maria during his run for the presidency (his only unsuccessful campaign), until this year I never have had more than a few words with him -- and those were frequently comparing notes regarding the journals we both usually have with us.

Sometime in the mid- eighties I presented him with a framed illustration of a Florida panther that I had done. It wasn't good art and it wasn't even killer illustration, but I was illustrating a series of calendars for First Florida Banks and somehow presenting the original art to the Governor was a photo-op. That was in Naples. 

Recently I met him at a book signing in Osprey, where he asked those gathered what could be done to help the State's citizens better understand what the state had at risk in terms of rising sea level. I responded with an idea he seemed to endorse. That was a project to mark selected low-lying urban areas of the state with a colored band indicating what a two meter rise in sea level would look like. The idea was that the band would provide citizens with valuable information about hurricane flood prone areas as well as reminding them about the possible effects on Florida of accelerated sea level rise. We actually tried this with blue masking tape at New College during the spring break. 

Yesterday I had the opportunity to drive Governor Graham from downtown to New College and from a College reception for fellowship winners back to his hotel. During the first run he had to catch up on voice mail and I showed him how 'visual voice mail' on the iPhone would enable him to listen to messages in the order he chose. He was interested (and made a corresponding note in his journal), but wasn't sure he was ready for the technology. We chatted about New College, the quality and contributions of the students and graduates, and I tipped him off not to expect caps and gowns. On the drive back downtown he inquired about my campaign and then suggested a strategy. 

I intend to try it. After all, he is probably the most popular and successful Florida leader of the last half century.

Oil concerns bubble up again

Just when the buzz about oil prices seemed to be settling a little, two days worth of headlines ($200 prediction and $135 reality)  have turned my attention back from who might end up challenging me in the District 1 County Commission race to what it will cost people to drive around Sarasota. 

Our county was laid out, zoned, and generally designed during an era when crude oil was less than $30 a barrel. How our somewhat sprawling county is going to operate when oil may soon cost five (or more) times that amount is a daunting challenge. New York Times writers (second article above) blame supply problems and increased demand in the developing world, but others identify speculation and outrageous profits as contributing factors. 

Key elements in any response will be those approaches that enable citizens to reduce driving, strategies such as transit and affordable housing close to employment (or transit). Reducing the need to drive by placing services closer to residences through mixed use zoning should also be part of the mix. Other strategies include lowering the cost per mile by increasing efficiencies through hybrid technology and producing lighter weight vehicles that remain safe.

The biggest complicating factor right now is the uncertainty regarding whether oil prices will continue to rise or if yet another speculative bubble is about to burst (see poll on right).  Economists, oil executives, citizens, and petroleum analysts such as Arjun N. Murti (profiled in the first article above and graphic based on his work at top of story) seem to to have wildly divergent predictions (see earlier blogs).  

County planners and decision makers now face a difficult choice -- listen to those who believe prices will drop back below $100 by the end of the year or begin serious planning to minimize the negative effects of rapidly increasing fuel costs that threaten to further consume Sarasotan's household budgets.

More later. 

Biggest Campaign Surprise So Far: Update

On May 13th my blog stated that the big surprise in the campaign so far was the surge in crude oil prices. Then the next day my presumptive incumbent opponent announced he was withdrawing from the race. That's moved into first place in the big surprise category. 

Of course, I'll be writing more about what this means for my campaign, but this is a busy time as we reconfigure the race not for an incumbent with a record, but for one, two, three, (or  four or five?) political opportunists who may apparently be experiencing a compelling, if not overwhelming, spontaneous urge to serve the county. 

I just think it is interesting that no one in Paul's party was driven enough to serve to step up and challenge Paul when Paul was a powerful presence;  but, now that the Republican coast is clear, their conviction has suddenly clarified, their resolve quickly solidified and their no doubt longstanding interest in serving as a County Commissioner will finally be revealed.                                                                                                                                                            ............

Okay, that was a little snippy. Probably one of those things one should sleep on before responding to. A more gracious way to come at this would be to say that had these new challengers announced earlier, it might have helped Paul reach his decision sooner and therefore given them, the newcomers,  a better start. That's better.

The main thing to focus on is the fact that during the few months we were opponents Paul and I went beyond civil and cordial to actually remaining friendly. I sat next to him at a South Venice Civic Association meeting and we both held to our commitments to be aboveboard with each other. 

As a commissioner his service to the community comes closer to 168 than 40 hours a week. And I'm sure the salary is long forgotten as a storm like Charley surges up the west coast. And despite our differences, Paul and I shared many traits -- we're both northeasterners with a strong sense of humor and different way of approaching challenges. We came to Sarasota and made a commitment to the community that transcended raising kids and working. I look forward to resuming our non-competitive relationship and, contrary to my initial venting above, I want to welcome others to the race. 

Part of of why I am running is to provide Sarasotans with choices and if no Republicans step forward, that goal will have been thwarted.  Welcome aboard.

MONDAY MAY 19th UPDATE

Sarasota Herald-Tribune Political Columnist Jeremy Wallace covered the Republican Party's search for candidates in the first district race current Commissioner Paul Mercier exited last week. The column (reproduced below) is more of a list of who isn't than who might. That's not too surprising. Aside from my third of a year headstart in terms of fundraising, voter contact, name recognition, website, blog, endorsements, TV and radio appearances, and grassroots organization, someone wanting to enter the race at this point faces two structural challenges:

1) Paul's timing prevents "carpetbaggers" from renting a place in the first district and then claiming they are residents. That restricts potential candidates to people who actually live in the district -- a good thing in my opinion. As for myself, I've lived in the first district twice, most recently for the past 17 years, which gives me valuable perspective on how the district is changing. (I've also lived in six different locations in the district, which also provide perspective.)

2) It is too late to get on the ballot by petition as I did (see my blog on the subject). That means candidates will have to stroke a check (for $4,665.53 as I recall) and that money must come from some mixture of the candidate's personal funds and money raised in increments of $200 or less. That's a significant threshold whether one is dipping into a personal account or putting a fund raising machine in gear.

I fully expect one or more Republican challengers to enter the race, but it may take a little while for prospective candidates to gauge how much of their time, money and personal life will be consumed the next 169 days. These are not quick and easy decisions, particularly when families are involved - it took me several months to work through all the life-changing implications.

Gas Prices: Hoping the Customer Isn't Always Right

The biggest surprise of the campaign so far? The one that might have the biggest effect on shaping the County's future? Is it a stealth candidate? The resurgence of the Democratic Party? The broad spectrum support for the Urban Service Boundary consensus?  No, it is the fact that oil now costs 25% more than it did when I started campaigning in mid-January. It's been increasing at a rate of roughly $6 a barrel a month. And $3 a gallon gasoline is starting to seem as nostalgic as rotary dial phones and pennies with little heads of wheat on the reverse.

Friday's (May 9th) USA TODAY featured two apparently contradictory articles, both of which predicted our petroleum future. On the front page of Section B (MONEY), fifty-five percent of 372 petroleum industry executives said "they think the price of a barrel of crude will drop below $100 by the end of the year." That encouraging thought was tempered by a special report on the front page of the paper that included these nuggets from a USA TODAY Gallup Poll (presumably of American gas buying customers): "54% say they expect gas prices to reach $6 a gallon in the next five years" and "eight in 10 say they doubt today's high prices are temporary."

Of course, both groups could be wrong, and theoretically both could be right if the price of crude drops while oil companies perversely manage to keep raising gas prices. Ordinarily one would expect oil prices to be somehow yoked to gas prices, both falling or rising together, however out of phase. The least likely scenario, it seems to me, is that crude oil will continue to increase in price while gas prices drop. 

But other than estimating the cost of driving around the county, why does a County Commission candidate care about prices structures the County Commission has no control over? Because gas prices affect driving habits and driving habits are at the center of both sprawl and traffic congestion, two of the public's biggest concerns. 

Imagine if gasoline were free. Then the only constraint to living in Arcadia and working in Venice would be how much or little one likes to drive. Since many cars are now more comfortable than many offices, a scenic drive through Myakka Park with iPod or bluetooth cell phone might not seem like such a hardship. 

Now imagine if it cost you a dollar a mile just to put gas in the car. [That could be $6 a gallon gas in a vehicle that gets 6 miles to the gallon.] The daily commute from Arcadia to Venice and back would cost $100, or $2,000 a month. In that scenario people would be doing nearly whatever they could to live near whatever destination mattered most to them, be it work, school, church, shopping, the beach, or restaurants. That effect might drain cars from the road, minimizing the need for new lanes of asphalt and maximizing the demand for public transit.

And that's precisely why this candidate is wondering whether USA TODAY poll respondents or oil execs have a better sense of what may happen. Higher gas prices should help limit sprawl, but dramatic and sudden increases will cause severe problems because our land use patterns (and wages/income) change MUCH more slowly. That will leave many residents stranded in their homes, unable to travel as they assumed they would. And up and down yo-yoing of oil prices deprives us of the predictability needed to plan and adjust.

I don't look forward to $6 a gallon gas in 2012 (the Gallup Poll scenario), but if higher prices are coming I believe Sarasota can and will adjust priorities to adapt, continuing to move towards sustainability. 

May 15th Postscript: The New York Times reports today that oil refiners are having "a traumatic period". The reason? " The price of their raw material, oil, is rising because of strong global demand. At the same time, consumption of gasoline in the United States is falling as a result of slower economic growth and consumer efforts to conserve." And despite the fact that we are experiencing high gasoline prices, the producers haven't been able to pass along all the costs. According to the article "Oil prices doubled in the past year, while wholesale gasoline prices rose a mere 39 percent." The article goes on to say that the big companies (like Exxon Mobil) that produce their own oil are making lots of money, but smaller refiners that have to buy oil are struggling. 

Routes to Ballot : blue cards and green dollars

There are two ways to get on the county commission ballot around here: write a check equaling six percent of the annual salary of the position you are seeking or collect the signatures of one percent of the electorate. Every candidate and every campaign has to weigh the pluses and minuses of each strategy. 

For the County Commission seat I'm seeking I need 2,505 valid signature petitions. And if I don't hit that number and I still want to run, I'll owe $4,665.54. That works out to each card being worth $1.86 a piece. Of course the petition cards have to be printed and the Supervisor of Elections charges a dime to verify each one, but that still works out to a value of $1.75 a piece. 

For me the choice was easy. While I could have spent the time it takes to gather petition cards raising money to pay the filing fee, collecting signatures is a great way to meet voters and build a team. I confess that I haven't met 2,505 voters yet; but I do have volunteers who believe in my candidacy helping and between my personal efforts and the efforts of those working on my behalf, we are very close to having the total number of valid cards. 

The photo shows me holding a box of 1,300 petition cards ($2,275 worth) that I submitted earlier this week. It's not often I hold something of that value in my hands. And yes, the cards do appear to glow slightly when large numbers of them approach critical mass. It's best not to keep them all in one place, not because they might 'go critical', but because having all the cards around is a little nerve-wracking. While a common thief wouldn't perceive their irreplaceable value, a fire or auto accident while transporting them could create a debilitating hole in any campaign. That's why it is good to get them in the hands of the election officials for counting. 

Once submitted, candidates await the results to determine how many are valid (what the rejection rate is). Cards are rejected for a wide variety of reasons -- some are obvious like living in another county or if the signature doesn't match the one on file, others less expected; for instance if the voter died between when they signed and when the card was checked. Candidates have to collect enough extra cards to cover the rejection rate. That's crucial because the filing fee is not pro-rated -- if you collect 90% of the cards, you don't pay 10% of the fee -- you pay 100%! 

I printed my petition forms on blue card stock. The idea was to make mine stand out and be easily separated from others. Some people use small cards that are easily mailed but require precise writing. The form is dictated by election law and the layout is not designed to facilitate easy completion. Many people miss fields that need to be filled in.

Why do some candidates choose to write a check? Sometimes it is because their district is so spread out that driving hither and thither to find voters is problematic. Other candidates apparently have more money at their disposal than time. But most of the local Democratic candidates and the more grassroots-oriented local Republicans (like Jon Thaxton and Shannon Staub) go the petition route.  

I'm glad I went the blue card route. While those who sign my cards have no obligation to vote for me (some people sign as a courtesy even though they will vote against me), it is good to know that at a minimum one percent of the electorate has had a direct connection to my campaign. And in some races around here, one percent turns out to be a lot. 

 

If I were a Commissioner #3: Neighborhood Pocket Parks

I happen to believe every citizen in the urban and suburban areas should be able to walk to a park in five minutes. Not necessarily an ambitious park with a lot of developed facilities – if one like that is nearby; great. But it could simply be a place to walk to that neighbors can easily get to end enjoy; a place to walk a child in a stroller to, a place for teens to escape to when they need to slam a door and get out of the house, a destination for dog walkers and exercise walkers and a place to sit in the sun and watch squirrels and birds.

A noble goal, but one that is somewhere between elusive and infeasible at this point in time, due to the various reductions in county revenues. There simply isn’t the money to buy, develop, and maintain even a modest park within a 1,320 foot walk from most homes in the county.

So what can be done?? Do we need to abandon this vision or can we make progress despite real constraints?

First these “parks”, don’t have to be County or City parks. If a development already provides such spaces where neighbors can meet, there is no need to duplicate them.

Secondly, before we can we get all the way to "five minute parks" we would have ten and fifteen minute parks -- those more modest, intermediate goals will reduce the immediate costs.

Third, the vision for these truly neighborhood scale parks also needs to be modest -- not elaborate high-maintenance facilities, but simple flexible green space with some shade producing trees. I'm talking about places so modest that they are really only likely to attract neighbors.

Finally, I think we need a new vision for how county government interacts with neighborhoods in terms of parks. Here are some aspects of what I think is called for:

1) New neighborhood scale (“pocket”?) parks cannot be imposed on neighborhoods, but should only be pursued when there is demonstrated neighborhood support and interest.

2) Such parks should reflect specific expressed neighborhood goals. These goals can change in time.

3) The county needs to make it not only possible but also straightforward for neighborhoods to raise funds towards the acquisition of greenspace the benefits of which accrue nearly exclusively to that neighborhood.

4) The county and neighborhoods need to move more towards a partnership model where each party has more equal role, not a situation where government (at taxpayer expense) acts in a paternalistic manner; tending to tasks that neighbors could provide for themselves more locally, directly and cheaply than government. 

Am I sounding too libertarian, an Observer guest columnist in the making?

I don’t know, but I do know we’ll never control government costs if we suppose the role of government is to identify, obtain and provide everything citizens desire at government (taxpayer) expense. Government works best when it allows, or facilitates the means by which, citizens solve their own problems and meet their own needs. 

I think it is obvious that a regional recreation complex or a new road involves a level of organization that transcends neighborhoods, but a modest park doesn’t –people can do this on their own with minimal government involvement if they so choose and government gets out of their way. We need to be encouraging neighborhood associations and organizations to be more effective and more pro-active. 

NOSTALGIC ANECDOTE: Where I grew up a neighbor had a seven-acre parcel that he wasn’t really using. As the wave of post-war boomer babies grew into a small horde, the neighborhood fathers cleared the wilderness (mostly sumac as a recall) and created a modest, nowhere-near-regulation ball field in the midst of the wooded parcel. Six year olds got five outs and underhand pitches and a 16 year old at bat pushed every outfielder to the tree line. Hitting a long ball assured not only a run, but also up to twenty minutes looking for the lost ball, at which point we either resumed play or all went home resolved to return with another ball the next day.

There are numerous reasons why such things don’t happen nowadays, ranging from the lack of random seven acre parcels in the midst of planned suburbs, to liability issues, to more organized (and chauffeured) sports activities for kids. But there is really no reason why neighbors couldn’t mow a small park if they so chose.

Incumbent's Beware & County Commission Term Limits

Jeremy Wallace's column today emphasizes the precarious position many incumbents find themselves in. 

He mentions the District one race:

It is a similar line of reasoning for Jono Miller, a Democrat challenging Sarasota County Commissioner Paul Mercier, a Republican. Miller said he is counting on voters wanting to try something new.

"How do we get a fresh start with the same people?" Miller asked.

Mercier, first elected in 2000, went unchallenged in 2004.

For challengers, an incumbent's tenure in office is no deterrent to running as it may have been in the past. Instead, challengers say it helps them make their case for change.

Is this trend that threatens incumbents new? I'm not sure. In my lifetime only one commissioner (Andrew Sandegren) has managed to serve more than two terms as Commissioner from the first District. 

While incumbency can be an advantage to a candidate, Wallace's column reveals it can be a liability as well.   

One example is those voters who could never vote for someone seeking a third term.  Such voters will have plenty of time to convince me of the merits of their arguments. That jury is still out. But, incumbents beware, they have made it clear that they will not be voting for my opponent. 

Just for the record, I'm not a proponent of term limits for County Commissioners.

In my opinion, there's been sufficient turnover in recent years (albeit all Republican) and there is a real risk that too many neophytes could lead to a very weak commission. The average length of service of the five present commissioners is eight years, with a range from two (Barbetta) to twelve (Staub). 

In fact, if you go back to 1980 I think the average is still about 8 years, notwithstanding the long-haulers like Bob Anderson and David Mills. We tend to remember people that were leading for a long time and may mentally skip over other community leaders like Wayne Derr, Jack O'Neil and Ray Pilon. That effect may contribute to the perception that, in general, commissioners are staying too long. 

If at some point the future the average term of service drifts up above 10 years then we should be asking if that is because everyone is doing a great job as evidenced by healthy two party competitive races or if incumbency has once again become more insurmountable. Until then, I'm comfortable with the present reality -- that incumbents must prove themselves or risk defeat. 

May 14 POSTSCRIPT:  To see how the anti-incumbent two-term limit argument manifests itself, visit this blog. 

Personally, I don't like the idea that disgruntled voters in 1998 might determine who I can vote for in 2008. (Maybe we're more gruntled now?) If 68% of voters still don't like commissioners to serve more than two terms, then, I would argue,  68% of them can go to the polls and vote against two term incumbents on a case by case basis. It is hard enough to find good commissioners (or even people to run), getting rid of them because of a clock seems like a waste of talent to me.