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. 

Do-It-Yourself Myakka Ranchlands?

One implicit goal of a political campaign is to turn up the contrast between candidates, eliminate the overlapping shades of grey and make the contest stark and polarized. But both my opponent, Paul Mercier, and I were there in Tallahassee in mid-December as part of a diverse and impressive team pitching an ambitious proposal called "Myakka Ranchlands", an 18,743 acre vision that would add close to 30 square miles of Sarasota County to the roughly 150 square miles that are part of what is known as Myakka Island. 

And although the proposal was placed on the short list of the "A" list, it really doesn't matter where the project is ranked if no additional money will be forthcoming. According to the Sarasota Herald Tribune, the Florida House has included no money for land acquisition this year. The state's economic downturn has created the perplexing paradox of not having money for land acquisition at a time when some relative deals are to be had. And the Myakka Ranchlands project appears to be time sensitive -- it is unlikely the offer will be around in its present form when the economy rebounds. 

Reacting to the sobering story in today's paper, Dan Lobeck wrote to a number of local leaders proposing, basically, that the county forget about the state and field another local land protection referendum to raise the funds to protect the Myakka Ranchlands. 

Lobeck is the President of Control Growth Now and is known for speaking his mind. As a result he simultaneously enjoys two somewhat contrasting reputations, first as saying what others won't and in the process frequently representing the views of 'average' Sarasotans more closely than many other spokespeople, and secondly as having utilizied a style that has, for some people's taste, relied too much on personal attack and accusation. 

His Myakka Ranchlands suggestion probably reflects his first tendency -- no doubt others have wondered about the County going it alone, but shied away from discussing it publicly.

Could it work? It would involve asking people for a lot of money to purchase an alternative future at a time when many are likely more preoccupied with the present challenges. But Dan argues: "Surely the taxpayers will perceive that it will cost them less to preserve the land than to pay the consequences of its development."

Dan proposes a next step of doing some polling or survey work to determine if the 'surely' in the preceding sentence is actually warranted. Such testing the waters could provide valuable baseline information about public attitude, but the numbers might be higher and more encouraging if someone actually developed a case statement that would explore and lay out for scrutiny the anticipated benefits of this ambitious vision.

I've put my time in fighting developments and I eventually realized the County could gain more true protection for natural areas by working to buy land and development rights from willing sellers than by trying to constrain development projects. I still believe that, but I'm not sure the values are intuitively obvious to the electorate. At least I know I spent a lot of time over two campaigns to drive home the point. 

If Sarasota leaders want to assemble the facts regarding local protection of the Myakka Ranchlands and take them to the people for consideration, first through polling and then, if warranted, through referendum; I'll be there. 

Of course, the cost of protecting the Myakka Ranchlands could be greatly reduced if the public were only paying for the land and the development rights could be preserved and relocated elsewhere in the County. That may not appeal to Dan, but it probably should be explored as an alternative strategy. The devilish detail, of course, is where those units would be welcome. Dan is already on record as opposing any relaxing of traffic concurrency, a key growth management element that, paradoxically, many feel is actually fueling sprawl. 

It is seen to feed sprawl because it limits growth in developed areas (where many want more density to support transit and affordable housing) while offering no comparable constraints on more remote areas that have not yet become clogged enough to trigger limits.  The County Commission will be holding a workshop (no public testimony yet) on these issues on Tuesday April 15th. 

Meanwhile, I need to find some more issues (see my March 25th blog entry) where Paul and I are on opposite sides. 

If I were a Commissioner #2: Dredging Big Pass Shoals

The April first edition of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune featured a front page story about six possible strategies for dealing with the incredible accumulation of sand found in what is called the Big Pass shoal south of Lido Key. According to the article, “After four years of study, coastal engineers hired by the county say sand can be mined from one of the coast's biggest shoals without causing Siesta Key homes to slip into the sea or eroding any sand from nearby public beaches.”

Pardon my paraphrasing, but the article goes on to say that the County will spend another $200,000 to get three second opinions and seems to suggest that the focus will be on providing reassurance that removing sand from the shoal (for some combination of beach nourishment and channel improvement) will not be likely to have a negative impact on Siesta Key, either by increasing erosion along the pass or somehow affecting the flow of sand to the Key’s beaches.

I like the “first, do no harm” aspect of the county’s approach and therefore support securing those second opinions. But I’m left wondering if there isn’t another side to the equation.

We can compute with some accuracy the value of the sand that might be used to nourish beaches and the savings that might accrue by finding it nearby rather than offshore. And some economist could no doubt take a stab at the value of getting boats in and out of Big Pass more reliably.

But who has been charged with calculating either the present or future value of the shoal as it is or may be in the future? What are those values?

The most obvious one probably will be taken into account and that is how the shoals function to dissipate wave energy. If the shoal didn’t exist the Siesta Key shoreline along Big Pass would be subjected to the full force of the Gulf’s waves. They’ll no doubt look into any potential reduction in that role.

And they will probably consider the potential for the void created by sand removal to intercept sand that might be moving southward – the risk that taking sand ‘upstream’ might starve, or at least reduce the amount of sand ‘downstream’.

But what about Sand Dollar Island – the somewhat ethereal, shape-shifting, seldom-mapped islet that has functioned as both bird hangout and boater destination? Boaters know that the shoal frequently sports supra-tidal sand. And even the sub-tidal portions of the pass area are noted boater destinations as described on the Sarasota Coastal Watch website.

The value of Sand Dollar Island today is questionable – it probably couldn’t compare with the value of sand that is there more or less for the taking. But might it be worth asking: “Is that it? A tiny, sometimes sandbar? Or might the deck get reshuffled into a winning hand?”

The amount of sand tied up in the shoal south of South Lido is enormous. In fact, that long tongue of sand is actually the submerged portion of South Lido. Without it not only would Siesta’s Big Pass shoreline be under more direct attack, but South Lido as we know it would disappear. For this reason I'm more inclined to the think of the shoal as the southern submerged portion of South Lido.

Put another way, beaches are like icebergs; the emergent part that we notice is supported by a far larger mass upon which it is based. The above-tide sand evident on Sand Dollar Island is a truly miniscule fraction of the sand below the tides. Could some set of storm conditions result in more of the shoal becoming above tide? I don’t know, I’m not a coastal geomorphologist. But I do know comparable events have happened elsewhere with striking results.

Wild and popular Lover’s Key in the Fort Myers Beach area formed in front of Black Island and Long Key, and the most impressive example locally is probably Johnson Shoals off Cayo Costa. Before that emergent shoal welded onto Cayo Costa it was a boater magnet and important bird habitat as well. Could something remotely comparable emerge on our shoal?  :::shrugs shoulders::: Who knows? But if it ever did the value to local boaters (and birds) would be enormous.

There is probably little percentage in waiting around wondering if some combination of events could lead to a more permanent or more extensive island or islands in Big Pass. 

But before this or future County Commissions vote on any action to deliberately change the shoal it might be prudent to not only consider avoiding future negative impacts to Siesta Key, but also to consider the positive existing (and potential?) values that may be ascribed to both the submerged and emergent shoal.

Our county's past is strewn with projects that seemed like a good idea at the time and now, in retrospect, we're left wondering how our predecessors could have been so reckless. We blithely flattened Indian Mounds for road base, diverted and straightened Cowpen Slough, connected the Myakka River to Robert's Bay and removed unique geologic formations and archaeological treasures from Warm Mineral Springs. Some of these hindsight-inspired errors are irreversible, others are now demanding large sums of money to partially rectify. There is no small measure of humbling irony in the fact that many of today's problems were yesterday's solutions.

Past decisions made about how our coastal areas should be managed and developed are beginning to vex us and in an era of shrinking dollars and expanding expectations we need to be looking for solutions that 'run downhill' -- approaches working in concert with natural systems instead of, as they say, 'bucking the tide'.