This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Freshman Republican Wingnut Warns Of Coup d'Etat Unless Mueller Is Fired Or Resigns

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Democrats didn’t even get a full twenty-four hours of celebrating election day without an extremist Republican doing something to upend the news cycle. Freshman Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) spoke to an almost empty House of Representatives Wednesday in order to side with Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) and Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) to demand that Robert Mueller either resign or be fired, because in Gaetz’ opinion, Mueller’s work amounts to a coup d’etat. C-Span via RawStory:

“We are at risk of a coup d’état in this country if we allow an unaccountable person with no oversight to undermine the duly-elected President of the United States,” Gaetz said. “And I would offer, that is precisely what is happening right now with the indisputable conflicts of interest that are present with Mr. Mueller and others at the Department of Justice.”

“I join my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, in calling for Mr. Mueller’s resignation or his firing,” Gaetz continued.

“Moreover, we absolutely have to see the Department of Justice appoint a special counsel to look into the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One deal and the FusionGPS dossier,” Gaetz suggested.

Check all the villages in Wingnuttia. One of them is missing its idiot.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/8/1714041/-Freshman-Republican-Wingnut-Warns-Of-Coup-d-Etat-Unless-Mueller-Fired-Resigns?detail=emaildkre

**********

https://iqconnect.lmhostediq.com/iqextranet/view_newsletter.aspx?id=100546&c=FL01MG

Representative Matt Gaetz

U.S. Representative for the First District of Florida
507 Cannon House Office Building | Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4136

Hello, Friends —

Saturday, November 11, is Veterans Day. Florida’s First Congressional District is home to one of the largest populations of veterans in the country, and to all those who have served, I would like to express my deep gratitude. Thank you for your service to America, and for making our nation a shining beacon of hope, freedom, and opportunity...

(blah, blah, blah...)

GAETZ IN THE NEWS

CSPAN — November 7, 2017

Gaetz Discusses Mueller’s Conflict of Interests on House Floor

Watch it here:




**********


Gag me with a spoon.


View user profile
Even though it likely means a significant delay, the best part about Bill Nelson's having pulled his co-sponsorship of the Escambia County Land Conveyance Act (fee simple bill for island leaseholders) in favor of drafting his own version of the legislation, is that it'll then be Nelson's bill, not Gaetz's. Gaetz is just hated too much, and thus his stamp on something good automatically turns it into evil in the citizens' eyes.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
Democrats didn’t even get a full twenty-four hours of celebrating election day without an extremist Republican doing something to upend the news cycle. Freshman Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) spoke to an almost empty House of Representatives Wednesday in order to side with Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) and Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) to demand that Robert Mueller either resign or be fired, because in Gaetz’ opinion, Mueller’s work amounts to a coup d’etat. C-Span via RawStory:

“We are at risk of a coup d’état in this country if we allow an unaccountable person with no oversight to undermine the duly-elected President of the United States,” Gaetz said. “And I would offer, that is precisely what is happening right now with the indisputable conflicts of interest that are present with Mr. Mueller and others at the Department of Justice.”

“I join my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, in calling for Mr. Mueller’s resignation or his firing,” Gaetz continued.

“Moreover, we absolutely have to see the Department of Justice appoint a special counsel to look into the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One deal and the FusionGPS dossier,” Gaetz suggested.

Check all the villages in Wingnuttia. One of them is missing its idiot.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/8/1714041/-Freshman-Republican-Wingnut-Warns-Of-Coup-d-Etat-Unless-Mueller-Fired-Resigns?detail=emaildkre

**********

https://iqconnect.lmhostediq.com/iqextranet/view_newsletter.aspx?id=100546&c=FL01MG

Representative Matt Gaetz

U.S. Representative for the First District of Florida
507 Cannon House Office Building | Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4136

Hello, Friends —

Saturday, November 11, is Veterans Day. Florida’s First Congressional District is home to one of the largest populations of veterans in the country, and to all those who have served, I would like to express my deep gratitude. Thank you for your service to America, and for making our nation a shining beacon of hope, freedom, and opportunity...

(blah, blah, blah...)

GAETZ IN THE NEWS

CSPAN — November 7, 2017

Gaetz Discusses Mueller’s Conflict of Interests on House Floor

Watch it here:




**********


Gag me with a spoon.



Luke McCoy would have been thrilled with this . . . .

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:  Gaetz is just hated too much, and thus his stamp on something good automatically turns it into evil in the citizens' eyes.

That must be why Gaetz won by a 39 point margin, the citizens of his district hate him so much.

View user profile
knothead wrote:
Luke McCoy would have been thrilled with this . . . .

This Luke McCoy:

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:  Gaetz is just hated too much, and thus his stamp on something good automatically turns it into evil in the citizens' eyes.

That must be why Gaetz won by a 39 point margin, the citizens of his district hate him so much.

Sorry, I should've clarified: he's hated by area Democrats, who make up both of the loud groups protesting and campaigning against the fee simple bill, and who, between them, have gathered 12,000 petition signatures and are obviously influencing Nelson (even though, I might add, their signature-gathering tactics are thoroughly despicable and they've completely turned me off toward re-joining the party, if I ever had any thoughts of doing so).

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:
Deus X wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:  Gaetz is just hated too much, and thus his stamp on something good automatically turns it into evil in the citizens' eyes.

That must be why Gaetz won by a 39 point margin, the citizens of his district hate him so much.

Sorry, I should've clarified:  he's hated by area Democrats, who make up both of the loud groups protesting and campaigning against the fee simple bill, and who, between them, have gathered 12,000 petition signatures and are obviously influencing Nelson (even though, I might add, their signature-gathering tactics are thoroughly despicable and they've completely turned me off toward re-joining the party, if I ever had any thoughts of doing so).

I withdraw my support for the fee simple bill. I agree with Bob Kerrigan...it's a land grab.

https://maritimepark.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/the-gaetzgrover-great-giveaway/

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:
Deus X wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:  Gaetz is just hated too much, and thus his stamp on something good automatically turns it into evil in the citizens' eyes.

That must be why Gaetz won by a 39 point margin, the citizens of his district hate him so much.

Sorry, I should've clarified:  he's hated by area Democrats, who make up both of the loud groups protesting and campaigning against the fee simple bill, and who, between them, have gathered 12,000 petition signatures and are obviously influencing Nelson (even though, I might add, their signature-gathering tactics are thoroughly despicable and they've completely turned me off toward re-joining the party, if I ever had any thoughts of doing so).

I withdraw my support for the fee simple bill.  I agree with Bob Kerrigan...it's a land grab.  

https://maritimepark.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/the-gaetzgrover-great-giveaway/


FT, for Pete'e sake, Kerrigan has a right to his paranoid opinions, but he has no right to make up his own supposed facts, which he is doing here and everywhere else he writes on this subject. As many well-respected Pensacola people will tell you, he is completely off the wall with this hogwash. And you'll note he offers NO backup for his assertions - NONE. That's because that's all they are, FT - his assertions, his dark view of EVERYTHING, seeing goblins around every corner where they simply don't exist. This is NOT a land grab AT ALL, NO transfer of value from citizens to leaseholders WHATSOEVER, and the FACTS prove it. The man is acting bat-shit crazy. I wish you and I could sit down face to face to discuss this issue. I think you would really be enlightened. I've been close to this for 13 years and no brag but I do know a thing or two about it all. Kerrigan, attorney or not, is F.O.S. on this issue.

View user profile
FT, just ONE thing right out of the gate with Kerrigan's piece you linked us to:  He wants to know why the lease fees can't be waived.  GUESS WHAT??   There is a Florida Attorney General's opinion on the books on this very question and it says that reducing lease fees to offset property taxes (which is exactly what it amounts to) would be flat out illegal.  

I'm telling you, FT, Crazy Kerrigan doesn't know what the hell he's talking about -- and that's only one example.  Please don't be suckered in.  Get the FACTS.

Again, if I could sit down with you or even talk with you on the phone at some length, I could completely debunk virtually every sentence of that crapola he's positing.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:FT, just ONE thing right out of the gate with Kerrigan's piece you linked us to:  He wants to know why the lease fees can't be waived.  GUESS WHAT??   There is a Florida Attorney General's opinion on the books on this very question and it says that reducing lease fees to offset property taxes (which is exactly what it amounts to) would be flat out illegal.  

I'm telling you, FT, Crazy Kerrigan doesn't know what the hell he's talking about -- and that's only one example.  Please don't be suckered in.  Get the FACTS.

Again, if I could sit down with you or even talk with you on the phone at some length, I could completely debunk virtually every sentence of that crapola he's positing.

Linda, I've lived here a long time. I've always wondered why the citizens of Escambia Co. have to pass through Santa Rosa to get to "our" beach. I believe the Escambia Co. commissioners overstepped their authority by imposing property taxes on Pensacola Beach. I also think there was some sort of quid pro quo on the lease agreement with Navarre Beach. Bottom line: the citizens of Escambia County who don't live on the beach still have to pass through Santa Rosa Co. to get to the beach and still pay a toll to access "our" beach. To my knowledge the citizens of Escambia Co. have never received anything tangible from our collective "ownership" of Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach. And now a low life scum of a politician wants to sell out to whatever interests he thinks he has in his pocket...and that includes not only Matt Gaetz, but Grover Robinson as well. Good ol' boy politics at its finest. I understand that you want to own your home, but you'd probably be better off just paying lease fees. I think the decision to allow property taxes on Pensacola Beach was wrong; I think a reasonable judge would reverse it, and you could go back to just enjoying the beach.

View user profile
FT, you've thrown a lot out there, and if you care at all about facts and truth, I'm asking you - even if you have to set it aside for a day or so - to please do me the courtesy of reading every word of the following in response, which I've spent a solid two hours on.  If you'd rather just blow me off, there's nothing I can do about that, but I hope you won't.   This issue is extremely complex, which is why, as an aside, it should never be decided by public referendum as the protesters are demanding.  It's virtually impossible to adequately educate the entire citizenry on this mess.

But to get to it, I'll start by quoting you in italics:

I think the decision to allow property taxes on Pensacola Beach was wrong; I think a reasonable judge would reverse it, and you could go back to just enjoying the beach.

It's nice that you think that, but property taxes will not be reversed in this district, first of all as to the improvements; that was a Florida Supreme Court decision, locked in for the ages as to the 2,400 PB properties who sued.   As to the land, taxation on PB is based on the Navarre Beach land suits which also went all the way to the top, and has only recently been tested in the courts as to PB.   Following some resultant appeals court decisions, there are now about half of Pensacola Beach properties not subject to taxes on the land only, because their leases have renewal clauses that are more vague, not a guarantee of perpetual renewability as exists in the Navarre Beach leases.   Still, the improvements remain taxable due to the Supreme Court decision on those, which was based on an entirely different principle.

(As an illustration of just how permanent a Supreme Court decision is, there are four properties alone on PBeach that, due to the Supremes' ruling as to them in a non-class-action tax suit back in 1986 - are forever exempt from property taxes, under the doctrine of "stare decisis"  --basically, "let the precedent stand."   This is also just another example of the inequities this ancient leasing system has engendered over time.)

But to hope a "reasonable judge" will be able to reverse it all is, I'm afraid, dreaming. Anything that could've been done has already been attempted by minds more well versed in tax law than yours or mine.

I believe the Escambia Co. commissioners overstepped their authority by imposing property taxes on Pensacola Beach.

With all due respect, FT, your statement is fundamentally incorrect.   All decisions as to taxability are made by the Tax Assessor (Chris Jones here; Greg Brown in Santa Rosa County).  These two are Constitutional Officers who operate completely independently of the county as to those decisions.   It was Greg Brown who first decided to test the tax waters on Navarre Beach, based on recent decisions in other state jurisdictions employing the principle of "equitable ownership," partly because those NB leases are all automatically renewable forever.  

When the leaseholders there sued and lost, Chris Jones believed  he had no choice but to begin taxing the leases on PBeach, being in the same district's jurisdiction, and the rest is history.

Grover, in fact, is on record saying there's nothing he'd like better than to go back to 2004 (before we were taxed on PBeach); this has been no fun for him at all   But he and the other commissioners in this or any other Florida county have NO control over tax assessment decisions.  That's the law.

I understand that you want to own your home, but you'd probably be better off just paying lease fees.

Easily said, but it ain't gonna happen.   And - lease fees or no lease fees - the reality is we are paying property taxes on land and/or buildings we don't have title to.  That's the fundamental injustice, courts or no courts.  Title is the only cure for that, and, contrary to Kerrigan's and others' assertions, title poses NO THREAT to "the beaches" nor accesses thereto, because it changes nothing but a piece of paper, other than releasing leaseholders from a few onerous lease conditions such as the requirement to rebuild after destruction -- something mainlanders can decide for themselves.  

In fact, as to PBeach, the Preservation Clause in the bill, which Grover insisted on in this version despite pressures to omit it, provides far better protections to remaining public open lands, beaches and accesses than has ever existed before, since we first received the lands from the feds.  

(And truly, as to Navarre Beach, the bill just as it is does absolutely nothing to change the status quo there as to public access; anything that's feared after title conveyance could happen today or anytime since the original 1956 lease from Escambia to Santa Rosa.  Once more, the question of who holds the piece of paper called title makes NO DIFFERENCE to what developers can or can't do.  NONE. That is entirely dependent on Land Development Codes, bed caps, and zoning, all of which is and has been controlled by the respective county commissions from day one and will continue to be so.)

I've always wondered why the citizens of Escambia Co. have to pass through Santa Rosa to get to "our" beach.

It seems silly, but it's simply geography.   Interestingly, during earlier inter-county negotiations about title -- I'm talking the Tom Banjanin era -- there were some factions that insisted we shouldn't give up title to Navarre Beach (even though it does Escambia County no good whatsoever to hold it) unless Santa Rosa County would give Gulf Breeze to Escambia County in return!   Amazing but true.  

That stance killed the title bill way back then.  It was revived a few years ago (long before Gaetz even entered the picture, FT), but stalled over a Navarre Pass amendment some environmentalists wanted to tack on (see more on the pass later), and Gaetz brought it back to life after his election, with the understanding that the pass issue would stand alone, i.e., pass or fail on its own merits, and supposedly Nelson agreed to that.  Then he didn't.

I also think there was some sort of quid pro quo on the lease agreement with Navarre Beach.

Something nefarious, you think?  Well, FT, you've intimated this before but have never been able to explain it or back it up.  I started thinking I'd heard something similar myself (only not particularly nefarious or underhanded) but gave that up as an artifact of my imagination.  

What I did do is spend some time since then going over what info I have on island history, talking to a few people, etc., and the only "quid pro quo" I can come up with, if one can call it that, is that, since Escambia wanted no part of having to develop that part of the island (due to its distance from the county seat, as it were), Escambia agreed to basically "give" the Navarre Beach portion of the island to Santa Rosa County if the latter would build a bridge -- which they did -- and otherwise provide all the infrastructure and management required for its development and maintenance.   Per the 1956 lease to SRC, the term is 99 years, automatically renewable for successive 99 year terms ad infinitum, and thus Escambia basically washed its hands of Navarre Beach for the duration, deriving only a pittance of a nominal annual lease fee.

Bottom line:  the citizens of Escambia County who don't live on the beach still have to pass through Santa Rosa Co. to get to the beach and still pay a toll to access "our" beach.

I know you resent the toll  - which presently goes to back up the bond issue that paid for the four-laning of Via de Luna, a much improved route to the east end of the beach and GINS which residents and visitors alike (as well as safety vehicles) enjoy.   But the toll has what to do, please, with the question of whether or not leaseholders should be granted title to their leased land, as well as to the buildings that they themselves built, maintained, and improved?  

(No one wants to talk about that last, but the fact is that support of this antiquated leasing system also entails support for the fact that title to all improvements vests immediately in the county.   The county has title to our buildings to the exact same extent as it has title to the underlying land, even though it can't sell either one. It's nuts.)

To my knowledge the citizens of Escambia Co. have never received anything tangible from our collective "ownership" of Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach.

I suppose not, unless you want to count the estimated $300 million in annual  positive economic impact to Escambia County created by tourism (including, among many other factors, millions in bed taxes) -- all of which, as has been demonstrated by UWF Haas Center studies- is largely due to the existence of PBeach, including all its beauty, amenities, and uniqueness -- NONE of which, btw, will be impacted in the slightest by conveyance of title to leaseholders to their strictly defined properties.

But when people talk about a "land grab," and that "billions" are being stolen from the citizens and handed to the leaseholders -- that's just not supported by the facts.  The real estate value of the leaseholds -- land and buildings --  is, as with any other real estate, based on the market, and the market value here is determined solely by the trading -- buying and selling -- of leasehold interests on the island, all of which is done by the leaseholders themselves, not the county.  That's why the tangible value doesn't reside with the county or its mainland residents, but is instead made up of thousands of individual real estate assessments of the leaseholds performed by Chris Jones, and which value accrues to the leaseholders themselves, and them alone, and which we, not you, are paying property taxes on.

There is NO land grab and no transfer of wealth; the wealth already resides with the leaseholders; the conveyance of title ONLY MAKES THE PAPERWORK REFLECT THE REALITY.  Can you see this, FT?

As to the value of the thousands of acres of remaining, non-leased lands, beaches, and accesses on PBeach which would remain titled to the county, call them priceless, because they are -- and that's what this legislation seeks to preserve by putting another layer of protection on those lands that has never existed before.  This is a VERY GOOD THING that is in danger of being derailed by the virulent opposition.

And now a low life scum of a politician wants to sell out to whatever interests he thinks he has in his pocket...and that includes not only Matt Gaetz, but Grover Robinson as well.  Good ol' boy politics at its finest.

"Sell out" in what respect, please?  I'm sorry, FT, but this entire statement can only be seen as baseless political rhetoric, unless you or Kerrigan or anyone else can back it up with evidence, not simply supposition/imagination/whatever else you want to call such phraseology.

Don't get me wrong; I have NO love lost for Gaetz whatsoever, but getting rid of this leasehold insanity and putting all county citizens on equal footing as property owners requires federal legislation, which includes the House, and he's all we've got there.  

Also please remember:  This bill did NOT originate with Gaetz but has been in the works for well over a decade, with the notable exception of the new Preservation clause.    That Gaetz listened to the desires of the SRC BCC -- that county having done a lot for him politically -- and did not force them to adhere to Grover's Preservation clause (something Grover believed was the right thing to do for PBeach and instead is getting badmouthed and kicked in the pants) -- is not dirty or underhanded but just the American way of politics.  If Nelson will step in and provide some protections for Navarre Beach, too, all the better.  I hope he will.   (Again, see more on that below.)

As for the Navarre pass, though you didn't bring it up, as we may've discussed before, title conveyance, again, does NOTHING to facilitate OR prevent a  pass -- in other words, it's the same exact set of circumstances that has existed since that beach was first leased to SRC in 1956.   Nothing better, nothing worse -- and the common wisdom tells just about everyone that pass will never be re-cut, for obvious reasons.

Linda, I've lived here a long time.

I know that, FT; you've made it perfectly clear before, and I respect that, and I know you've seen some dirty dealings in local politics, just as we all have, whether here or anywhere else we've lived.  But to allow one's cynicism to judge every single thing any politician does as necessarily dirty or nefarious, means that good things will never happen, either.  

And getting rid of this leasing system will be a very good thing indeed for the health of the county.  It just takes some vision, and a brushing away of the cobwebs of mistrust.  

Please don't withdraw your support.   And I'm speaking to anyone else reading this as well.  In fact we can use some positive support in calls or easy emails  to Nelson (google "Email Bill Nelson") asking him to please proceed with his revisions to the Escambia County Land Conveyance Act asap.

View user profile
FT, are you going to be able to do me the honor of reading my post immediately above, maybe kindly responding with a word or two?

View user profile

http://www.pnj.com/story/opinion/2017/10/08/editorial-senators-nelson-rubio-scrap-beach-bill/106457532/

Editorial: Senators Nelson, Rubio should scrap beach bill

No matter what side you’re on in the contentious battle over a Senate bill that would allow private ownership on area beaches, one thing is certain. This is federal government action designed to intervene in a local government issue. For that reason alone, Senators Nelson and Rubio should scrap the legislation and allow local citizens to work out issues of taxes, fees and fairness on Santa Rosa Island.

It is unnecessary and inappropriate for federal officials to impose a sweeping major change in the historic status quo of public ownership of a natural treasure like Santa Rosa Island. Especially when the central premise for the bill comes from demands for fairness in county-regulated fees and taxes. We don’t use acts of Congress to solve disputes over parking meter rates. Nor should we look to federal officials to resolve questionable allegations of unfairness in a local tax issue.

Conservative backers of the bill such as Rubio and U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz ought to explain to voters exactly why a federal government that should butt out of health care ought to be making sweeping land management decisions for citizens of Escambia County. If that’s not “big government,” then what is?


For Nelson’s part, after initially backing the bill, he has since raised doubts and called for revisions that would put preservation restrictions on Navarre Beach similar to what the bill calls for on Pensacola Beach. Specifically, Nelson’s spokesman said, "(He) still supports the overall purpose of the bill, but wants to add some additional assurances that Navarre Pass will stay closed and conservation areas preserved.” Nelson is right to call for increased preservation guarantees, but still misses other troubling questions with this bill.

Currently, Escambia County citizens own the Navarre portion of the island and lease it to Santa Rosa County. The proposed legislation would transfer ownership of that land to Santa Rosa, whose officials have rejected the sort of preservation restrictions that the bill contains for Escambia’s portion.

Therein lies the inherent flaw in treating the island as dual territories subject to different standards and protections. The barrier island is a highly unique and sensitive ecosystem. Tides and winds and forces of nature do not recognize imaginary dotted lines or arbitrary dictates and ambitions of neighboring county governments. Public ownership of the island was intended as a protective measure for a rare natural environment with a larger sense of posterity in mind.

Undoing that historic public ownership should require direct and widespread public input from all the citizens who have a stake in the island. That has not been the case at all with this proposed legislation.

Furthermore, before any such move should be considered, citizen stakeholders ought to be provided with a concrete financial analysis of a transfer to private ownership. Neither county nor federal officials have shown Escambia County citizens any hard numbers of what this legislation would mean for taxpayers’ bottom line. Since when are real estate transactions negotiated without some specific appraisals, assessments and dollar amounts on paper?

How much would be gained or lost in tax and fee collection?

How much is all this publicly owned land worth?

Do our commissioners, representatives or senators even have any idea?

We spend thousands on economic impact studies for everything from hockey to road closures in this county. So where’s the science-based economic report to justify the transfer of ownership that this legislation proposes? Show citizens the numbers that deserve their support.

Additionally, Gulf Islands National Seashore has historically been a leading voice for stewardship and a watchman over the entire island. In the past, Seashore officials have rightly opposed a Navarre pass, private ownership and increased development due to the fact that on such a sensitive sliver of sand, changes on one end of the island will inevitably alter the other end. Cut a pass in Navarre and you’ll feel it in Fort Pickens.

Senator Nelson and Rubio should look back at Gulf Island’s historic positions on the issue and seek direct, candid input from National Park leaders and rangers who have become deeply acquainted with these issues over the years. Their opinions are significant and they know the island better than most.

But in the end, the hundreds of thousands of Escambia citizens who own the island ought to decide this issue. The island is their treasure and heritage. And with all due respect to our federal officials, Escambia citizens know the beach better than senators from South Florida or a congressman from Fort Walton.

The beach belongs to locals. And with this overreaching legislation, our federal officials are trespassing.

*********

And, Linda, my opinion is an informed one. I worked for 2 Houston developers, 2 local developers, and 4 local real estate agencies as a licensed Realtor.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
RealLindaL wrote:  Gaetz is just hated too much, and thus his stamp on something good automatically turns it into evil in the citizens' eyes.

That must be why Gaetz won by a 39 point margin, the citizens of his district hate him so much.



Nope. it's because people in Northwest Florida will vote for anybody with an R beside his name. They KNEW he was involved in crooked dealings before, but they voted for him anyway, us brilliant Pensacolians.
I don't know what good ideas he's had that are being overshadowed by his bad ideas, because I certainly don't think privatizing our beaches is a good idea. Nor is putting a pass in Navarre. A lot of people in Navarre live there because it's not Destin or Panama. They don't want it to become like those places and it would with a rebuild of that pass. My oldest daughter is one of those people and she commutes 20 miles to work in order to come home to a quiet neighborhood. There are many Air Force people who live in her sub-division who do the same. Navarre right now is still a bedroom community and the people there don't want it to be a tourist destination. The pass would make it that. Some local folks are tired of being told what is "good for us" by the people in Tallahassee and Washington when to them it's all about pay offs from the hotels and tourist industry.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
And, Linda, my opinion is an informed one.  I worked for 2 Houston developers, 2 local developers, and 4 local real estate agencies as a licensed Realtor.    

Sorry, FT, but all that experience doesn't mean diddly squat when it comes to your having anywhere near an in-depth understanding of this particular issue.   You quite obviously don't,  as I've clearly demonstrated both here and elsewhere on this forum.  

Further, I and others I know have been in communication with the PNJ editorial board on this matter, and I can tell this forum in no uncertain terms that they make no bones about believing feelings are more important than facts, an attitude that's virtually impossible to reason with, and very disconcerting coming from our main local news source.

The truth is that I can refute and/or debunk almost every statement made in the PNJ editorial you quote, which I'm very familiar with, along with the one that followed it, also full of holes.   Like you, the PNJ made up its mind very early on -- even its supposed "reporting" in fee simple 'news' articles has been biased up the kazoo from day one -- and prefers to see the darkness rather than the light, wallowing in the hysteria started by Dianne Krumel, a woman with an admitted personal grudge against developers resulting from an old run-in with no applicability whatsoever to the present situation, and all aided by conspiracy theorist Bob Kerrigan and his friend Andy Marlette.

(Krumel's petition-signature-gathering methodology, both in person and via her website -along with the similar website of her cohort from Indivisible NWFL - is nothing but a deceptive pack of LIES.)  

But look -- though I'm sure you couldn't care less, FT, and I fully understand that -- I just want to tell you to knock yourself out with your negativity and suspicion and paranoia; I won't spend any more of my time responding to any of your posts on fee simple title because, as witnessed by both this thread and the much earlier one devoted entirely to the subject, you've demonstrated an unwillingness (or maybe complete inability, or both), to actually have a discussion on the facts.  

Instead, your M.O. is to throw out opinions and mistaken assumptions and, when challenged, to completely ignore the challenge rather than saying why you think it's correct or incorrect.  Instead, you just come back with the same hard line you started with, or maybe do a cut and paste as above.   No analysis, no evidence of real knowledge, no logic, no serious attention to anything I try to carefully explain as backed up by facts and reality, because it doesn't match your preconceived notions.  

Sorry, that's the way I see it, and I think it's probably perfectly clear to anyone else paying attention.  

So I'm done.   You want to think and say nothing but the very worst about the fee simple issue, go right ahead and enjoy yourself.   I won't bother you again.  All I've been doing all this time is to open myself up to your rather insulting refusal to address a single one of my points.  My bad for not having learned my lesson the last time.



Last edited by RealLindaL on 11/18/2017, 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Corrected typo - Indivisible)

View user profile
bigdog wrote: I certainly don't think privatizing our beaches is a good idea..

What don't you get about the fact that you can't privatize what's already private?  

As for the pass, the bill, even without any possible coming improvements from Nelson, does nothing -- zero, zip, nada, bupkus - to facilitate a pass.    Nothing! Have you even read the bill?  It doesn't change the status quo on that one bit.

That pass hasn't been re-cut since it was first re-closed by a hurricane in 1965, even though it's been dreamed about and talked about and dreamed about some more over the decades -- and again, this bill changes nothing whatsoever in that regard, one way or the other.  Most people realize the pass will never be cut.  Some people would like this bill to guarantee that, and maybe Nelson's re-write will do that, but it doesn't change the fact that this bill is not about the pass and never has been.  

It's about granting title to the strictly defined, already leased, already private, leaseholds -- and, as an added bonus thanks to Grover Robinson, about improving protections against increasing and impinging development on remaining lands and accesses on Pensacola Beach -- maybe Navarre Beach as well, if Nelson can get it done, more power to him.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
And, Linda, my opinion is an informed one.  I worked for 2 Houston developers, 2 local developers, and 4 local real estate agencies as a licensed Realtor.    

Sorry, FT, but all that experience doesn't mean diddly squat when it comes to your having anywhere near an in-depth understanding of this particular issue.   You quite obviously don't,  as I've clearly demonstrated both here and elsewhere on this forum.  

Further, I and others I know have been in communication with the PNJ editorial board on this matter, and I can tell this forum in no uncertain terms that they make no bones about believing feelings are more important than facts, an attitude that's virtually impossible to reason with, and very disconcerting coming from our main local news source.

The truth is that I can refute and/or debunk almost every statement made in the PNJ editorial you quote, which I'm very familiar with, along with the one that followed it, also full of holes.   Like you, the PNJ made up its mind very early on -- even its supposed "reporting" in fee simple 'news' articles has been biased up the kazoo from day one -- and prefers to see the darkness rather than the light, wallowing in the hysteria started by Dianne Krumel, a woman with an admitted personal grudge against developers resulting from an old run-in with no applicability whatsoever to the present situation, and all aided by conspiracy theorist Bob Kerrigan and his friend Andy Marlette.

(Krumel's petition-signature-gathering methodology, both in person and via her website -along with the similar website of her cohort from Indivisible NWFL - is nothing but a deceptive pack of LIES.)  

But look -- though I'm sure you couldn't care less, FT, and I fully understand that -- I just want to tell you to knock yourself out with your negativity and suspicion and paranoia; I won't spend any more of my time responding to any of your posts on fee simple title because, as witnessed by both this thread and the much earlier one devoted entirely to the subject, you've demonstrated an unwillingness (or maybe complete inability, or both), to actually have a discussion on the facts.  

Instead, your M.O. is to throw out opinions and mistaken assumptions and, when challenged, to completely ignore the challenge rather than saying why you think it's correct or incorrect.  Instead, you just come back with the same hard line you started with, or maybe do a cut and paste as above.   No analysis, no evidence of real knowledge, no logic, no serious attention to anything I try to carefully explain as backed up by facts and reality, because it doesn't match your preconceived notions.  

Sorry, that's the way I see it, and I think it's probably perfectly clear to anyone else paying attention.  

So I'm done.   You want to think and say nothing but the very worst about the fee simple issue, go right ahead and enjoy yourself.   I won't bother you again.  All I've been doing all this time is to open myself up to your rather insulting refusal to address a single one of my points.  My bad for not having learned my lesson the last time.

The way you see it, Linda, despite all your "research" is the way it works for YOU. You call me insulting, when I took the time to explain to you why I hadn't responded...and you should have respected that. It must be so frustrating that everyone doesn't share your opinion. If anyone is throwing insults out here, it's you. And if anyone is being negative and paranoid, again, it's you.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:The way you see it, Linda, despite all your "research" is the way it works for YOU.  You call me insulting, when I took the time to explain to you why I hadn't responded...and you should have respected that.  It must be so frustrating that everyone doesn't share your opinion.  If anyone is throwing insults out here, it's you.  And if anyone is being negative and paranoid, again, it's you.  

Oh, right, I'm paranoid.   Look, FT, yes, you explained to me in a PM why you hadn't responded to my in-depth counterpoint to you, yet you've managed to find time to respond to other posts on this and other threads.  What am I supposed to think??

More to the point, I looked for, but didn't see, any indication that you had any intention of responding to my points at any later time, either, just as you never did on that older thread, months ago.  Let's be real.  You just want to oppose this and you don't want to hear anything else.

What's frustrating is that so many other people, too, are forming opinions on completely baseless fears and suppositions, and refuse to read, listen, discuss the issue with anyone with knowledge who doesn't share THEIR opinions.  This is the tyranny of the majority at work.

One example?  I contacted protest leader Dianne Krumel earlier on and asked if we couldn't please sit down face to face, or by phone, or by email, and discuss the fee simple title issue.   Her short, not sweet, response was to supposedly quote Bob Kerrigan saying that I'm "nothing but a pawn in a greater scheme."   Now THAT's paranoia, FT, and it's also called keeping one's blinders on.

You put "research" in quotes to denigrate the validity of it, but the truth is that I've been close to this issue for 13 years and have naturally come to know a fair amount more than most -- including, btw, the fact that fee simple has been in the works that long, i.e., long before the hated Gaetz ever came on the scene - even though Kerrigan and crowd (including the PNJ) would have everyone believe it's been sprung on an unsuspecting citizenry practically in the middle of the night.  The PNJ obviously doesn't even read its own archives, and if people say they didn't know about this bill until it passed the House, that's because they weren't paying attention.  

The piece of paper called "title," as you've indicated yourself, has never gotten you -- a mainlander - any direct benefit as to the already private leasehold island properties, and it never will.  It's absolutely meaningless to you, but means one heckuva lot to us who are being taxed (and always will be now) as legitimate owners, when we're not.  Tax us, title us!!

That the pride and quiet satisfaction of true home ownership is being denied to your fellow taxpayers on the island due to, as Rick Outzen calls it, "much ado about nothing," is not only, yes, extremely frustrating, but mean-spirited as hell, if anyone cared to really think about it.

It's also rather short sighted not to realize that we who live here -- who've invested sometimes our life savings for the privilege -- are the LAST people who'd want condo canyons and rampant development keeping US from reaching the beaches in our own dwelling place, for Pete's sake.   We're not insane, after all.  Give us some friggin' credit for knowing that title does NOT equate to development; in fact, has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And I really don't know what else to call it but stupid that the opposition would shoot themselves in the foot by passing up a golden opportunity to have the remaining open lands, beaches, and all existing accesses thereto, protected in perpetuity by enshrinement in federal legislation.  

So yeah, FT, it's frustrating all right.   And since you did a cut and paste from the PNJ editorial board, I'll do one a little later from Grover Robinson, which you may not have seen, but which expresses the very same frustration, and rightly so.

Of course you likely won't have time to read that either, now or ever, nor give it any credibility, will you? After all, Robinson's a politician, must be crooked and on the take.

View user profile
Commissioner offers beach bill response
Grover Robinson, Guest columnist Published 9:29 a.m. CT Nov. 6, 2017 |
Pensacola News Journal
Updated 9:48 a.m. CT Nov. 6, 2017


Disagreement and honest debate are cornerstones of any democracy and republic. I believe the variety of views we have in a community help to polish legislation for best application. I see it in every public forum and meeting we have had as a county commissioner for 11 years. However, intentional misrepresentation of the facts does not help a community, nor does it create an atmosphere for a community to thrive.

For those reasons I felt compelled to respond to Mr. David Brewer's Nov. 3 editorial [letter to the editor: "Wake up, taxpayers" ]. If Mr. Brewer does not like the fee simple legislation, he is welcome to his opinions; however, he is not welcome to his own facts.

First, we privatized segments of the beach in  the 1950s when we began to offer leases.  A lease by definition grants private enjoyment under a provision of terms. There are currently fences on the island, no parking in hotel lots unless a guest, and breaking and entering charges if you go into someone's home uninvited. Second, people can sell leases. Just go to the Pensacola MLS today, and you will see perhaps the hottest market in the area are the leases on Pensacola Beach.

What prevents people from selling leases to a condo developer is not a Fee Simple Bill. It is an Escambia County Land Development Code that provides a dwelling cap and zoning to prevent the rampant development Mr. Brewer fears. For 11 years, I have steadfastly defended that cap and zoning to support the quality of place we have on Pensacola Beach. During my term of office no condo and no previously unleased home has been built on the island, a far cry from the representations of me by Mr. Brewer.

Additionally the most frustrating part of this debate has been the fact that I, with the county attorney and BCC, diligently worked to protect every truly public portion, in other words unleased, of the beach as public into perpetuity and bind future boards to present public uses in the legislation. But don't take my word, listen to Sen. Bill Nelson who said in his withdrawal of support for the legislation that his concern was that Santa Rosa County did not provide the same protections for the island that Escambia County did.

You are welcome to form your own opinion on Fee Simple legislation. I just hope you do it on the truth and not political posturing. The real bait and switch is that the fear of the word "privatize" may just cause us to miss an opportunity to protect those truly public places we all enjoy into perpetuity.

Grover Robinson is an Escambia County Commissioner.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum