Dale Martin
City Manager
Fernandina Beach
January 13, 2017 1:00 a.m.
The City Commission Special Meeting conducted earlier this week should be considered a success. It was a demonstration of citizen-government interaction. I hope that residents continue to retain their interest and passion in local government.
Let me first address apparent key misconceptions related to the meeting: the members of the City Commission neither conceived the concept offered by the Florida Department of Transportation nor did any member of the City Commission express support for the concept.
The City Commission provided direction and support for the re-opening of Alachua Street- as have previous City Commissions for several decades. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) officials, who have demonstrated longstanding support for the City’s rationale to re-open Alachua Street, but who simultaneously consider the needs and concerns of the railroad, offered the concept of opening Alachua Street/closing Centre Street to the City in late October and essentially said, “What do you think about this?”
The members of the City Commission decided to have their first discussion on the subject at the Commission’s annual visioning workshop in December. An FDOT official provided a summary of the concept and shared safety concerns. Those safety concerns were primarily related to the inadequate signalization (as required by state and federal regulations) of the existing crossings at Centre and Ash Streets.
The City Commissioners then decided to host two special meetings for the purpose of soliciting public comment regarding the FDOT concept. The Commissioners were under no obligation or requirement to conduct such meetings, but they indicated that they wanted to gather information, including public comments, to ensure that any decision was supported by complete and accurate information and in the best interests of the community. In other words, the City Commission was doing its job.
And, in response, the general public did its job by turning out to offer comment. It is at City Commission meetings that those comments must be delivered to be effective- not Facebook, not Twitter, not any other form of social media. How many social media sites or accounts would have to be monitored or followed- probably dozens, which is impractical. That is why attendance and participation at City Commission meetings is critical- it is the commonly most accessible forum for every resident. City Commission meetings and associated agendas are prominently posted, and the meetings themselves conducted at a time to best ensure public participation (evening hours instead of morning or afternoon).
Given that perspective, that is why my assessment of Tuesday’s meeting was a success. The City Commission did its part by seeking guidance from constituents, and the constituents provided that guidance. The number of public in attendance was also meaningful. On occasion, a small number of speakers before the City Commission often articulate their views as representative of the entire community. It is a measure of the City Commission’s political acumen to determine the true level of community representation- and sheer numbers (as represented Tuesday evening) are a “force multiplier.” Consider that less than thirty residents actually spoke, but their message was further shared with the Commissioners by the presence of so many others. That is how representative government is supposed to work.
The challenge with local government, however, is that we are all neighbors. Unlike the federal or state government, local government actions are inherently more personal. In these circumstances, sometimes the procedures and rules to maintain respect and decorum are strained. It is the specific role of the Mayor to administer the meetings of the City Commission.
The meeting had an adversarial tension- as if one side was going to win and the other side was going to lose. As stated at the outset of the meeting, no decision was to be made- the status quo (Alachua Street closed/Centre Street open) was not going to change. It was an informational meeting for which the City Commission was solely soliciting information: no winners, no losers, just better informed Commissioners and residents. And I believe that was achieved.
It is exactly that type of meeting that makes a career in local government so exciting, challenging, and rewarding.
Dale – you are correct, the role of the government is to hear from the citizens. Unfortunately as I watched the meeting the Mayor and others seemed to raise the tension and clearly they have their personal views. It should be that the those who have taken time to come, express their views should be given ample time to be heard and proper care should be taken to understand they are angry with what appears to be the emerging “group think” process at city hall. Many no longer come to these meetings because the “decision has already been made” mentality. The Mayor sets the tone for the meetings and leads the focus of the commission. My view as a business person is there are many more pressing issues in our city that require the focus of our commission other than this failed discussion.
I have a slightly different perspective than Doug’s. Citizens that wished to speak were given an opportunity to do so within the constraints of the long standing 3-minute time limit. At the time for the Commissioner’s to speak, three of the Commissioners provided clear indications that the closure of Centre was not negotiable. That should have been enough to lessen any tension in the room. Many in the audience showed a lack of respect and civility for the Mayor and the overall process when she offered her perspective. While I understand the opposition to her perspective, she and the other commissioners listened to the citizen’s remarks with respect and civility and deserved that when they made their comments. The Mayor had it right when she remarked after being interrupted a number of times that “the teacher is coming out”. Unfortunately, it seemed that some in the audience were acting like 5 year olds rather than responsible adults. Opposing views should be heard out with the same level of civility as supporting views. A failure to admonish those that don’t respect their fellow citizen only makes it more difficult for others to come forward and publicly offer alternate perspectives knowing they may be subjected to such treatment.
Since I was at the meeting, I will state that Commissioner Lentz did support the concept of closing Centre St. to open Alachua St. And Commissioner Poynter did not vote against closing Centre St. To say that no commissioner supported the concept, might be a stretch. Definitive answers of “no” came from Kreger, Smith, and Miller. And any public official who thinks he or she can ignore social media may regret that decision. The Democrats used it to win the election for Obama. The President-Elect used it to win the national election this year.
The problem is this is piecemeal. Of course everyone would freak out when all that is being discussed is closing one block of centre street? It should have been presented as a comprehensive solution with renderings so people could visually see what they were rallying for or against. What if the trade off was improvement of traffic circulation in the entire area, more parking closer to those business from second to front street and a pedestrian walking area with outdoor seating, a small stage for things like sounds on centre, beautiful landscaping, etc? That sounds much more appealing. Part of politics is knowing how to sell something. Of course this would fail because it’s only negative. The public should have been presented with a full vision, not a half thought. This meeting was a missed opportunity.
Allan, the overall presentation you call for will come from the review by the waterfront consultant who will incorporate all these issues including the possibility of a pedestrian mall. The closure of Centre Street was not an idea put forth by the City Commission but was a response by FDOT and the RR. Railroads hate crossings but to all of a sudden label the Centre St. crossing as a major safety hazard is a red herring. Over the years in the discussion with the City the FDOT has always played the if you open a new one, you have to close one or two existing ones. The fact that the Alachua crossing is not a “new” one but one that previously existed should carry a great deal of weight. I think the Commissioners, City staff and citizens were all blind-sided by the suggestion.
I am hoping the waterfront consultant work will end up advocating the existing waterfront plan that was developed over the years and making the tweeks required to incorporate the aspects that have changed over the years. Things will always be changing in the City as the downtown, and especially the waterfront, continue its development but to go back to the drawing board each time is a waste of taxpayer money and a lack of value placed on the thousands of hours of community input that went into the current plan.
Exactly the point! This meeting should’ve been tabled until it could have been presented in conjunction with the other pieces. It’s gone on this long, surely the state or railroad didn’t need this meeting to happen now? Now all it’s done is send everyone to their respective corners. The distrust built from this will ultimately make selling the idea of waterfront redevelopment harder for the city.
Sorry Allan, but the proposal from the FDOT & RR came out of the blue to the City. I think the City Commission was smart to hold the meeting to get citizen’s input about the proposed closing since it had created such an outroar. The citizens and majority of the Commission spoke loudly so the City and plan developer doesn’t need to consider a plan that closes Centre. Now the plan does need to factor in an option for Alachua being open, but everyone (I think) that the Alachua crossing (like Ash Street) is a secondary opening.
Regardless of how it is presented and discussed, as Tony C notes, all citizens and officials should be treated in a respectful and civil manner during such discussions.
It was embarrassing to watch the meeting last Tuesday. The meeting was held by the Commissioners to let us know what this issue was about. It was held for our benefit. Much of the information presented by the public reflected false information that has been posted on social media. The Commission allowed each speaker the allotted amount of time to present their views. Most did it in a respectful manor, but there were those that came up to speak, who were both rude and demanding. At the end of the meeting when the Mayor was speaking she was heckled and shouted at by some in attendance. I have been to Commission meetings going on 18 years and have never seen behavior such as this. Is this the new norm we can expect with the public? Has this past election cycle taught us that behavior such as this is OK? These Commissioners are our neighbors, and our friends, and we voted them in. I don’t, and I am sure you don’t agree with them on each issue. We as a community do however have a responsibility to treat them in a more respectful manor.
As a Capricorn I hate change BUT…sometimes it’s good. Many small “touristy” towns have successfully incorporated walking areas in their downtown plans. Almost all have greatly benefitted shops and restaurants while adding greatly to the visitors’ experience. I say keep an open mind! Think what it did for Aspen! There are pluses here. Less pollution, less traffic law enforcement, fewer fender benders, more park benches, street side gardens, window shoppers, strollers, munchers and quiet enjoyment!
If it so important to open Alachua, why no go back to the FDOT and see if it’s possible to have both center street and Alachua open?
Who remembers the reasoning behind closing the crossing at Alachua during the ’80s There has been a mention of Utilities work being done in the Area of the crossing, and then never being opened again.? Anybody have that piece of the puzzle.?
Steven, I would suspect that either Rex Lester (Streets) or John Mandrick (Utilities) would have the facts. My understanding (all repeated stories) is that they closed the Alachua crossing to do some utility work and expected to subsequent do some drainage work, but the work kept being postponed and then it was decided a major drainage project was needed so nothing ever got done to reopen the crossing. Again, just some stories I have heard over the years and have no hard facts as to whether they are correct or not.