|
| |
Venice on the web
A semi-regular column
Herald-Trib misses the airport, crashes into the trees
The newspaper's coverage of the FAA shade meeting transcripts
was filled with so many factual errors that it defies explanation
-- John Patten, 06/19/04
--
jpatten@veniceflorida.com
Got a comment?
Make
it here.
The Herald-Trib's
article on the FAA shade meetings that appeared in their June 19, 2004
edition was filled with factual errors, so many that I had to make a
chart.
This follows on the heels of another major faux-pas this
past week, when the H-T referred to area businesswoman Jean Trammel as
"Goliath," a politically incorrect statement (to put it mildly) that has had
many area business people fuming (It's
David vs. Goliath, June 16, 2004).
Here are the major goofs that appeared in the article:
| What the
Herald-Trib reported (quoted exactly) |
What really
happened |
| South
County's largest landowner offered to discuss an $80 million land swap last
year that would have moved the Venice Municipal Airport east of the city
limits. But Georgia developer Stan Thomas, who
proposed relocating the airport on his 26-square-mile Thomas Ranch
development, was rebuffed by a City Council unwilling to see the current
airport property transformed into high-priced beachfront condos. |
A twofer, right off the bat:
1.)
Only Councilman David Farley's statement that Stan Thomas made the offer is
on the record. Whether or not Thomas actually made the offer was never
independently confirmed by council or the Herald-Tribune. The only factual
thing that can be said is that Farley stated that Thomas had made some kind
of overture to discuss the potential land swap.
2.) Thus, council never "rebuffed" Thomas --
they never talked with him, nor has Thomas ever made any informal or formal
proposal to council about moving the airport. |
| In his nine
years on the City Council, Farley often brought up the idea of moving the
airport off the island, and even made it one of his campaign planks in 1997,
saying it would free up the land for private development and boost the
city's tax rolls in the process. His proposals
fell on deaf ears. |
Farley's off-topic proposal to move the airport did not "fall on deaf ears."
Mayor Dean Calamaras wasn't entirely thrilled with the idea, but that's
about as close to 'falling on deaf ears' as it came.
In the second shade meeting, Councilman John Moore
stated that if there was a time to get started on the preliminary negotiations
with Thomas, that
time is now: "Somebody mentioned that this
airport might be buyable or sellable. If there's
anybody out there, St. Joe or anybody with enough
money who wants to buy it, I think they better
come forward now before we start spending money on
it"
(transcript of February 11,
2003, pp. 20-25).
Farley agreed to pursue the negotiations during the second shade meeting and
that is the last mention of the proposed land swap for the rest of the
meetings (ibid, p. 25).
As far as can be determined, Farley, as
an investor in the Harbor Drive Development Corp., may still be pursuing options
to move the airport. |
| Farley's
idea was pushed aside by the other council members, who wanted to focus on
getting back in the FAA's good graces after three years of haggling over the
golf association lease. |
Again,
Farley's idea was not pushed aside. In the first shade meeting, City
Attorney Bob Anderson noted that moving the airport would not help in
resolving the problem at hand.
In the second shade meeting, Farley was encouraged to pursue
the idea and then the topic drops off of the radar screen for the rest of
the shade meetings (see above). |
| Council
members discussed the wisdom of sending Hunt to a meeting with FAA officials
in the nation's capital, and eventually voted against it, calling the city
manager a "lightning rod for the FAA," in the words of council member John
Moore. |
Another
twofer, this time in one sentence:
1.) Council members, including John Moore, nearly unanimously encouraged Hunt to go to
Washington. Hunt repeatedly declined. After much discussion and
encouragement from all, Hunt agreed to
rethink his position. Not one person tried to talk Hunt out of going, all who
spoke were in favor of his inclusion in the Washington contingency (transcript of April 8,
pp.16-19).
Although not in the transcripts, Hunt
eventually made the decision stay home. Later transcripts and city council
meetings note that the contingency that went to Washington did not include
Hunt.
2.) Council members did not "vote" on
anything during the shade meetings. A council vote is a formal process that
involves the city clerk taking a roll call and recording votes. Lori Stelzer,
the city clerk, did not attend the shade meetings and the transcripts do not
at any time record anything that could be loosely construed as a vote. |
| Elected city
officials discussed creative ways to refund the VGA after the group accepted
a rent increase from $160,000 to $180,000, including leasing some VGA
property to serve as parking for the dog park and lowering its water and
electricity bills. |
This
final paragraph in the H-T's story is almost a footnote. It's as though the
paper didn't understand the ramifications of what happened in the
final shade meeting. This IS the story folks: it's called a kickback.
Last I checked, it was highly illegal, but what do I know? |
My own gut feeling from being at the council
meetings was that council was setting Hunt up in a cheery way -- what they
really meant was "You got us into this mess, you can take the fall when it all
goes bad." Hunt, smelling the trap, backed off. It doesn't come across that way
from a plain reading of the transcripts, everybody appears to be cheering Hunt
on with a lot of sugary and very fake-sounding praise, but privately, many
members of council were very unhappy with Hunt for his handling of the FAA/VGA
affair at the time of these shade meetings.
-- JP
John Patten is the head of Web Operations for Creative Pages, and has worked in broadcasting for over 12 years. He
can also be incredibly rude at times.
|
