Latest Headlines
- ECUA Considering Water, Sewer And Sanitation Rate Increases
- Highway 4, Highway 168 Bridges Across North Escambia Remain Closed. Here’s An Update.
- Two-Time Super Bowl Champ Inspires Local Youth Athletes (With Photo Gallery)
- Century Woman Charged With Meth Possession After Traffic Stop
- For Escambia, Alabama, Deputy Charge With Federal Civil Rights Violation
- FWC Law Enforcement Report: Snapper Size, Gopher Tortoises
- These Are This Week’s Road Construction Trouble Spots
- Drone Show Wows Sellout Crowd in 5-1 Wahoos Loss
- Costco Nine Mile Road Plans Set For Development Review Meeting
- Applications Still Open For Pine Beetle Assistance And Prevention Program
Wilson Robertson: Study Commission Denies Public Vote
March 19, 2010
It is disappointing that the County Commissioners, the City Council and the local delegation members are still being accused of denying the public a chance to vote on consolidation when, in fact, the Study Commission is responsible for the public not having a chance to vote on a consolidation plan. The Study Commission presented its draft consolidation plan to the County Commissioners and City Council approximately one week before the plan was due in final form to the local delegation. It was at that time that the County Commission as well as the City Council withdrew support for what was considered a “flawed” plan that had been drafted without enough time for public input.
The Study Commission had only seven months to complete their work, allowing no time for public input. It is important to note that of the 85 meetings the Study Commission conducted, only one was north of Nine Mile Road. There was no opportunity for public discussion about one of the most adverse elements in the document, which called for the potential of additional taxes in the unincorporated areas of the County under the heading of “Urbanized Service Areas”. Rick Outzen of the Independent News stated: “This document had no public input, none!”
The motions of both the County Commission and City Council are simply stated: “Delay the Vote until 2012 for more public input.” When the local delegation met at Pensacola Junior College for their vote on this issue, Representative Gregg Evers posed a compromise and only asked that the vote be delayed until 2011. This would have given one more year for public input and allow for possible changes to the plan prior to putting it on the ballot for a public vote.
When the Chairman of the Study Commission asked the members present if they would agree to continue their work another year they all said “no”. So who really denied the public a chance to vote on a plan for consolidation? In fact, the Study Commission voted to dissolve just three days after presenting the final document to the delegation, making it apparent they did not want any public participation. As Rick Outzen of the Independent News stated “this document had no public input, none!”
I do not believe, as one of our Commissioners recently stated, that any County Commissioner or any City Council member wanted to deny the public a chance to vote. I do not believe the public that we represent wants us to support a plan that has had no public participation, consists of forty-seven pages of legal jargon that many average voters would not read prior to voting, a plan that the Study Commission’s own experts stated would provide no tax savings and would most likely cause a need for a tax increase. The twenty-five members of the Study Commission worked hard and with good intentions, but by their own admission they did not have enough time.
Comments
2 Responses to “Wilson Robertson: Study Commission Denies Public Vote”
REGARDING:
“Nobody that I know ever wanted this study commission to begin with,”
Yep. Even though it is obvious SOME wanted it because it represented change and change is always good. or so they seem to say.
Interesting how these things start out: “We just want to study the question of whether it would be a good thing” and then it morphs into: “Well, the people wanted us to give them a proposal to vote on” and then it morphs into: “The people wanted it but the politicians wouldn’t let us have it.”
But I’m being cynical again. Maybe the idea was: “We were asked to look into the question and decided that it is unquestionably a good thing if it is done THIS way. Anything else is out of the question and if you didn’t like it, you should have gone to each meeting and said so.”
Personally, I think we can get by under most political systems but the idea that there was a mandate for change to this specific proposal seems ?????
David knowing there is much distrust
Nobody that I know ever wanted this study commission to begin with, so not having the masses vote on it is the only good thing to come out of this fiasco. Besides, it’s probably best for us that this did not go to a full public vote considering what the inept masses are capable of doing. Heck the country elected Obama who is now shoving the government take over of health care down our throats, and just think if these same voters can be swayed a little, we’d all have to pay for Pensacola’s boon doggles too, which is just what the backers of consolidation wanted. So be thankful that the public didn’t get to vote on consolidation!