When Do We as Public Officials Deserve Protection and Taxpayer-Funded Legal Defenses?

Under current precedent set in the Scott Miller v Doug Underhill case--it appears as if anything and everything we say (as elected officials) directed toward any citizen, constituent, or business entity in any venue and under any circumstance enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution no matter what---if any sort of a tenuous--even circuitous--line can be drawn between such statements and our official duties and responsibilities.  Even if what we say is untrue, libelous, and intended to intentionally inflict damage on the recipient. 

Wow.  That's powerful.  Absolute power.  

In fact--one attorney (a person for whom I have tremendous respect) intimately familiar with that ruling even said to me "Jeff, this is a win for you, too, as an elected official--extra protection for you from malicious prosecution."  He's not wrong about that.  

But in pondering it more--why do I need that if I am doing my job and not involved in nefarious conduct or purposely libeling, slandering, and proactively picking fights with citizens, unprovoked, online or in person?  Answer--I don't need it, I don't want it.  Never have.

If I'm minding my own business and you come up to me and punch me in the face unprovoked (which I'm certain some would love to do) and I subsequently put my knee through your skull in response--that's self-defense and 100% understandable.  If I'm minding my own business at a mall and someone much larger and stronger rushes at me and threatens to kill me with a wielded knife and I don't wait for what his devastating attack could do to me and instead I double tap him with my .380--that would more than likely be a stand your ground case in Florida (well, depending on what the attacker looked like it should be---- but might not be.......). 

 

But---if I get drunk one night and go to Wild Greg's downtown and start throwing punches at the door man because says he doesn't like my politics and says he disagrees with my votes--and in the process I get my ass kicked and draw a lawsuit----That's on me and I get what I deserve. 

Or try these disgusting, homophobic, purely fictional examples of lies (or worse) that could happen but should NEVER happen.  Imagine two PROMINENT area citizens-----one a businessman one an attorney-----who from time to time have worked for or with the county on issues, projects, or initiatives. (cue up the tenuous connection to county business...)  

So what if a commissioner (who really dislikes them because they financially supported an opponent--or for other real or perceived slights) goes online and makes statements that are UNTRUE and damaging about such individuals, gaslights them or worse---DOXES them, under the cover story that they are unworthy of working with county projects, by saying something like:

"That XXXXXXXXXXX guy is a charlitan, a cheat, a liar and even though hs is married he is actually a homosexual simply living in the closet"

"That XXXXXXXXXXXX guy is an alcoholic drunk who is screwing his secretary behind his wife's back while serving as a deacon in his church"

"That's Horrible!!"  "That's Outrageous!!"  "That could never happen!" some might naturally say--appaled at even the thought of an action so shameful targeting upstanding community leaders and citizens by an elected official.  

But it could, and under the current protocol such accusations (true or not) would never need to be adjudicated or ruled upon by a court as the commissioner could (falsely) claim it was within the "realm" of his public duties and served a public purpose of vetting partners who from time to time work with the county.  Then, poof, the allegation is gone because such an official has "Absolute Immunity"--

No, that's crazy.  We should never, no matter who we are, get away with lying about someone intentionally unprovoked and with malicious, reckless, nefarious intention.

So no, lying about people online proactively is not an official government function that deserves one cent of taxpayer money to defend.  Just like picking fights.  That's my unwavering position, period.

Here's when an elected official deserves a taxpayer funded defense, in my humble opinion only.

--Commissioner is accused of committing a crime associated with a decision he voted for related to the county

--Commissioner is accused of harming a business or individual due to a zoning vote he made

--Commissioner is accused of a crime based upon any vote the board upon which he sits lawfully made

--Commissioner is sued for something that he did that can be proved was specifically and completely a part of his official constitutional duty and role related to official duties.

--Commissioner defending himself, utilizing free speech, from a directed, litigation-based attack from the media or any special interest entity based upon specific votes, positions, opinions or actions such commissioner took DIRECTLY related to the performance of his official duties and specifically NOT a willful, malicious, reckless and directed tort action.

Period.

--Commissioner gets a DUI---HE PAYS

--Commissioner arrested for theft---HE PAYS

--Commissioner accused of/found guilty of a crime found to be not associated in any way with the necessary performance of his duties---HE PAYS

--Commissioner purposely, proactively and  intentionally libels, slanders, and/or attacks citizens with unfounded, unproven defamatory allegations---HE PAYS unless and until  he prevails.

This interesting post discusses the local case and also a similar case between a South Florida Mayor and Police Chief  in which the mayor prevailed in a defamation case brought against him for derogatory comments he made in a blog about a local police chief.  (in that case--the back and forth was between two public officials--mayor and police chief-- so the similarities are not identical--as public officials are much more susceptible to attacks than are average citizens and business interests--although I do not believe that nuanced distinction was used as a part of the decision in De Castro v. Stoddard.)

So the idea that absolute protection for elected officials for spoken/written allegations toward citizens and businesses-- libelous and slanderous-- directed toward anyone must be maintained in order not to have a "chilling effect" is one I disagree with vehemently.  But it is currently the law of the land, apparently.

Everyone knows free speech has limitations though:  You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, you cannot threaten the president, and attack speech on some religions (Ask Salmon Rushdie, Trey Parker and Matt Stone) has been officially verboten for decades as are the use of some specific, disgustingly racist words by caucasian people. (Unless their name is Andy Marlette [they, them, theirs]) 

And the list of off-limits speech continues to grow in our culture, like it or not. 

So here's the hypothetical for you:   Is it really accptable for me to provoke fights with, then subsequently intentionally lie about, a person or business to a point and with the intention that it damages them simply because I'm an elected official? Should the unprovoked bald-faced lies I tell about a business or individual never even be addressed or adjudicated for veracity before I am excused for this behavior by some immunity defense that trumps the truth and reality?

Think on that.

And on this:

"There is no public purpose served by protecting guilty officials from prosecution." 

 

Repayment of Public Official's Legal Fees: The Misconduct At Issue MUST be Ruled-Upon First

Both sides have compelling arguments, but only one side will ultimately prevail....

In the fascinating, ongoing legal saga of one (now former) County Commissioner's quest to have the public taxpayer foot his legal bills--two recently filed briefs drill down on the issue of the misconduct at the center of the matter specifically.

Both of these legal briefs have now been filed with the 1st District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee.  Both are exceptionally well-written, and both make several interesting yet diverging points and arguments about the appropriateness and the legality of the repayment.

After reading the pro-repayment filing--one might naturally assume it is completely appropriate for the taxpayers to repay the costs of the legal bills immediately.

But after reading the county's position on the matter and filing--the one lingering, intriguing point that stands out in bold to me is this:  Repayment of a Public Official's legal fees must not occur until the issue at the center of the matter, the misconduct which triggered the litigation initially, is decided by the court first--- and that the public official is exonerated.

And that has yet to happen.

The current case is unusual and odd in that the merits of the original conduct which triggered the lawsuit have never been addressed by the court.  It was never either proven to be valid, public part of a commissioner's necessary work nor was it disproven and deemed an intentional, willful malicious tort action instigated by a sitting member of the county commission outside the scope of his duties.

The trial court did not address the action nor the validity of the claim of defamation--but rather simply stated the conduct at issue was a part of the commissioner's duty and subsequently was silent and didn't speak specifically to the defamation claim by the area citizen in dismissing the case---- stating an elected official has broad, almost absolute  immunity from a defamation suit when and if he is/was acting in the public interest and within the scope of his job. 

On the other side of it--the other brief (county's side) wants the original conduct which drew the suit to be ruled upon first before public monies can/should be expended to pay for the public official's legal defense.  Because if the conduct at issue was malicious, reckless and an intentional tort--this would negate the obligation to pay for the legal costs as such behavior would not, could not be construed as an official acting in the public's interest and within the scope of his office.

So it is really interesting, and again------both briefs are compelling.

But the seminal question that must be answered has not been:  Was this defamation and libel?  Or was

Cold Weather Shelters in Escambia County: How'd it Go during the Recent Cold Snap?

So far as I've been told, there were no hypothermia deaths during the recent area cold weather event...

Leading up to the recent three-day, near record cold snap the area went through last weekend--there were naturally concerns about those less fortunate in our area.  Specifically, there were worries about vulnerable citizens and the unhoused who may not have been able to weather the storm.

So I asked questions about what our plan was.  I blogged about it too.  And I spoke with folks intimately familiar with the homeless community as well as county staff at EOC.

Obviously--we are not Buffalo, New York, where they saw an immense blizzard and snowstorm that covered their city with up to four feet of snow and where three dozen + of their citizens perished due to that historic cold weather event.  But we were going to be below freezing for multiple days in Escambia County-- so I was concerned.  I wasn't alone in my concern(s).

The county did not open any of our facilities for cold weather shelters.  

Nor did we pay any group or entity any tax dollars to shelter folks from the cold.  

We had neither a contract nor an MOU/MOA with any entity to house citizens from the cold--but rather a verbal agreement with existing shelters (Waterfront Rescue Mission and REAP Lodge/Max Well Respite Center) to house those who needed sheltering from the storm as the temperatures dipped below 40 degrees.

Having now spoken to several individuals who were out and about during the cold weather event, I'm told that, with a few small exceptions (one couple was turned away as they had been previously banned.  And they were subsequently housed at a hotel for three days at someone else's expense.  A woman and her two children were turned away from one shelter the day prior to the cold weather event as the temperature had not dropped enough to trigger the sheltering protocols--but subsequently admitted to the shelter the next day when it was below 40 degrees) the plan worked as envisioned.  So far as I've been told--no citizens have perished from hypothermia in this last cold snap.

According to an individual with intimate, firsthand knowledge;  "We did outreach and drove around checking on homeless populations and offered rides.  Most declined stating that they did not want to go to a shelter due to the need to look after their belongings that would have been left behind.  At the Max Well Center we ended up housing 8 additional women and two children above the folks aready there, and at Waterfront [rescue mission] we never got to the capacity of 200 --we were at about 150 citizens throughout tht event."

I'm glad we had an action plan, and thankful that no citizens perished.  I'm of the understanding that the protocol will be refined going forward to eliminate any snafus--but that also most who were a part of the entire evolution (on the ground, in the know) feel it went about as well as could be expected.

I-110 Ramp at Gregory Removal Pricetag @ $3+ Million: Is the Juice worth the Squeeze?

Should the offramp from I-110 south into Pensacola, which circles the Civic Center, be removed at a cost of over $3+Million Dollars to taxpayers?  Many find the offramp useful for easy access to the Bay Center when driving southbound into the city--while others believe that with the Grand Hotel closed and other ways (via the 9th ave. light from the existing eastbound offramp) to access the area--that the westbound offramp is redundant and unnecessary....

The looping exit/offramp which encircles the Pensacola Civic Center downtown and curves back to Gregory Street westbound (running just south of the Grand Hotel and north of the Civic Center) could possibly be removed.

Last March I signed and sent a letter, as chairman, on behalf of the BCC to FDOT.  The request was, specifically approved as a request  for FDOT to close this exit.

We have now received guidance back from FDOT in answer to this query from 9 months ago, and the closure request falls back on us to fund if we wish to proceed, apparently.

From the FDOT response:

"Chairman Bergosh, as a follow up to the attached letter, please see the below next steps needed to move forward with the potential closure/removal of I-110 ramp at Gregory Street.  I have also communicated the below next steps with Commissioner Bender as well.   

 During discussions at the November 1^st, 2022, District Interchange Review Committee (DIRC) Meeting, FHWA advised that there were no objections, at this time, to the closure and removal of the I-110 ramp at Gregory Street. However, FHWA advised that this would require more review and evaluation to fully understand the request and possibility of closure and removal.

The next steps for this would be as follows:

1. Attendance by the (requestor) - City or County representatives at the next DIRC meeting (March 9, 2023) to discuss the Methodology Letter of Understanding (MLOU). 
2. Development of the MLOU by (requestor) estimate: ($5,000-$8,000)
3. Review and approval of the MLOU by Central Office and FHWA
4. Development by the (requestor) of Interchange Access Request (IAR), documentation estimate: ($45,000-$75,000)
5. Review and approval of IAR documentation by Central Office and FHWA
6. Finalization of the IAR

Once approved the project can advance to design/construction phases to be funded by (requestor) - City or County.  

Construction estimates for removal of I-110 Ramp $3M+.  This estimate does not include Design.

 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

 

Sincerely,

 Mark Brock

Transportation Planning Manager

Florida Department of Transportation - District Three

1074 Highway 90

Chipley, FL 32428"

Neighborhood Cleanup Comes to Beulah

Join us in keeping our neighborhoods clean and safe! A neighborhood cleanup for residents in North Beulah will take place on Wednesday, Jan. 4. This is a chance for residents to dispose of items such as old furniture, appliances and household waste free of charge. Yard debris is eligible for removal during this cleanup. 

Only residents in the designated cleanup area can participate in the neighborhood cleanup. Please have all items for pickup at the curb by 7 a.m. on the day of the cleanup. Items left at the curb outside of the cleanup area will not be collected. 

If you live in the targeted area, you will have received a postcard in the mail with more information.

Items eligible for removal include:

• Household appliances and electronics
• Household junk and debris
• Bicycles and toys
• Old furniture and mattresses
• Barbecue grills
• Household hazardous waste (old paint, motor oil, chemicals, batteries)
• Tires (limit 10 per household)

Items NOT eligible for removal include:

• Building materials (concrete, bricks, blocks, roofing, drywall or lumber)
• Explosives or ammunition
• Auto parts
• Dirt or sod
• Vehicles or vessels
• 55-gallon drums of fluids

Not sure if your item is eligible? Contact Max Rogers, Development Program Manager, at 850-595-3499 or mprogers@myescambia.com for questions about the cleanup.

Since 2016, more than 5,469 tons (10,938,000 pounds) of waste have been disposed of through the Community Redevelopment Agency's Safe Neighborhood Program. During neighborhood cleanups, crew members and volunteers visit different neighborhoods in the county to remove a variety of debris and waste free of charge.

Learn more about neighborhood cleanups here. Follow Escambia County on Facebook and Twitter for updates about neighborhood cleanups and other community events.

COX Communications Not Bidding on Escambia's Broadband Re-Solicitation

 Late last week COX Communications sent the below letter to the county.  Late this afternoon, as the solicitation is now closed, staff has forwarded this letter and information to the commissioners.  

After filing a bid protest over the county's selection of EREC last month for the county's broadband  project,  and after the county decided to re-solicit the project and put it out for bid a second time--COX has now officially bowed-out and will not be bidding on this project.  

They (COX) gave their reasoning in their letter to the purchasing director --- which I am posting below.

On Real News with Rick Outzen later this Morning at 7:10

I'll be on 1370 WCOA this morning at 7:10 discussing the big events locally from last year.

I've been invited to appear later this morning on the area's #1, most listened-to and entertaining morning drive news program "Real News with Rick Outzen."  This WCOA morning show covers the news from the standpoint of hearing from the actual newsmakers directly--which is one of the reasons this show is so wildly successful.  Unlike other shows where one person gives his opinions on what he thinks is important--Rick's show solicits input and listens.  It is a great service to the area and the BEST source for local information.

I've been invited to appear to recap the last year in the County.

Lots to discuss and lots of positive, forward momentum going into 2023.

Listen live at 7:10 and once Rick publishes the podcast-I will link it here.

Perdido Key Roundabout: Answers from an Engineer to Questions, Concerns, and Opinions from Constituents

I've received a handful of complaints via email from some citizens who utilize the newly-constructed Perdido Key roundabout at Johnson's Beach Road and have expressed the following concerns:

"I work in Perdido Key and feel the new round a bout is unsafe.  Please look into it."

"That has got to be the worst constructed road improvement that I have seen done in Escambia County. I’d like to think that you and others in your position took the time to drive through this to see for yourselves how many lives may be effected by this. We have our snow bird that come down every year and some may have never seen or know how to maneuver a roundabout. It’s too tight for trucks with trailers, RV’s, tractor trailers. The lighting at night, or lack there of is just asking for accidents at night let alone those that will come during the day and we aren’t even in season. What happens then when thousands are using it this summer." 

"I drove through the roundabout and hit curbs, had bad anxiety, ect. It is definitely hazardous to all driving through it. Please do something about it and fast!"

"Round about REALLY!"

"Too narrow and too small. Dangerous! Unsafe. Redesign this, please."

"I am a citizen of Escambia county near Gulf Beach Hwy. I have family who lives on Inerarity Point, and I travel to Johnson’s Beach regularly. Getting straight to the point, I believe it would be in the county’s best interest to install lights IMMEDIATELY! I traveled the round about and I almost missed it because it was so dark!"

So I have asked our county's traffic engineer to provide an assessment of the roundabout (Like me, he inherited this and was not involved in design) to address the citizens' concerns--which he has now provided, below:

Concerning the points brought forward by citizens regarding the newly constructed roundabout at Perdido Key Drive and Johnson Beach Road, we offer the following:

1. "New street lighting is included in the project and is in process for installation to supplement the existing streetlight at the intersection.  Lighting will be installed in advance on Perdido Key Drive and at the circle to supplement what is already in place.  We have executed lighting agreements with Florida Power and Light (FPL) and are awaiting installation by their contractors.  Unfortunately, the timing of the storms in South Florida earlier this year has exacerbated delays in their scheduling.  We have new street light requests throughout the county this calendar year that are also delayed.  During construction, extra temporary lighting funded by the District One Commissioner was put in place due to the darkness around the Johnson Beach Road detour area.  That temporary lighting was removed upon completion of the circle and its opening to traffic.
2. Additional signage is in store for the roundabout.  There will be signs at each entrance to the circle notating the direction of travel and the exit locations with the full street name included.  These signs are quite large, generally 6ft tall by 10ft wide.  Because of the sign’s size and needed breakaway capabilities due to where they are installed, they require a robust support system that has a delayed delivery schedule.  The full street names on the signs are optional by standard, but we felt it important to be very specific with directions due to the number of tourists that visit the area during season.  Here are the proposed signs:

3. The channelizing islands and center truck apron will be a terra cotta colored herringbone stamped asphalt pattern.  This will help those areas to stand out to the motorist.
4. Three additional signs are on order for the interior of the circle that convey the requirement to go to the right within the circle.  These will be 30”x24” and will face incoming traffic to the circle.

5. The roundabout was designed by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida.  During the design process, a simulation program known as AutoTurn was used to test the ability of a truck/trailer to be able to navigate the circle.  These simulations showed the design vehicle could successfully navigate the circle.  It is important to note the center of the circle has a paved truck ramp to facilitate the runoff of trailer wheels.  This is very common practice in design and construction of roundabouts worldwide.  We have surveyed the constructed circle to find it is built according to the dimensions on the approved plans.
6. Roundabouts are not designed for high-speed maneuvers.  They are designed to a tighter, narrower size than the traffic circles of last century to keep traffic moving consistently, albeit slowly through an intersection.  The physical dimensions of the entrance/exit flares and the circle pavement width and diameter are such to require a slow speed movement.  The speed through a roundabout should never exceed 25 mph as indicated by the signage and pavement markings.  There is signage present 300 feet in advance that indicates the roundabout is ahead, signage indicating the speed approaching and within the circle is limited to 25 mph, signage indicating the direction of circulation within the circle, signage directing motorists to yield to traffic in the circle, and signage indicating the street names at the entrance/exit points of the circle.
7. Annually the County assists the National Park Service (NPS) by providing variable message boards at the intersection.  Park Rangers have the ability to turn the signs to face the motoring public to indicate with the park is full.  A more permanent solution is on the horizon as the NPS ordered message boards last year that will be installed in a more permanent fashion that they will be able to control regarding message and timing.  The County will be assisting the NPS this year with the installation and implementation.

          Chris Phillips, PE, CPM, County Transportation Engineer"

Life Threatening Cold Temperatures Coming--Where are Escambia's Cold Weather Shelters?

If your're down on your luck and unsheltered in Escambia County--where can you go to get out of this dangerous cold weather that is fast approaching?

I've been contacted by some individuals concerning the upcoming historically low temperatures and wind chills expected over the next several days.

Some are very concerned about those who are unsheltered.  I am too.

So with expected life-threatening cold temperatures coming beginning Thursday evening--where can someone go in Escambia County to escape these dangerous conditions overnight?

Some have suggested opening the Bay Center --however that seems like a long-shot although I have asked about it.

Meanwhile, I am told that citizens can call 2-1-1 to find a shelter.

I've also been told that The Alfred Washburn Center, the Waterfront Rescue Mission, and the Maxwell Respite Center of REAP will all be opening Thursday evening with expanded capacity to assist with providing cold weather shelters for the homeless.

However I'm hearing from some intimately familiar that "Maxwell is not taking anyone even though there's room for 50 more--and Alfred Washburn has no inside facilities, and Waterfront has recently refused a couple that didn't have the $10 cover charge.  I'm now also told by someone who knows that the Alfred Washburn Center will NOT be a shelter.

So I'm concerned when the temps hit the teens and the wind chills are in single digits in the next 72 hours--folks might be desperate.

I'm just worried folks won't know where to go because it was not mentioned in the county's press release yesterday.

Knowing what I know about the numbers of homeless individuals in the county (nobody knows and can tell me what the real count is)--I worry some will not know where to go.  I'm worried cold weather like this could result in death.

So later this morning I am going to speak with staff to see if we can't provide additional cold weather capacity with (some?) county facility.  Why can't we do this and work with Red Cross to staff it?

Now's the time to get ahead of this, before someone dies of hypothermia.

Napkin Man's Thoughts on the Children's Trust: It's Bull$#!%!

Napkin Man has once again stepped out of the shadows to give his opinions, anonymously, on a topic of interest to him.

He's sent it in to the County yesterday in a plain envelope.  He's forwarded his opinions on multiple topics over the last several years.

Napkin man uses salty language, which I black out.

If you can decipher his chicken-scratch, hyroglyphic cursive--which I have attempted to do---I think he is not well pleased about some of the organizations receiving funding from the Children's Trust.  And he apparently has some opinions about how organizations should be monitored post-award.  Or something like that I think.

Oh, and he didn't vote for it either, by the way.  For your reading pleasure, see below......Napkin Man!

78th Coffee with the Commissioner: Great Conversations about Schools and Improving Student Outcomes

 .

$14.2 Million Triumph Gulf Coast Ask for OLF-8 Wins Unanimous Approval

Escambia County is bringing home a huge award of over $14 Million in Oil Spill penalty money to create good jobs on our OLF-8 property.  Big win for our county and our citizens!

As the county moves toward developing the jobs-producing portions of OLF 8 --one of the biggest barriers (outside of some of the requirements and ambiguities of the site's Master Plan) that companies and potential developers have expressed is all about infrastructure.   Where will the roads be located?  Who is responsible for stormwater retention?  Will it be necessary on each parcel--or will there be a large, centralized storm pond for all commercial tennants to utilize?  What about sewer?  what about electrical service?  These are important questions that need to be answered before we can move jobs creating high-tech, clean tech manufacturing, distribution, and assembly companies onto this field.

Yesterday in Panama City a big part of the answer to that question was formalized.  John Singley and Studio 850 were there and covered the meeting.  Kudos to them for doing that.  

As a result of the county's request- we will receive $14.2 Million in BP oil spill monies to invest in a North-South connector road between 9-Mile Road and Frank Reeder Road---which will facilitate ingress/egress for the vehicles of potential jobs producing tenants on OLF-8.  The county will kick in an additional $3 Million in matching funds ---but will be reimbursed for this funding outlay once deals are reached with those who will develop sites on this field to produce jobs.

This was a giant, profound step forward.  Right now, there are two entities that have expressed significant interest in building 35-40 acre sites on the field for creating up to 250 jobs that will pay above our county's average salary.  A third entity is waiting in the wings.  Interesting to me that no residential interest has swooped in to develop the dozens of acres that provide for density of up to 60 units per acre under the OLF-8 Master Plan.  I'm told by staff and at least one residential developer that some of the provisions of the master plan are actually a hindrance to such developers coming in to build--which frankly is fine by me as I was the commissioner who was staunchly opposed to any residential being constructed on this field. (along with a majority of nearby residents that did not want residential and feel too much residential has been built in Beulah already.  So perhaps that is just serendipity.  Meanwhile, we WILL move forward with creating jobs and bringing home the Triumph money just as I campaigned on. (Read all about the history of this field here.  There's a LOT of history..)

But nothing--commercial or residential-- moves on that field until we can cogently explain what the road layout will actually look like and how the provision of utilities will be distributed around the field.  A large part of that question will be answered as a result of yesterday's meeting and unanimous vote to support OLF-8 and Escambia County.  Another big win for the county.

Much more to come on this in the months ahead.

Is Rent Control Coming? Here?

Could Rent Control happen here?

Some  states and many cities, municipalities, and counties worldwide have enacted laws, policies, and ordinances supporting the concept of price controls on residential rental units.  Ostensibly these policies are to allow for more affordable housing options for those citizens and families in areas of high rental costs and low housing availability.

Pensacola/Escambia County have significant poverty combined with a shortage of attainable housing units.

Is this something that could happen?  Is rent control coming here?

The concept of price controlled housing is generally panned by most private landowners, economists, apartment operators, and conservatives--while it is supported, generally speaking, by liberals, social science (and egghead) academics, and idealogues.

It's a concept that has failed just about everywhere it has been implemented.  Read about some of the epic failures and arguments against rent control here, here, and here.

But according to a recent report from the National Multifamily Housing Council--these policies will be moving again in the new year--and incredibly Florida is listed as a strong candidate for price controlled rent (not at the statewide level; state maintains preemption).  This is because at the local level Florida law specifically allows a municipality/county the option to implement rent control if a successful ballot initiative of the affected citizenry passes in such an area authorizing such price control.

I don't see it happening in Escambia County.  At least not for my vote and I doubt it would get three votes.  But how about in the city of Pensacola?  Perhaps?

I hope not:  because I philisophically disagree with the construct and I believe the market should dictate rental prices---not bureaucrats. Foisting draconian price terms and conditions on private market developers and apartment owners will stifle new investment and actually reduce the supply. And the quality of the housing that is available currently will deteriorate. 

That's what happens in real life---- not in imaginery, make-believe worldview aspirational economies. 

But I guess we will see what happens in the new year in the city.  Again, I don't see this happening in the county at all.

Read all about this topic and where it is gaining traction nationwide here.

Incorporation of Perdido?

The decision to incorporate a large swath of SW Escambia County will be up to the voters that live in that area.  It's their decision to make and my only advice to them is this: get informed, ask lots of questions, make a wise decsion, and watch your wallet!

There's been a buzz at the end of this past week about a nascent effort by a few folks to "incorporate" areas of the SW portion of Escambia County into a new City of “Perdido.”

Looking at the comments on the Studio 850 facebook site’s post after this article was published-- it appears as if many would be opposed to this.  Not that a few folks posting on facebook is scientific, though.

People have now asked my opinion about it; I've received a few emails from a handful of constituents.

I've spoken to state level lawmakers about this topic.

Yes, it's out there as an issue--but it is not the big issue.  The big issues are overdevelopment, traffic infrastructure, and stormwater.  These are the issues constituents come to me about consistently--particularly in the areas of D1 that are rapidly growing.  In fact, I had nearly 350 citizens of this very area at my two town halls in Perdido over the last year since this portion of the county reverted to D1 after the redistricting.

And I had lots of good questions from lots of citizens--more than 120 comment/question cards + verbal questions. Between the two meetings and out of all the questions (on overdevelopment, traffic, and stormwater) ----I only had one (1) question on this proposed idea of incorporation.

So, for my part, I let my own words speak for my thoughts on any incorporation, at 1:29:38 of my most recent town hall where I had the one and only question on this topic posed to me by one of the founders and staunchest supporters of incorporation (and former Doug Underhill planning board appointee) Tim Pyle.  And I gave him my answer, publicly.

Ultimately it will be a decision for those residents to make, those residents that live in this group's study area.  I represent a large portion of that area, and that will not change even if this effort is successful at some point down the line—as these areas will still be part of District 1 in Escambia County.  And as the only commissioner of five that has no part of his district within the footprint of an overlapping municipality--in many respects such an incorporation might make my job easier. 

But at the end of the day it is a question for these citizens-- as they will be the ones seeing higher property tax bills and perhaps even other added taxes, bond indebtedness, fees, surcharges, and cost increases to fund an overlapping Perdido municipality-- if this is ultimately approved.

Now, I'm told that 78% of folks recently surveyed "approved" of the plan.  Really?  I have some questions about who was asked and what question was asked--because a lot of the veracity of a poll's purported results depend upon whom was polled and precisely how such poll question(s) are asked.  Was it asked of all residents of the survey/study area?  Did it capture all income demographics?  Were owners and renters asked? Does this plan meet the requirments of 165.061 Florida Statutes? Does this study area even meet the density threshold necessary in state statutes? Did the poll's questions properly describe the fact that full county taxes, including all fire and school board millage rate taxes—plus library and sheriff MSTU’s, would still be collected post any incorporation and that new taxes would be needed to fund any new municipality's operations/personnel and overlapping services provided? (i.e., some who support incorporation may be of the mistaken belief that if they incorporate, they keep the current taxes assessed and collected of the property tax roll within their boundaries--which is not how this works.  Escambia County still would keep all the current revenue from the property within the footprint and any new incorporated municipality would have to raise EXTRA property tax and other revenue via property rate hikes and generated revenue from within their boundaries via increases in other taxes, sales taxes, fees, surcharges etc.----in order to fund their operations.  We [County] also keep all our property and roads and parks and facilities unless the new municipality purchases these and we agree to such purchases. In summary—it appears this would amount to a big, giant tax increase, not a net neutral proposition for current and future property owners and visitors.)  I'm sure there will be many "ah-ha" moments once those initially expressing support for this plan realize this financial implication/reality. Or maybe not?  Who knows?

Too many questions.

Meanwhile-- some proponents of this incorporation sound glib as they falsely claim on radio interviews

78th Coffee with the Commissioner this Wednesday--Talking Public Schools and the County with Kevin Adams

Join us this Wednesday, December 14th at 6:30 AM, for our 78th Coffee with the Commissioner event. We will hear updates on County Operations from County Administrator Wes Moreno, we will have Public Safety Updates from Director Eric Gilmore, and our special guest for the balance of the morning will be School Board Immediate past Chairman and District One representative Kevin Adams. We will discuss a lot of issues that the school board is working currently, including school choice, zoning, the issues at Warrington Middle School, enrollment challenges, community issues that drive low performance, teacher retention, the importance of parents and families to great school performance, generational poverty and it's impacts on education, and how the county and the school board can work together to improve the community and the schools. It will be a really good discussion that I am looking forward to having

We will start at 6:30 live on Facebook at www.facebook.com/CommissionerBergosh/ ----and as is always the case--residents are encouraged to participate and send questions to via the comment feature during the livestream or by sending questions in advance to district1@myescambia.com or by calling the D1 office at 850-595-4910.

Opioid Settlement Money to Start Flowing in Florida. Dribs and Drabs.....

While the U.S. is losing more than 100,000 citizens yearly to an overdose crisis--national media outlets all but ignore this reality in favor of covering seasonal storms, seasonal respiratory viruses, and a war in Europe.  Why?

Even though the national media ignores the opioid epidemic like it is nonexistent---the numbers tell the story.  In Florida and in Escambia County the damage and the carnage continues.  FDLE released the latest numbers (from 2021) which notch another tidy 10% increase in deaths from Fentanyl.  Some local TV News outlets cover this story of immense national significance--yet the national nightly media seem more fixated on the latest winter storm, the tragic, horrific (and as of yet) unsolved murder of four college students in Idaho, a war in Europe, Monkeypox, and seasonal respiratory illnesses that are common.

But they ignore 100,000 Americans dying every year from opioids!

Meanwhile--in the 1st judicial circuit alone (Escambia, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Okaloosa Counties)--there were nearly 300 deaths attributable to Opioid overdoses.  With Escambia being the population center of the district holding more than 50% of the district's citizens--it would not be a stretch to assume at least 50% of this number represents Escambia Citizens lost to this drug.  That is a huge number.  Imagine if Escambia County had 100 or more murders yearly?.  Locally, WEAR did a good piece in the leadoff 6:00 newscast last night.

Still--anemic, if any, national coverage.

It's quite perplexing.  

But it's really not. 

The national media doesn't want this covered because:  1.) they know the biggest culprit is China lab produced synthetic drugs pouring over the porous, broken southern border with Mexico.  They (media industrial complex) just don't want to acknowledge this for reasons that are obvious---- and highly political and partisan.  And #2.) is they don't want to offend their patrons......just watch the national news lately and you see where their bread is buttered: Big Pharma and every drug under the sun they are telling you that you need.  One commercial after the other. Ad nauseum Paying for their existence. (that and car manufacturers' ads....)

So, to summarize:  Broadcast companies get rich, pharmaceutical companies stay rich, Law firms get paid, and local communites lose 100,000 citizens, getting "table scrap" level payments with lots of strings attached over long periods of time.---------------- AND to even mention this and dig deep on this at the national level media outlets  remains verboten.  Check.  Got it!  👍

Meanwhile--as the massive and complex lawsuits and settlements with big pharma and drug manufacturers and distributors move along at pace-----the big law firms that are a part of this mass tort are about to get substantial windfall payouts----while Florida counties and municipalities will be receiving dribs and drabs of small dollar money (compared with their actual total yearly budgets) over the next decade or so, with this money highly controlled with stipulations and limitations negotiated that will severly curtail what local governments can actually spend this money on.

Locally, from this chart provided by County Attorney Alison Rogers yesterday afternoon, it appears as if Escambia County will be getting about $216K over the next two years, Santa Rosa $126.5K, and the city of Pensacola $70K.

Escambia's Opioid Funding Advisory Board will be providing recommended expenditures to the BCC for our consideration and eventual decision and direction.

See what every other county and municipality included within this litigation will be getting, here.

Hey--we'll take it.  We will take it and spend it doing something good to help supplement the massive taxpayer  resources we're already utilizing in this fight.  

stay tuned.

On 1370 WCOA's Real News with Rick Outzen Tomorrow Morning at 7:10

 

Rick Outzen, host of the Pensacola/Escambia County area's best, most trusted and popular morning drive news program "Real News with Rick Outzen" on 1370 WCOA-- has asked me to appear tomorrow morning at 7:10 as a guest on his show.

Rick has asked me on the show to discuss my latest blog posts on the COX bid protest and also the other post--- about how one citizen is costing the county and ordinary citizens hundreds of thousands of dollars with multiple identical and unsuccessful challenges to opt-outs from the county's very unpopular sector plan.

Interesting to me that the COX bid protest was picked up off of my blog by literally every local media outlet as I was the first to break that story.  They all ran that story with no attribution of where they got it but that is standard and I could really care less;  I put things on this blog that they all read and I only put things on here I want them to pick up and cover.

But the other story----the one that is more important in many respects--has been all but ignored  and has received no follow-on coverage by the local media.  This is perplexing as that blog post on this site is getting much more volume/comments/attention from the readers of this blog.  It is getting crushed.  It is a compelling story, how one citizen can weaponize a legitimate process to force property owners to spend tens of thousands of dollars even as every single such complaint this serial plaintiff has filed has been unsuccessful.

Perhaps this is because the citizen that is causing all of this consternation via this vexatious litigation is actually slated to win an award from CIVICON (PNJ) tomorrow.  What?!?This is emblematic of just how out of touch the PNJ is with what is really happening here in the county as they are rewarding a serial petitioner who has cost the taxpayers and ordinary citizens literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and expert witness fees over the last several years utilizing antagonistic, never winnable cut and paste complaints that have been rejected by DOAH multiple times over and over.  PNJ ignores this.  Just totally tone-deaf to what really is going on around here--that's the PNJ.

Anyway--hopefully we will have ample time to discuss both tomorrow morning on Rick's show.

I'm glad he's willing to entertain the discussion.  Once Rick publishes the podcast I will post it here.

COX Communications Files a Bid Protest on the BCC's Broadband Selection

Late yesterday afternoon COX Communications filed a formal bid protest regarding last Monday's decision by the board to move forward with EREC's proposal for phase one of the county's Broadband

construction in the north end of the county.

The nine page document from the Gunster Law Firm on behalf of COX lists multiple reasons why COX and Gunster believe the decision made Monday by board vote  should not only be walked back by the board, but that the Board should also, affirmatively and  unilaterally reverse course and AWARD the project to COX.

From the firm's letter of 11-30-2022:

"The County is obligated to provide Cox recourse following the County’s materially extensive RFP revision and arbitrary blackout suspension for only a select two of the shortlisted proposers. If the County persists in awarding EREC the RFP and fails to invoke the discretion the County’s Purchasing Ordinances provide, Cox will be unfairly and inequitably excluded from consideration despite having submitted a technically sound proposal covering the entire service area requested. Allowing such a deviation from standard procurement procedure to stand taints the entire RFP process the County has established.  Therefore, the City must uphold Cox’s protest and award it the contract pursuant to the RFP."

Much more to come on this.  I will publish the full document once the county attorney agrees with me that this is a public record which can be released.  I believe it is, but am awaiting her confirmation before I release it.

Read it, below

This Abuse of the System is Costing Ordinary Citizens and County Taxpayers HUNDREDS of Thousands of Dollars

At what point does a perennial loser in administrative hearings on the same topic costing hundreds of thousands of dollars get labeled a vexatious litigant and shut down?

Everyone in America understands we are a nation of laws, rules, and justice.  There are multiple avenues where citizens can challenge rulings, bring lawsuits, file protests and or petitions, and appeal the rulings and outcomes of such court cases. Federal, state, local, municipal and other jurisdictions have multiple venues where citizens can challenge practically every decision governments make.

Locally, many of our land use decision, when challenged, go to the Division of Administrative Hearings.

One serial petitioner is local citizen and activist Jacqueline Rogers.

She (Rogers) has filed multiple challenges to the opt-outs from the sector plan in District 5 allowed by BCC action and vote.  None of her previous attempts at preventing property owners from opting out have been successful.  This Monday, this same individual (Rogers) will be testifying at a hearing to be held here in Escambia County at the Fairfield Drive one stop location.  Yes, it is another challenge to another family's move to "opt-out" of the county's sector plan.  According to multiple lawyers and citizens with whom I have now spoken on this topic---it is the same arguments being put forth by Jacqueline Rogers as in her previous, unsuccessful attempts at stopping property owners from getting out of the overly onerous and costly provisions of the sector plan--some of the requirements of which (including the 50% rule) cost these property owners $Millions in valuation of their respective large parcels. 

It's simply a copy and paste job by her (Rogers) according to most observers with whom I have spoken.   A mimeograph of the same losing arguments, copied and pasted with names and addresses changed but containing the same losing arguments she has put forward numerous times previously.

Monday's hearing is the result of the fifth petition Rogers has submitted to DOAH specifically challenging opt outs.  Two other cases in 2018 related to future land  use designation categories that were related to former County Commissioner Wilson Robertson's case but they weren't specifically challenging opt out.  Because of consolidation of some of the cases, the actual number of opt out challenges including this one is seven, which include landowners Wilson Robertson, the Jolly Family, the Arnold Family, the First Baptist Church of Cottage Hill, Billy Campbell, and now this latest one involves a 90+ acre parcel owned by the Owen family.

The costs associated with defending these duplicate challenges over and over are becoming too burdensome and many feel these "copy and paste" job challenges are an abouse of the system.

According to one individual intimately familiar with whom I spoke  "This is costing citizens and the county taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend, all for this one citizen who appears to be obsessed with preventing opt outs--even as she has been unsuccessful over and over."

In Monday's hearing, the county will be asking the judge to allow the county to recover court costs and fees expended in defending this what will be the 7th similar/identical complaint from the same citizen who keeps losing.  Good, I hope the judge allows for this.

Meanwhile, I have asked the county attorney why we cannot petition the hearing officer to rule that this