Editors' Note: Hollywood residents join the conversation initiated by Commissioner Furr in response to the Balance Sheet editors' post on ethics at city hall. The commissioner's letter and the Balance Sheet response, "Two Viewpoints: You Decide" are here. Residents' letters are posted below.
May 29-May 31, 2009
Editor,
There is a fundamental problem here in Hollywood: failure to recognize the difference between a paid lobbyist and a civic or neighborhood advocate. As President of one the largest civic associations in South Florida, I spend a considerable amount of time “advocating” for my neighborhood. I do not get paid for this advocating effort. I do so because I believe in certain issues related to our neighborhood and the City in general.
A lobbyist is a person, usually an attorney, who is paid by an outside company or organization to push through legislation or approval for a development project or contract that would benefit the company or organization. As I personally witnessed recently with the Block 55 downtown redevelopment project that was approved by the City Commission, the “advocating” efforts of myself and other concerned residents were no match for the highly paid lobbyists and marketers employed by the developer to win approval for this project. I estimated that the time spend by the Block 55 lobbyists and marketers was at least 15 to 20 times the amount of time that I and others spent advocating (at no cost) for our position.
Any thing that can be done to level this grossly unfair playing field would be welcome by a great many Hollywood residents.
Terry Cantrell
Dear Commissioner Furr and Balance Sheet Editors:
Thanks for your dialogue re: the Johnson St. Property. It sounds like you both want good information re: the subject before making decisions. I agree that opening it up to the public enables you to be able to hear many different points of view so that in the end the best decisions are made. Too many times in the past decisions have been made that do not benefit the community but have benefitted the interested parties. Open up the dialogue in the public setting for the benefit of all.
Dear Editor,
I am a longtime, since 1977, resident of Hollywood. This city is famous for corruption and being under the control of developers. Over the years, Hollywood has been poorly managed by its commissioners. How much is due to corruption and how much is due to incompetence is impossible to determine. I do not believe anything our commissioners tell us about the advantages of all the building that has taken place. I will only believe what I can see with my own eyes. I want to see on a real balance sheet the financial advantages that we have reaped through all the development. How have we benefited? Do we pay pay less taxes and get more services because of the increased taxes these projects are paying to us? Or are we getting higher taxes and less services despite all these building projects?
I believe that a "public office is a public trust." Our elected officials are supposed to serve us. We pay their salaries. Our elected officials serve at our pleasure. They have no divine right to their office. Their decisions should be made in the open and not based on secret consultations with those seeking to feed at the public trough. Our commissioners should be above reproach. However, I recognize that all people are human and can be persuaded to act contrary to the public good and for personal aggrandizement. So, we need some protection from our own elected officials. Why not a cone of silence? What does anyone have to fear about imposing it? I am suspicious of those who oppose such a mechanism. They seem to be saying they can't do a good job unless they have the right to have private meetings with those seeking public funds. Over the years, the commission hasn't done such a good job anyway.
Paul Klein
It is well known, and on the record, that Commissioner Furr has almost always voted on the side of lobbyists, who "control" development in the City since M Giulianti's tenure. It is shameful that after unseating her, the commission continues her policies in favor of developers and against the wishes of constituents and residents. It shows that elections are not the panacea predicated by the powers to be. Let's send those "corrupt" politicians packing.
Guillermo Cancio
I agree with Commissioner Furr.
Ken Crawford
Good Morning, After reading the Commissioners letter and your response, it seems that Mr. Furr is confused about what the Cone of Silence actually is. It is a confusing, negative-sounding concept. However, it protects the integrity of the bidding/idea process. I am not sure if there is a requirement to put the Cone into play once bidding/presentation of ideas starts, if not, there should be. Ethics Review Committee could look into this issue. I think each Commissioner who voted to keep lobbyists and/or developers from having to present their ideas in an open forum, should have to explain to the public how the public benefits from such secrecy.
June Clarkson
I didn't realize that Beam had widespread influence with notable developers.
Mel Pollak
The decision by "the majority" of Hollywood's commission to delay a "cone of silence" policy puts all future decisions they make under a microscope. Their refusal to acknowledge the public's perception of lobbying influence demonstrates that they are out of touch with the electorate, or they simply don't understand the concept of public perception and undermining political office, albeit, they were either elected or re-elected by a small percentage of that electorate.
Further comments by dissenting commissioners, as published in the Balance Sheet, brings to light the indifference the commissioners have towards ethical legislating. Lobbyists are lobbyists for one simple reason - to get from the elected official what their client wants. They are paid to do it, they solicit campaign funds from their clients, and they subsequently have easy access to these officials. All of the reasons provided by the dissenting commissioners fail to pass even the most liberal of litmus tests. I find it almost impossible to fathom their inability to recognize the possibility they are giving the public the wrong signal by doing business as usual, especially after some campaigned on just this kind of change.
The Balance Sheet story says it all, a majority of the commission is following in the footsteps of the former administration, demonstrating arrogance of power, and still bowing to the wishes of special interests.
Steve Welsch
Once again I read the Balance Sheet and sit quietly shaking my head in despair. Although Hollywood's citizens took the first step in changing the politics as usual in Hollywood by electing new voices to the positions of mayor and commissioner, we have not done enough. Obviously one more vote is needed to rip this City commission from the grip of the lobbyists and developers and give the citizens of Hollywood true representation.
While people may think that the "cone of silence" on the Johnson Street project is no big deal or only a little issue, it is endemic of the symptomatic problem with the way our commission runs. The lobbyists and developers get the first crack at our elected officials and only after they have spread their influence and (mis)information does the average citizen get to voice an opinion.
Even when the new assistant city manager recommends that a two phase process START with input from the Citizens of Hollywood, our four commissioners decide they must first hear from the lobbyists so they have the "correct" information. I expect nothing less from my past opponent and current district commissioner, she at least is being consistent with her campaign. She accepted almost all of her campaign money from lobbyists and developers and promised them she would concentrate on their priorities in return; she is doing so and District 6 should expect nothing less.
District One however is a major disappointment. I consider myself a personal friend of Patty and thought she would bring a welcome change to the commission. On each development issue however, she has consistently sided with the developers despite the wishes of her district members and her campaign promises. While her votes are completely consistent with her position as a real estate agent, they are inconsistent with her campaign positions. But alas, not the first politician to run on one platform and legislate from a different one.
I applaud Dick, Peter and Heidi but offer them a large bag of ice so each of them can apply it to their heads; serving on this commission must certainly feel like they are doing nothing but banging their heads against a wall. Despite the frustration, I sincerely hope they each keep fighting the good fight. Hopefully, the voting citizens of Hollywood will eventually help them out by voting for a true change next election, and remove the wall of lobbyists and developers that separates us citizens from our elected commissioners. Until then, we must all keep up the pressure on the voting block of four commissioners that seem to think their allegiance is to the lobbyists and developers. Let them know, we are watching and we are not happy.
Edward F. Holodak
Commissioner Furr, I know you understand the difference between paid lobbyists and citizen/resident volunteers who are not lobbyists, but activists in the best tradition of our founders.
The Legislature has recognized this difference for some time, and those who are unpaid, most of whom represent either themselves, not-for-profit or other organizations as volunteers do not have to register as lobbyists.
It is unseemly (an understatement) for you to make such an argument to justify your vote against a proposal that would go a long way to begin to build long-lost trust between the Commission majority and the taxpayers of Hollywood.
Charlotte Greenbarg
