Sticks of Fire: a Tampa blog

Our County Commission also serves as our Environmental Protection Commission (EPC)—a system that has come into question recently since most of our commissioners are not inclined toward Environmental Protection. City Councilwoman Mary Mulhern is proposing we reform the EPC, giving seats to all three cities as well as the county.

Let’s don’t forget: not only did our BOCC/EPC recently vote 4-3 to eliminate our local wetlands protections, only to have to back down in the face of massive public outrage; but before that, last spring they refused (in a 5-2 vote) to oppose state legislation that would have eliminated our local wetlands protections. That legislation fizzled after Governor Crist promised to veto it. Notably, the Tampa City Council voted unanimously to do exactly what the County Commission refused to do: write a letter defending the EPC against the proposed legislation that would have eliminated local wetlands protections across the state. Both Tampa & Temple Terrace unanimously opposed the county’s effort to eliminate the EPC wetlands division.

Mulhern’s proposal would change the EPC board’s composition from the seven county commissioners to: 5 of the seven commissioners, 2 Tampa City Council members, 1 Temple Terrace council member and 1 Plant City council member. The Tampa City Council and the Temple Terrace City Council have both voted unanimously to ask the state legislature to give them these EPC seats.

Oddly, Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio doesn’t want Tampa to have seats at that table:

“I don’t believe the composition of the EPC board needs changing,” Iorio said. “I understand the concern over the wetland issue, but you don’t change the composition of a board because you disagree with the board on an issue,” she said. “Voters will decide who sits on the EPC board at election time.”

Odder still, the county commissioners seem willing to share the power of the EPC with the cities. Of course, there’s a catch: commissioners say ALL local boards should be changed to reflect the greater population of the unincorporated county compared to the cities. Hillsborough commissioners had lobbied the state last year to change the balance of power on the Tampa Sports Authority and the Planning Commission to give the county greater power. That proposal failed to launch last year because of widespread concern that giving greater weight to the county would give special interests greater leverage on those boards.

There is an important distinction between the two proposals: the city councilwoman wants to give cities representation on a board where they now have none, while the commissioners want to overpower boards where they already enjoy representation.

Last Wednesday, the county commission voted unanimously to request legislation that would change ALL local boards to base the representation on population. That would include the EPC and the Planning Commission. You can read their brief discussion, and hear WMNF’s interviews of Mary Mulhern and several commissioners after the vote.

Recently, Tommy made a similar point to Mayor Pam’s with regard to two other proposals to change two other systems, saying the real solution is to elect good leaders. Boy, do we ever need to elect good leaders! Still, I think that in the case of the EPC, recent events illuminate a basic flaw in this system. With only one board in charge, it is easier for special interests to exert undue influence. I have seen good and bad county commissions and city councils, but rarely are they all bad in the same way, at the same time. Adding political diversity to this board would make it much less likely that all the representatives could be manipulated by the same forces at the same time, affecting the natural resources that belong to the county and its cities.

I intend to ask our legislative delegation to broaden the representation on our EPC, but leave the other boards alone. I encourage you to let your legislators know what you think, too.

What’s all this talk about VP of Student Affairs Jennifer Meningall and the mismanagement of funds? Apparently no one knows, which is why students held a sit-in last Tuesday to get some answers. I didn’t attend due to class but the Oracle had covered it in its last two issues.

The story is that former senior associate VP of student affairs James Dragna had emailed about 80 people, including President Genshaft, with an outline of accusations including VP Meningall’s mismanagement of funds, unethical behavior, appointing friends to positions, and hostility toward employees. What went down at the sit-in was that no one from administration showed up, even though the sit-in had been pre-determined and administration alerted.

This confusion just goes to show how obscure everything is. To the administration: why not just address the student body and set the record straight? This is relevant information that we students are interested to know about. That’s partly our money, is it not, that’s supposedly being mismanaged? In regards to the lack of funds being given to the University Police (one of the key topics at the sit-in), today’s editorial in the Oracle reminds us that this is a present danger for every USF affiliate on campus. Think of Virginia Tech. Now how scary is it that the policy staff can barely handle everyday crime? What is it, 4 officers are currently employed?

If anyone knows anything about what’s going on, let me know. I, like all the students I’ve encountered are only going off rumors and have only the Oracle to keep me informed.

Wayne Garcia says letting the market decide newspapers’ coverage is a slippery slope:

… journalism, real trained reporters and editors seeking out the truths that democracy needs to remain alive, isn’t — or at least shouldn’t — be treated like any other commodity, like a can of beans on the shelf. We’re the only commodity with a constitutional protection, and that little benefit carries with it some responsibilities that transcend the marketplace responsibilities.

If you find the subject interesting, I encourage you to read the whole bit - ‘The Customer Is In Control’.

Editor’s note: Tampa Tribune Executive Editor Janet Coats wrote a commentary entitled Journalism On Brink Of New, Exciting Era. Before I published (but after I wrote) my ensuing diatribe, I sent Janet an email asking a bunch of questions. This below is what I gathered from the email exchange. This is the second of two parts.

After reading Janet Coats’ commentary, I wanted to hear more of her thoughts on how journalism, and Media General is (or should be) reacting to these changes, so I sent an email asking about a million questions. Janet was gracious enough to take some of her valuable time to give long, thoughtful answers. And then I asked even more questions. I’ve highlighted some of her thoughts here, but we have posted the entire unedited interview with Tampa Tribune Executive Editor Janet Coats.

In it, she says the print media should quit trying to impose their traditional conventions on a digital world, and realize (and utilize) the advantages of the internet, such as interactivity and immediacy.

Immediacy is being addressed in part by TBO’s Continuous News Desk. This initiative allows journalists to build stories online as they happen, and add details as they get them. Because of this, reporters are getting more feedback from both in house and from readers. Writing this way gives editors the ability to watch stories being built in real time. They can ask questions and focus on the direction of each article. Similar to “thinking the story out loud,” the end result is better for both the print as well as the online versions.

The interactivity part is slower in coming along.

Although journalists have always tried to help disparate readers see the impact of any given story, Janet says editors and publishers have never been good at understanding their audience. But they are trying.

Readership metrics have traditionally been shared with editors only, but the Tampa Tribune has begun sharing that information with the entire staff.

Likewise, the community web sites like brandon.tbo.com are beginning to see more interaction between reporters in the bureau offices and readers who want to submit their own content. Some journalists have embraced these ideas, and in turn they have created powerful work.

In fact, a recent story about contracts between the state and convicted sex offenders came about directly because of comments left by readers on a previous story about a sex offender’s release.

Still, they haven’t been as vigilant about connecting reporters to readers as they should be.

Because individual readers are so disparate, the current economic model of media makes it difficult to justify the required commitment of time and resources it takes to look at stories from every possible angle. It’s about using editorial judgment and resources wisely, and Janet believes local, community news coverage, as well as explanatory and investigative journalism deserve more attention in print, while day-to-day topics (such as reports about specific crimes) get less print attention.

But that inter-connection doesn’t flow simply between reporters and readers anymore. Competitors as well as independent websites all chime in on a given subject, and in the interest in uncovering the entire story, this makes for some very murky waters.

Independent bloggers are additional eyes and ears in the community and are able to delve deeper than journalists on topics they are passionate about. They add value to the community conversation and enrich those who make a living through journalism. But should they be acknowledged for it?

Janet says when those bloggers contribute substantial factual data that forms the heart of a story (genuine reporting), journalists should acknowledge that work. If another website (even a competitor) adds value or context for readers, journalists should also include a hyperlink. But there is some editorial judgment to be made, too.

If another site simply generates a story idea, or suggests a follow up, or even a tip that needs deeper reporting, then acknowledgment is less necessary. But as readers, bloggers, and traditional media come closer together, the idea of recognition is evolving as well.

An equally muddied picture surrounds journalists’ opinions and their participation in online conversation. There is commentary and analysis all over journalism, and to a certain extent the distinctions have to do with the subject matter (think sports page). But there is a promise to readers about credibility. As a result of searching for fact, and observing and collecting informed comment from other voices, journalists put that together in a format intended to enlighten and to let the reader decide.

None of this precludes journalists from participating in conversation. Janet suggests that reporters can connect very nicely by listening, by offering comments that spring from observable fact, by being informative rather than opinionated. Journalism is better if reporters participate primarily as listeners instead of as speakers.

(again, we have posted the entire unedited interview, if you want to see more)
*****************

So you can see that the Tribune and TBO are beginning to utilize the conversational aspects of the internet. But with some local newspaper reporters fired for comments on websites, some being let go because of the “current economic model,” and the sometimes hair-splitting distinction between “opinion” and “observant commentary,” you can see why individual journalists are hesitant to join any sort of documented conversation.

Still, I wish more reporters would feel comfortable adding their own social commentary. It would give journalists the opportunity to connect with their readers, and allow them to stress the importance of some of their work.

Editor’s note: As you might have guessed, I find the future of journalism and media in this brave, new, online world very interesting. Tampa Tribune Executive Editor Janet Coats wrote a commentary piece about it that caught my attention. After I wrote this piece below (but before publishing), I emailed her to ask her a bunch of questions related to her commentary. I wasn’t sure if I would get an answer, but Janet was very gracious with her valuable time, and provided detailed answers to some overly detailed queries. The summary (and detail!) of that exchange will be posted here very soon. Yeah - all that is a long way to say that this is the first of two parts.

A couple of weeks ago, the Tampa Tribune’s Sunday editorial page was packed with a handful of columns about how news media is changing. Executive Editor Janet Coats wrote the main piece, which was surrounded by Trib’s Community Columnists’ essays describing how they find their news. Most of the amateur writers vigorously defended newspapers, and touted the virtues of reading news accounts on the printed page. But Janet herself realizes that those folks were given the wrong assignment: Journalism
On Brink Of New, Exciting Era

I think we’re pondering the wrong question when we obsess over the future of the printed page. The question we should consider, I think, is whether journalism will survive.

and reminds readers that

journalism is not about the package it appears in. It is about the ethical values journalists live by in their collection of the day’s news.

Janet gets to the real issue, and rightly starts with The Journalist’s Creed, specifically referring to the part about their responsiblity to the public:

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.

And then she suggests that many journalists no longer believe in this role, simply because of changing technologies.

My belief in that principle once would have been universally held by journalists — that serving the public trust is our role, and that it is a role society values.

There are many inside this industry who doubt that. Their doubts are linked to the challenges print journalism faces, their worries about what journalism looks like in an online world.

That’s a cop-out. Over the years, newspapers have tried to be all things to all people (maximize profits), thereby demanding that journalists and editors pander to the lowest common denominator. There is no other explanation for non-news content such as the crossword puzzle, comic strips, and the kids page, as well as pseudo-news like celebrity pages and Dear Abby.

Janet goes on to say the biggest change is that regular folks like you and I want to constantly question, create, edit, and correct the stories we are being told - and journalists need to embrace this new reality. But she forgets that we cannot lump everyone into a single group.

… our task is translating those values online — and keeping them relevant to an audience that will take bits and pieces of our content and meld it, shape it, comment on it to create something altogether different from what the reporter started with.

No no no. There is no “audience.” We all live in the same general geographical area, but we all have different backgrounds, ideals, neighborhoods, financial stature, ages, experiences, and situations. Because of this, the news affects us each in different ways. We are not “creating something different.” We are building upon your reporters’ initial findings, adding facts and divergent opinions in an effort to get to the real meaning of the news, and how that news is important to us both individually, and as members of some smaller group (racial minorities, women, young people, the poor, etc.). We are having a discussion, a conversation.

The key to journalism’s future, I think, lies in finding the right blends of “professionally” produced news with content that comes from non-journalists.

The key to journalism’s future is the same as the key to its past - find the ultimate truth, and explain how it affects us. The newspapers’ futures lies in how they HELP those smaller subsets (us) determine how that same truth affects each of us - and there is no single answer for 500,000 different readers.

Unfortunately, the word “conversation” is in the piece just once, and mentioned in passing in the wrapup.

By combining the watchdog reporting we’ve practiced so long in print with an online world where true conversation is possible, where the focus can be both outward and inward, we have the best chance ever to create the successful journalism Williams wrote about. It is the power of both — professional journalism practiced ethically and citizen journalism practiced responsibly — that can create a journalism that really does make a community better.

Watchdog reporting is among the best things newspapers do. And ethical journalism is a must. But if these media companies want to create successful journalism, not only should they practice their trade where conversation is possible, but they should encourage AND ENGAGE in the discussion. That will make a community better.

By the way, if you read Janet’s article online, you will notice that there is no direct way to comment on her commentary, and her email address is not easily located online. However, I did reach her through email, and asked her about some of these things.

The results of that email exchange will be posted shortly.

It seems like we just went through this with West Virginia, the eyes of the sports world are on USF in their game against Big East rival Rutgers. Except the tables have been reversed and now the Bulls are the road favorite, which is always a dangerous position to be in.

• Tampa-based blogger oiler, writing for the Sports Frog has run an excellent three part series on USF in anticipation of tonight’s game. Part I takes a look at the (brief) history of the football program, Part II examines this year’s team, and Part III breaks down tonight’s game. I have not seen anyone take a more extensive look at USF than oiler has accomplished.

• Bulls defensive end and likely first round pick George Selvie gets some love from SI.com. Oddly enough the defensive end was talented enough to play running back but wanted to play center because, “On [the] offensive line, you get to give hits.”

• While not specifically about USF, BravesNBirds makes a convincing argument against the parity excuse college pundits have been rushing to use to explain this oddball season. In the words of Forrest Gump, sometimes shit happens.

• Jim Leavitt on the Bulls, “Look, our program is barely 10 years old—we’re the type of team that goes out there and tries hard, maybe gets a few points on a ranked team here or there. We don’t contend for national titles.” [PSYCH]

• And finally a little extra motivation to beat Rutgers, a video of the Scarlet Knights celebration in Raymond James last season after they beat the Bulls.

• The Bulls Report, TBO.com’s USF blog, predicts a 27-14 win for the boys in green and gold.

• As if you needed any EDSBS gives us 10 Reasons to watch tonight’s game. God help us if Jen Sterger actually attends this game.

You are going to want to tune in to see an interesting documentary about the transformation of Florida from a sleepy backwater to the country’s fourth largest state:

The Florida Dream, based on Land of Sunshine, State of Dreams: A Social History of Modern Florida, written by historian and USF professor Gary Mormino, will premiere on WEDU and select PBS stations throughout the state.

Produced by WEDU and the Florida Humanities Council (FHC), this one-hour documentary
explores how millions of people from across the United States and around the globe migrated
south in search of the Florida dream.

Checking out the links to WEDU’s The Florida Dream, and the press release, as well as the Florida Humanities Council, their media kit, and the official The Florida Dream website, it looks to be a very interesting show, especially to developers, anti-growth folks, and regular people who are simply curious about where we have been and where we are headed.

Lots of opinionated people feel the same way:

A Tampa Tribune editorial says watch it tonight

The Times’ Howard Troxler pimps the show in his blog (Well worth watching) and his column (I hope you’ll take a look)

Lakeland Ledger: ‘The Florida Dream’ is worth watching

Steve Otto: A terrific documentary

OK.. I’m sure you are convinced - let’s all watch this important and enlightening documentary. According to the broadcast schedule, it will be on tonight at 9pm. That’s right. Tonight. At 9pm. On TV. Oh… uhmm perhaps you’ll miss it, (even if you stay home).

Better set TiVo.

No TiVo? Well, at least you can buy the DVD for $22.

Vinny Testaverde is again throwing passes in the NFL, and even won a game for the Carolina Panthers. I guess he needs the money - he bought the highest-priced home purchase in Hillsborough County this year. I met Vinny once. Almost twenty years ago.

It was on a St. Patrick’s Day, somewhere between 1988 or 1990. Buccaneers quarterback Testaverde was holding a fundraiser for some non-profit or another - maybe the Boys and Girls Club. I was a big fan of the Bucs then - a season ticket holder, and scored a couple of tickets to the event held at Stinger’s nightclub on North Dale Mabry.

At that time, the Buccaneers were simply horrible (think Ray Perkins, Richard Williamson), so Testaverde asked a number of other NFL quarterbacks to show up at the club to give partygoers a reason to drop some dough for the kids. My girlfriend at the time was from Buffalo, and Rosie thought she would enjoy meeting Jim Kelly, but he was a dick. Dan Marino was a bit nicer, and Testaverde was real friendly.

After taking a look at the items up for silent auction and mingling with VIPs and NSVIPs, we sat down at the bar nearest the entrance, and ordered a couple of beers. Halfway into those, Joe Namath walked into Stinger’s, and immediately sat down next to Rosie and said hello. He was on the wagon at the time, and asked the bartender for an O’Doul’s and began to talk to us about all sorts of things. Now this was a very friendly guy.

By the time I bought him his second O’Doul’s, a number of people had recognized him, and he was being surrounded by a bunch of Tampa hotties. One of the girls asked him why he wasn’t wearing green for St. Patrick’s Day, and he responded that his green was in his pocket. That’s when he pulled out his championship ring from the Jets Super Bowl win in 1969.

He eventually handed the ring to me so I could take a better look, and all this time, I was sort of awed because I was holding the championship ring of a hall-of-fame quarterback who guaranteed (and backed up) a Super Bowl III win against the Colts twenty years previous. Being a fan of the late 80’s Buccaneers, I had never even considered being close to anything related to any Super Bowl. I slipped the ring on my finger. It was heavy, and way too big for my skinny fingers. Of course, Joe was busy talking to all the girls.

So far, an outer-county Beltway or “Bypass” is only a gleam in the eye of those developers who want to smear subdivisions all over the green spaces still left in Hillsborough county. But now your county Planning & Growth Management Dept. has proposed we carve it into the stone of our Comprehensive Plan.

Your county Parks Dept. strongly disagrees. They list 10 preserves that would be heavily impacted by the Bypass and other new roads proposed in the South County Transportation Plan, writing,

each of these roads has the potential to significantly degrade the environmental qualities of the above-mentioned Preserves through habitat fragmentation, hydrologic impacts, wildlife movement patterns, road kills, pathways for exotic plant invasion and alteration of site management techniques (such as prescribed burning). In essence, the efforts of the ELAP Program to acquire, connect, and manage these lands over the past twenty years will be placed in serious jeopardy.

The road they now call a “Bypass,” is the same road they previously called a “Beltway,” passing through Pinellas, Pasco, Hillsborough & Manatee counties, looping all around the Tampa Bay area. (See the whole Beltway on this old map, along with the original Bypass route, which is now toast.) Do they think we’ll like the Beltway better if they call it a “Bypass”?

Any plan for a multi-county Beltway or Bypass should begin with a regional vision, but this proposal loosely sketches half a Beltway on half a county plan, which is half-baked planning.

This Beltway-Bypass was not part of the county-wide Transportation Corridor Plan adopted just last month, on Aug. 23, but then it appears on this half-county map 6 days later, on Aug. 29. That county-wide plan was shown to community groups throughout the county with no Bypass on it, so citizens in north Hillsborough are blissfully unaware that this Bypass is about to be adopted. It is not fair to citizens in the north half of the county to introduce this controversial highway into a south county Plan amendment without consulting them, because if this south half is adopted, the north half would inevitably follow, impacting their neighborhoods even though they were not involved in its initial introduction into our Comprehensive Plan.

There has been no study done to determine a viable path, so the Bypass is being hurled onto our Comprehensive Plan as a 2-mile-wide swath, threatening the property rights of everyone within 2 miles of the monster. Are we planning to ask every property owner within that broad area to preserve some right-of-way just in case we build a Bypass somewhere in that 2-mile-wide “conceptual alignment”?

The ill-conceived Bypass is just one of many problems with the South County Transportation Plan, which is snarled with expensive roads-to-nowhere ripping through rural Hillsborough. It is a plan to eradicate agriculture, eliminate opportunities for rural lifestyles, and wipe out wildlife in south Hillsborough county, while devastating nature preserves and ruining neighborhoods, with taxpayers footing the bill for the expensive infrastructure called for. And all for what? Just so a few developers can buy cheap farmland to build more subdivisions full of commuters bound to clog our inner roads as they drive from far-flung suburbs to jobs & services in the urban core.

The Planning Commission has recently re-confirmed that we have plenty of room WITHIN the Urban Service Area for all the growth projected for the next 20 years. We do not need, and cannot afford to expand urban development into the rural areas in the way projected by this Transportation Plan.

We can’t afford all the infrastructure we need WITHIN the Urban Service Area—we’re BILLIONS of dollars behind on the roads we need now. We should be spending our money on infrastructure where the people are, filling our existing needs first and focusing growth where it will make mass transit feasible.

Finally, there are also some new roads and bridges proposed in urban areas that impact neighborhoods and conflict with community plans.

You can see the map and list of all the proposed projects. And you can come to these meetings to learn more and provide your input:

Tues., Oct. 23, 6:30–8:30 pm
South Shore Regional Service Center
410 30th Street SE, Ruskin, FL 33570

Wed., Oct. 24, 6:30–8:30 pm
Riverview High School Cafeteria
11311 Boyette Road, Riverview, FL 33569

I have submitted a letter with my comments about the proposed plan, including some objections to specific road projects. You can provide your comments by e-mail to these county planners: Wally Blain, Joe Zambito & Ned Baier, and/or contact your commissioners with the handy form set up by R-LAND, and add your comments to this Lithia organization’s list of objections.