As for more input from the voters, how much more input do you want? 76.9% of the people that voted said they didn’t want two more Commissioners with 1 being an elected chair. It would seem to me that any ‘controlling’ going on is coming from the side of the aisle that is trying to set aside that mandate.

Having said that, I have yet to see anywhere that says that having an elected Chair is a good idea. Well other than from the CRC that wanted it that way. I’m not saying it wasn’t there, just that I missed it if it was. Could you enlighten me on that? How many other counties have an elected chair? Not just a +2 but an actual elected chair.

I’ve asked that before but I have yet to see an answer. What I get is answers like 80% of Florida is governed by mixed boards. Do any of them have a permanently elected Chair? Yes or No?

There is one other question I have to ask here and I’d like a brutally honest answer from you. It’s OK, you won’t hurt my feelings by being honest.

If I had won the election for the Chair would you be spending your money to fight to keep that position active so that I could take office?

Keep in mind, that I don’t like the toll way, I wouldn’t even consider a moratorium on impact fees, I would vote against any new DRIs that are in any way reliant upon the pink route toll way such as Governors Park and I would do my best to implement a program that makes lobbyists register and document every meeting with a Commissioner even if it is only one Commissioner.

And if possible I would make any candidate that met with a lobbyist prior to taking office attend an ethics class so that they would understand where they made their mistake in doing so.

As I said, be honest Roy. Is that Chair position so important to the good government of this county that you would continue to fund this fight if it were me taking the seat? Again, a simple Yes or No.

Roy your point cannot be made until you answer both of these questions.

I also don’t think so highly of myself that I would “feel sorry” for people as often as you do. Between the blogs on MCS and what I have personally witnessed from your own mouth (your own form of nasty) you really aren’t superior to anyone, however based upon what you say it sure seems you think you are.

St Johns county is in a mess, and they just had one of their Commissioners indicted for bribery. Do you really want to use St Johns County as an example for your side.

As for mad, or cranky as has been used recently. Lets be politically correct and just use the term “concerned”.

I am concerned that the political patronage has gotten out of hand in this county. I am concerned that there is a percentage of those involved in county politics that are serving special interests to build a beltway that is a financial disaster for this county. I am concerned that this same percentage of people believe in “victory at any cost” and “the end justifies the means”. If you wish to use mad go right ahead, that is your choice. I am mad, cranky and worst of all determined. I seriously doubt you’re done Roy, but then again, neither am I.

Carry on please, I am all for you pushing this on in the court system, I would even applaud it because that way there will be a definitive end, either way. CTLAC has stood strong defending the peoples right to participate in their goverment and that is awesome whether they win or lose in court. You’re the reason they’re defending it, and partly responsible for the growing numbers who support them. I don’t like what you’ve done but so far it’s working out for us on the other side.

I actually owe alot to both you and Karen, you’re both the reasons I even gave the entire situation a second glance.

If Clay County wants to be something special then it needs to stop looking around at what everyone else is doing and consider just Clay County. Unless you want to look for what not to do. We’ve got 5 reasonably intelligent people on the BCC, for now I say let is stay as it stands, they all get to take turns.

Before I will EVER agree to a permanent Chair there would have to be safeguards in place to limit the power of that chair and the control over it in the hands of the voters of Clay County.

Lamar: since you’re not censored by the TU anymore, I was hoping your professional opinions may come out to really give this county what it needs- a fresh voice.

The time for you to have any influence on me has long since past. You can quote all the verbage you want from every single place you can find some and it will not change my mind. You can use all you like to form your opinion, my own common sense is good enough for me. Five people debating and deciding on the future of this county is better then one bully who has a couple of buddies on the board.

I don’t really care who is doing what elsewhere, shall we talk about the number of public officials who are being caught doing things they shouldn’t?

That permanent chair is a tool of development as far as I am concerned and Clay County doesn’t need it, we don’t need a beltway in it’s current configuration, we don’t need to pay 77k for an acre of land that is worth at the most 25k and we don’t need to give tax exemptions to anyone that has got anything to do with building roads.

If you want to say I’m wrong that is your choice, but the crazy thing about this county, people are still entitled to make up their minds based upon their own personal criteria.

I believe you’d like to restrict that in this county, and I believe you will continue to meet growing opposition towards that end.

I hear what you are saying but that again is only one person’s opinion even if he does have a PHD.

67K (76.9%) voters in Clay County did not agree with him. That in my mind is a mandate from the people that pay the Board’s salary.

If we had say 9 SMDs and then went to a +2 I might be able to swallow that. The problem is that with only 5 districts and the dispersion of population within Clay County it is nearly impossible to not have the two A/L come from D1.

That cannot be good for Clay County regardless of how many PHDs say it is. I don’t want to see a mandated ‘permanent’ Chair. If the BoCC were to elect the same person two years in a row then there really isn’t much that could be done about that is there?

Except perhaps an amendment that says we have to have a ‘new’ chair each year.

What your PHD did not say in his quote was that one of those +2 should be a permanent elected Chair. That was added in to the mix by the CRC.

It could very well be that the CRC overstepped the bounds of what the citizens would accept once they had a chance to really think about what they had previously approved. If the CRC had just left it at +2 it might have had a chance of getting by.

I mentioned a thing called ‘buyer’s remorse’ a long time ago in a blog on another site. I believe we just saw that in action. It sounded good at first but after careful consideration they decided to send it back for a full refund.

I am against a permanent Chair regardless of who it is.