Attempts to have a Rational Discussion re the Beach...

Prior to my show Truth Matters on Lake Worth Talk.com, a post was put up on the board as follows:

Jim,

I very much like what you have provided to Lake Worth. You have given the people a venue to voice their concerns, opinions, and ideas regarding local issues of importance.

However, your talk shows can use one specific BIG CHANGE. That change is to have BOTH sides of an issue represented. In other words, if you have two people hosting a talk show which is going to be about the beach issue, you should have one who is for the greater bay deal and one who is against it. It will result in a much more informative and perhaps lively discussion. No use in having two people speaking who are both cheerleaders for each other. Many national talk shows will have one right winger and one left winger next to each other discussing both sides of a particular issue. So please see if for one of your upcoming shows you can pick one "pro" and one "anti" for whatever issue is being discussed that day. I think the listeners will appreciate the debates no matter which side they are on.

Keep up the good work.

Jim Stafford (host of the website) replied:

During the election I had all the candidates on except former Mayor Drautz. I did not give my opinions and let them speak on any and all topics. Mr. Exline can speak to that. I designed Drew Martins web page and so on. Those that choose to paint me as one side do it because they want to. The last round table I tried in vain to find a pro-super majority person to come on and was turned down repeatedly by multiple individuals. As always the invitation is open simply send me and email and I will arrange it!

Jim Stafford

And then this response:

Jim,

Please try contacting the following Anti-Greater-Bay people for an interview:

Lynda Mahoney
Laurel Decker
Dee Mcnamara
Laurence Mcnamara
Cara Jennings
Jim McCauley
Drew Martin
Lori Witkin
Marc Drautz
Surely one of the above would want to voice their side of the issue.

And then this response from Jim:

I sent the following email to a majority of the people listed I didn't have contact information for two of them.

Email:

Good Day,

I would like to put a debate together over the beach project. One pro and anti Greater Bay to air in the near future. Wes Blackman has agreed to take the pro beach project side. If you interested please email me and we can work out the time and details.

Jim Stafford
561.201.1640
Talk.com Inc.
LakeWorthTalk.com
PalmBeachTalk.com

Then, Jim followed up with an e-mail to Jim McCauley:

I would be willing to do a one on one about your suit. I'm willing to limit the interview to pre-approved questions if you don't want to take calls and posts.

Jim Stafford
561.201.1640
Talk.com Inc.
LakeWorthTalk.com
PalmBeachTalk.com

That prompted a response from Jim McCauley as follows:

I am neither pro or anti Greater Bay. I only want the city to follow its 2003 charter amendment and allow the folks to vote. That is what my suit is about.

If you want someone who has strong feelings against the GB redevelopment I would suggest:

Denise Carereau

Lynn Anderson

Jo Ann Golden

Drew Martin

Bill Coakley

Laurie Decker

Annabeth Karson

Christopher McVoy

Keith Spenser

\\Jim McCauley

And, then Jim McCauley sent this e-mail out to the anti-group:

Jim Stafford is looking for an informed anti Greater Bay person to debate pro Greater Bay Blackman on his live show. If interested, give Jim a call.

JM

To which Lynn Anderson responded as follows:

FIRST OF ALL, Jim Stafford must really understand that we are NOTagainst Greater Bay per se. What we are against is commercializationof our beach and the fact that the City of Lake Worth did not allowthe people to vote on what happens to their beach...that the city did an end run around the will of the people and the spirit of the vote from a few years ago. Until he realizes WHAT we are objecting to,there can be no debate. L. Anderson

Jim Stafford responded thusly:

Lynn,

A debate would involve many questions from the terms of the contract to the firm executing the contact to alternatives to the proposed site plan. The focus would be on the property. My current thinking is to post a thread a day or two in advance to allow users to submit questions. Place the questions in a fish bowl and have the participants pull them at random alternating back and forth.

Jim Stafford

Jim forwarded this e-mail string to me and I responded with the e-mail below:

Well, I am not FOR Greater Bay, per se.

I am for a project that will allow continued public access to our beach, one that removes the maintenance burden from the City, one that replaces our derelict Casino building with a building that is better able to survive storms, one that re-establishes a ballroom at the beach, one that is able to attract tourist dollars to our City, one that maintains an adequate green park area, one that allows the City to retain title to the land, one that allows the City to inherit the building in 20 years, one that is not a shopping mall and limits the retail square footage to 7,200 s.f., one that employs elements of the original architecture from the 1920s casino, one that is built according to the guidelines administered by the Department of Environmental Protection for construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, one that does not include a residential or hotel component, one that allows the City to fix inadequacies in the land use and zoning designation for the property and one that has the prospect of bringing this City together - my support isn't necessarily limited to the Greater Bay project.

In short, I am about putting forward the truth.

Maybe this will entice someone from that group for a discussion.

Wes Blackman

And, now, Jim Stafford forwarded my response to Jim McCauley and to date, there has been no response. I will let you know what happens.