Truthing Suzanne...

Received a mailer yesterday - my first for the November 2nd election - from Commissioner Suzanne Mulvehill's re-election campaign.  Besides the Chesire Cat grin and looking like she swallowed the canary, front and back, she makes some of the typical claims proffered by the City Commission.

The first claim is that she, one assumes, makes is "Restoring the beach and casino - Groundbreaking 2011."  I always have a problem with the use of the word "restore" especially as it relates to historic preservation.  Restore has a specific meaning that someone is returning something, in this case a building, back to its original condition or to a certain period of time.  That isn't being done here in the plans that I have seen regarding either the beach or the building.  If and when the project is finished, neither the beach or the building will be like what they were before.  That is not restoration.  To announce to the public that the city is restoring the building and the beach conjures pleasing visions that may entice people to support your efforts, but it isn't accurate.  If you think it's o.k. to mislead the public, then this isn't an issue for you.

Oh, and can you explain for us how we are paying for it again, I didn't quite get it.  Something about raiding our cash portfolio?

The next: "Negotiating new electric contract - Because you deserve lower electric bills"  Well yes, Suzanne, we deserve lower electric bills, but according to the work session meeting I listened to, if we go with a feed-in-tariff, our electricity rates may actually go up and the city's leaving FMPA may cost us more money!  So, while we deserve it, Commissioner Mulvehill and the city are going down a different path.  It would be nice if she use her re-election monies to educate residents about what is really going on with not only our electric rates, but the 5 year series of rate increases for our water.

The third: "Investing in our neighborhoods - Secured $23 million federal grant to convert foreclosures into stable, owner-occupied homes"  IT WAS THE CRA THAT APPLIED FOR THE MONEY - NOT THE CITY COMMISSION.  While marginally more supportive of the effort than her Commissioner cohort Golden - who chastised the CRA for applying for the money, the city has not been cooperative in getting the program moving and spending the money.  Commissioner Mulvehill is doing little to encourage this needed cooperation but followed Commissioner Golden's lead and used the grant in her campaign materials as an accomplishment anyway.  This might be explained since the same people probably put together the mailers for both campaigns.

Lastly:  "Strengthening code enforcement - Increased staff and training to address community concerns"  The last I heard, we had four active code enforcement officers and one vacant position and this is less than we have had in previous years.  I am not sure about the training that has been going on.  But I think that people in her district (which isn't mentioned at all on her literature or signs - that she is the Commissioner for District #4, the southeast quadrant of the city), would like to know why the structure at the southwest corner of 12th Avenue South and South Palmway still looks like it did at the start of her current term, some two years ago.

So we super-voters now possess a misleading mailer with broad platitudes, which is what we have come to expect from candidates backed by our local political machine.