Primary Election Results - Still not Final

Primary Election Results (PRELIMINARY)

These results only report early voting for the City of Lake Worth. 18 of 780 Palm Beach County precincts reporting as of 8:11 p.m. (Remember to click on image for greater detail).

City Commission Meeting Going on NOW

Click here to hear the 7 p.m. meeting on the possible canceling of the reverse osmosis plant, status of the electric upgrade and possible purchase of water from Palm Beach County.

I am listening now. Palm Beach County is about to make their presentation to the Commission. The following is the most critical back-up material prepared by staff. If you'd like to see the entire 125 page document, it is available on the City's website.

Beach Visit 1 29 08

Work was on-going when I was there this afternoon. You can see the workers in this picture.

Where is the structural report?

Where is the structural report?

Where is the structural report?

Where is the structural report?

Don't forget to vote!

A couple more thoughts on the elimination of run-off elections...

Last year at this time, we were in the thick of the political season here in Lake Worth. I was campaigning for the District #3 Commission seat, along with a host of other people running for the District #1 and Mayor positions. There was a field of six Mayoral candidates. The District #3 race had three candidates and District #1 had two candidates. At most candidate forums we had a total of 11 candidates talking about their platforms and answering a variety of questions. Now that "candidate forum" format is not the best way to expound on your ideas and satisfactorily respond to concerns and questions, but that is another matter.

What I found interesting is that 7 of those 11 candidates spoke essentially from the same page. And, to a great degree, the remaining 4 were generally consistent on the major issues of the day: the beach and the super majority issue, to name the two that got the most air time. I remember at some candidate forums, it seemed as though the 7 of the 11 running essentially on the same ticket gave the impression to those in attendance that they were the majority opinion of those involved and familiar with City matters. This had the effect of influencing those present that may have limited involvement in City government to think that was indeed the case. I believe the perception this creates is a powerful one, but in reality a manufactured one.

This "appearance of a majority opinion" happens to be a by-product of a system that is used by those who want to gain control and attain power in our city by running as many candidates as possible. The real goal is to use the run-off election - held two weeks after the general election if one candidate doesn't get a majority (more than 50% of the votes cast) - as a place were the divided votes are combined to defeat usually the more organized and better funded candidate.

This system has generally (not universally) yielded candidates that, in my opinion, have become de facto mouthpieces for those that support them and fail to represent the broad majority of citizens of the City. The well-being of the City suffers over the long run and I don't think we need to point out any examples of the number of serious issues there are to address here. Therefore, the major decisions made tend to be those of their "orchestrators" who work behind the scenes and do the bulk of campaigning - human capital and the feet on the street.

It's my conclusion that the most important form of capital in a campaign is not monetary, but in the human capital that is made up of your campaign's supporters and volunteers. I personally would be very much more loyal to someone who was out there banging on doors for me than someone or some organization that wrote a check for the maximum contribution. Don't get me wrong, contributions are important and I personally was thankful for the many generous contributors and everyone who worked on my campaign. Had I been elected, I would have weighed their concerns with others. I just think that is it very easy to point at documented donors and the supposed favors owed to them and dismiss the loyalty and obligation created by one of the more effective contributions in terms of getting votes - that of time and effort.

When you vote on Tuesday, hopefully "YES" on the second municipal measure on the ballot to eliminate the requirement for run-off elections, keep this in mind. The run-off system is a tool that is used by those local Political Action Committees (and there are a handful here) that tend to tear down opposing candidates and focus their negative efforts during the last two weeks of campaigning before a run-off election.

Remember also that the dynamic of Lake Worth elections will change due to the moving of the City elections from March to November - a much larger voter pool that is therefore more representative of the actual electorate living in the City will be coming out to vote on national and state items, in addition to Lake Worth candidates and issues.

Just some further thoughts that reflect my stance on the issue. I'd be happy to hear yours as well.

Additional Information on Valet Operation

You might want to check out a comment left by Anonymous under the previous post on the valet parking situation downtown. Apparently, he/she filed a code enforcement complaint last MARCH and nothing has been resolved. I will check on the code enforcement status this week.

He/she left the following link. Click here and it will take you to where you can see his e-mail to the City and some more pictures of the situation.

Report from 9/18 Commission Meeting - Discussion of Charter Amendments

This is a re-post of an item related to two of the proposed charter amendments that will be on Tuesday's ballot. This contains an analysis of the positive effect of eliminating the run-off elections. Upon further thought and study, I am not for extending the terms of Commissioner and Mayor from two to three years. Not talked about here is the issue related to whether or not the Fire and Police Chiefs will be required to live within the City limits by ordinance. I choose "No" on this item, as I believe it is important for public safety officers of that rank to live in the City they serve - as currently required by the Charter.

So - my votes for the three municipal ballot measures will be NO to term extensions, YES to elimination of run-off elections and NO for requiring residency of the Fire and Polices Chiefs to be determined by ordinance.

After much emotional public comment, the Commission voted 3-2 to direct the City Attorney to prepare two ordinances - one to extend the future terms (not the existing Commission terms) to three years and one that would eliminate the run-off election. Commissioners Jennings and Golden were against. Commissioner Golden made a statement that she didn't understand why we went to November elections and didn't see the benefit in more people coming out to vote. She also didn't think Thanksgiving was a reason to not have a run-off, etc. Commissioner Jennings thought it was an abuse of their power that a majority of the Commission could put an item on the ballot. The citizens, however, had to go around door to door and gather signatures. She said that if this had been done through petitioning, then she might think differently.

This is what I said during public comment:

“Regarding the Charter Amendments relating to the term of office and run-off election, I am in favor of having the citizens vote on these items. I believe that three years makes sense. There is more continuity and gives Commissioners an extra twelve months to be productive and not be overly political. This will help tone down our current highly charged political atmosphere. If people complain about how bad things are now, I believe that they are a product of our two year term/run-off form of elections.

“I think it’s best to begin after the existing terms have expired – I am not extending the existing terms of any seated Commissioner or Mayor.”

As for the run-off, I am for the elimination of them. Turn out for municipal elections is low in relation to the total number of registered voters, so are we really getting the representation of the majority in a run-off? I don't think so.”

The ordinances will be coming back to the Commission for final approval and then they will have to approve the ballot language. The election for these would coincide with the January 29th Presidential Primary.

After the meeting, I had some of the following thoughts. I keep going back to the question "50 percent of what?” for run-off elections. We have 40,000 people in this city, of which about 15,000 are registered voters. In a good year for a presidential election we may get 7 or 8 thousand to turn out. For a municipal March election, it hovers between 3 and 4 thousand. The underlying principle is that our elected representatives should reflect the wishes of the majority of citizens. I would argue that the half of the 3 to 4 thousand does not represent a majority opinion and the 50% run-off threshold is an unachievable ideal. It does provide a ready tool for those motivated to elect a candidate.

Boiled down even farther, it's 50 percent of the people that come out to vote on that day. If the election were held a day before or after, the result could be different. That's why holding this precise 50 percent figure to who comes out on a particular day doesn't mean much, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, 50 percent appears, at first glance, to be a rational number that would represent the majority - as I pointed out, for a number of reasons, it doesn't achieve its intended goal. A better measure is really who gets the most votes. If you are really worried about someone getting into office with 7% of the vote - in a 13+ candidate field - then you could lower the threshold for a run-off to 35%. At least then you wouldn't be pretending that the winner of the election had a majority of voters.

Finally, three year terms are equal to the appointments on the majority of City representative boards. This would now parallel Commissioner terms of office if changed to three year from two year terms.

Valet Parking in Downtown

If you have been downtown recently on a Friday or Saturday night, you might have noticed a valet parking operation which sets up shop on South J Street in the first block south of Lake Avenue. As far as I am aware this has gone on for about year. Some people say that they operate on Thursday nights too, usually when there is something going on at the Playhouse.


The following e-mail to Paul Boyer, Laura Hannah and Sharon Jackson bears the date of October 2006. This was while I was still Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board and probably about the time the valet parking began.


I vaguely remember Laura Hannah acknowledging receipt of my e-mail, but really didn't offer any satisfactory explanation or response to the questions raised in it. Now and then I would ask Sharon Jackson to follow-up on it and we all know that Paul Boyer was about to leave around this time. I resigned from the Planning and Zoning Board mid-December to run for office. Season came and went and they ceased operating.

Well, the valet is back and many of my questions are still valid. Recently, I discovered some other anomalies that make one wonder who is sanctioning this and how.

The first question in the e-mail asks who is running it. From the signs that I took pictures of last Saturday, it's a company (?) by the name of Valet Florida. The next question asks are they properly insured and bonded? We just don't know. The last statement/suggestion in the e-mail talks about a better location for it would be on the side streets, rather than on Lake Avenue. This was addressed, but there are still problems with the location and impact to traffic on Lake Avenue.

The fourth and fifth items in the e-mail require some exploration. This is what I was told by a gentleman involved with operating a business on South J.Street. Apparently, after the "early bird" crowd leaves L'Anjou - around 7 p.m., they leave open on-street parking spaces. As soon as the cars vacate the spaces, the valet operators put this sign up to block the public from parking in PUBLIC spaces.


Notice at the bottom of the sign there is a reference to City of Lake Worth Ordinance 21-33(I). I went to Municode.com and found that section of the Code. However, the list of regulations runs from "A" to"H" and does not include "I" as indicated on the sign. So, I penned the following e-mail query to Pam Lopez, City Clerk:


I asked her if this was the current 21-33 section of the code and if any amendments have been made recently related to valet parking or if any changes have been made to that section at all. Her response was that there has been no ordinance recently regarding valet parking and that Sec. 21-33 is the current code.

THERE IS NO "I" AS INDICATED ON THE SIGN! We have a situation where someone is preventing people from parking in otherwise public parking spaces and charging for the service to park their car in public spaces. And, they are citing a part of the City of Lake Worth Code of Ordinances that at worst doesn't exist and at best isn't available for the public to inspect.

Back to my story about what is happening on weekend nights on our downtown streets. After the barricades go up, the valet allows cars to park in those spaces when the occupants pay $5 . I understand that if people protest - and I hear that they do - they actually move the barricade and let them park in the space anyway. When asked by this person who operates a business on J Street why they are preventing people from parking in PUBLIC parking spaces, the valet pointed to the sign and the referenced ordinance. Then, he said that, "Don't you think it classes up the downtown to have valet parking?" and the business owner responded "No, what I see you doing is chasing people away from my business!"

Meanwhile, on Lake Avenue, traffic is backing up in the first block east of Dixie - not a welcoming image at the entrance to our downtown. Imagine waiting in a queue on Lake Avenue for a while, then being strong-armed to pay $5 for an otherwise PUBLIC space that you could have found yourself without a valet. Wouldn't your time be better spent looking for a FREE public space on your own anywhere in the downtown that is a legal parking space - without a valet "classing things up"? Besides the spaces on South J Street, they park cars here, there and everywhere - probably sometimes on private property. Do they have an arrangement with those property owners?

What should happen with a valet operation in our downtown is that the operator should lease an unencumbered parking lot in the general area (the parking lot of the First Baptist Church, between L and M Streets, comes to mind). The entire operation could then be moved to the middle of the downtown (L Street) and the valet could run back and forth to that parking lot. Then we would actually be adding to the supply of parking in the downtown - not taking away from it and suddenly making people pay for public parking spaces.

Here is an image of the valet stand with the sacred seal of the City of Lake Worth prominently displayed on it - where is the money going for this and how is the City sanctioning it? How is this helping our downtown businesses?

A view of J Street with the cones in front of public parking spaces:

Busy Week!!

(Click on the image above and you'll see something interesting)

Lots of work stuff going on, which is good! Had a great time at Karaoke Wednesday night, which helped to break up the week. But there wasn't much time to do anything else, including post on the blog. But, here we are at the threshold of a weekend and I should have time to devote to a backlog of ideas and thoughts about Lake Worth. In the meantime, have a nice night!

I plan on continuing a series on downtown issues. If you have any that you would like to chat about, let me know about them by posting under the comment tab at the bottom of this post.

Save Our Downtown!

Walking back from the Cultural Plaza on Monday night, I passed by this sad sight. Another retailer (a rare breed to start with) in our downtown is going out of business. Surely a sign of worsening economic times, but also symptomatic of a host of issues and problems in our downtown commercial area.


The following are "snippets" of e-mails that started out relating to the building just east of the Lucerne, at the corner of Lake Avenue and M Street. I am happy to report that it is now in the final stages of renovation and it is a great improvement from how the building looked at the time these e-mails were exchanged.

If you take a look at my e-mail (I have removed the e-mail addresses that this chain was circled amongst for privacy.) The message talks about the situation with the building I mentioned. At the end of the e-mail, I mention an idea and one of my campaign platforms. That was the idea of a "Downtown Summit" where all the stakeholders (property owners, business owners, employees, residents, etc.) would get together and focus on issues/strategies for improving our downtown - both physically and economically. If I had been elected last March, it would have been one of the first things I would have called for as a Commissioner.

Since that time, the Commission and Mayor have spoken very little about the downtown. They did vote to lower the parking space fee from $15,000 per required parking space to $7,000 per space - a good thing. But there is so much more to talk about our downtown. By not seriously inventorying and working on issues impacting downtown, we run the risk of more sad sights like the two pictures above.

The Mayor happened to be copied on this e-mail chain. Notice the date of the e-mail below - July 7th. Notice also that in the e-mail he says that he will be hosting (?) a Downtown Summit this fall after the City gets through the budget process. That was in September 2007.

We are still waiting Mayor.


I urge you to contact your favorite Commissioner(s) and Mayor. Remind them of the importance of a healthy downtown commercial area and request that the Mayor follow through on his promise.

Truth Matters Returns Tonight @ 8 p.m.

Join me and Greg Vannier as we host another Truth Matters show. Click here for the live feed of the show. You can also find it on the Utalk.com homepage. Questions and comments for and about the topics we will be covering can be found on the Utalk.com message board.

It'll be nice to get back on the area and review the many things that have gone on in our community since the last show back in November.

Things I thought about discussing: the idea of the day laborer center on the shuffleboard court property, the status of the Sunset law suit, the economic conditions generally and the economic condition of our downtown specifically, valet parking in the downtown and a whole bunch of loose ends that no one seems to care about (beach, casino building structural report, 431 N. L Street, crime, etc.)

Hope you can make it!

Oh, oh! Dancing might lead to...?

Martin the Mailman Benefit - South Shores Tavern

It was still a little early when I got there. Great band playing and had a nice lunch. It's still going on. Plan on dropping by sometime this afternoon.
They are having a raffle with a lot of nice prizes and things!
I am sure you join me in wishing Martin good luck in a speedy and complete recovery.

In Honor of Martin Luther King, Jr....