Of course you should vote for Sarah Sprinkel in March 11, 2014 city commission election because she is a proven leader with years of relevant experience and we already know from her last three years as commissioner that she will study and vote with reason and responsibility.
I wanted to stick with the positive but the more I see of Sandy Womble’s campaign in opposition to Sarah Sprinkel the more reason there is to be certain Ms. Womble does not become an elected official of our city. The reason for this conclusion? Because Sandy Womble is intentionally misleading voters and has no idea what she is talking about.
In a recent letter Ms. Womble says, “Let’s not give out more developer perks or float city bonds,” implying falsely that perks have been given and bonds floated. I serve on the city’s Planning and Zoning Board and follow virtually all development proposals coming before the city. The current city commission, including Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel, has never voted to give developers something that was not within reasonable limits of conditional uses assuring compatibility with adjacent properties and has never voted to float city bonds related to any development. Ms. Womble manufactures issues that don’t exist, misleading voters.
Ms. Womble says, “Our tree canopy and historical buildings are trademark assets that need our care and attention. Recent actions and inaction by the City Commission threatens both.” In addition to these words, Ms. Womble is sending pictures of cut down trees to city residents by email, falsely implying that Sarah Sprinkel is somehow associated with damaging our trees. This is all complete baloney!
Regarding our tree canopy Ms. Womble falsely claims that Sarah Sprinkel voted to transfer the financial burden of caring for right of way (ROW) trees to the residents. Ms. Womble completely misunderstands the current tree ordinance and the process to put in place an Urban Forestry Management Plan (a process, by the way, that Sarah Sprinkel supports). How do I know this? Because I serve on the Tree Preservation Board and have participated in the process of developing and implementing an Urban Forestry Management Plan for Winter Park. The words in the ordinance related to residents being responsible for ROW tree maintenance is purely a legal construct and Ms. Womble either has no clue as to the relevance of those words or is wholly dishonest in using them to make false claims about Sarah Sprinkel’s position on this issue.
Regarding historic preservation, the city has had an historic preservation ordinance since 2001. I count 66 properties on the Winter Park Registry of Historic Places and an additional 81 properties controlled by the historic preservation ordinance in two official Winter Park Historic Districts. The important issue here is that property owners voluntarily request consideration for historic designation and voluntarily accept the limitations and responsibilities of such designations if recommended by the Historic Preservation Board and approved by the city commission. The only reason Ms. Womble would make this an issue is because she wants rules that compel property owners (that would be you) to be subject to the limitations and responsibilities of historic designation and because she wants to use taxpayer money to further an historic preservation agenda.
As a final concern, Ms. Womble has no credentials or experience that qualify her to oversee the city’s $150 million budget and operations. The questionable judgment demonstrated in her campaign only serves to raise further questions about Ms. Womble’s competence to serve effectively as a city commissioner where it counts the most, how our dollars are budgeted and spent.
Sarah Sprinkel is not only the best candidate. She is the only candidate we can rely on to do a responsible job for us and for our city.
Be sure to vote! Be sure to vote for Sarah Sprinkel.
Regards, Pete Weldon
This is well said, Pete. Every vote on our City Commission in an important one. We need Commissioner Sprinkel and every vote counts. She has mine and I hope others read this piece of yours and follow your recommendation.
Pete, Your best and briefest commentary ever. Go Sarah. Wayne Jones