Skip to content

Election 2011 – Lawyers or Leaders?

February 15, 2011

We have two lawyers and two leaders running for city commission.

Bonnie Jackson, a lawyer, is running against Sarah Sprinkel, an educator and administrator.

Scott Callahan, a lawyer, is running against Steve Leary, a businessman.

While the candidates have credible resumes, two have demonstrated the leadership skills and independent thinking that will move Winter Park in a responsible direction and fairly represent the full breadth of constituencies in our city.

I believe Scott Callahan would be a good commissioner but he clings unnecessarily to positions of the “Dillaha” camp, positions that have proven to have negative consequences for our city and our community. See my letter to Scott. Steve Leary has demonstrated much needed clarity in his positions and independent thinking on the issues.

I have great reservations about Bonnie Jackson and her ambitions. See my letter to Bonnie. Sarah Sprinkel has a lifetime of credible service in our local, regional, and state educational system and her tempered, reasoned approach is appreciated by many hundreds of Winter Park residents who have gotten to know her over nearly 40 years.

Above all, Winter Park needs leaders, not lawyers and litigators. I look forward to the common sense, critical thinking, and leadership skills Sarah Sprinkel and Steve Leary will bring to our city commission.

Let’s ask Steve Leary and Sarah Sprinkel to help us face our future. Please vote in the March 8th election.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Posted in Election 2011.

rev="post-2050" 8 comments

By Peter Weldon – February 15, 2011

I am voting for Sarah Sprinkel

February 15, 2011

Below is my letter to Bonnie Jackson noting that I am voting for Sarah Sprinkel in the March 8th election.

Bonnie,

I watched the Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board candidates’ interview and will be supporting Sarah Sprinkel.

Your interview and your candidacy concern me on many levels.

In your interview you monopolize the time by speaking without ever stating your position on several important issues including commuter rail. You also make a point of questioning our current Mayor’s integrity while acknowledging you have no basis for doing so. Your assertion that you are supported by “a lot of grass roots people in the community” is not supported by the facts.  Your financial reports as of February 3 show you received 25 campaign contributions totaling $9,045; 8 of which totaling $4,000 come from David Strong, Margaret Strong, and 6 companies controlled by the Strong family. Sarah Sprinkel has over 120 contributors totaling $37,600 for the same time period.

I note that five of the ten partners of your former employer, Swann and Hadley, have contributed to Sarah Sprinkel’s campaign along with the firm itself, while none of the partners have contributed to your campaign.

Your behavior as a member of the Winter Park Parks and Recreation Commission also troubles me, as it shows a pattern of negative and polarizing interaction, counterproductive to leadership and good governance.

Since your appointment to Parks and Rec in 2008 you alienated many in our city by running what I can only describe as an obsessive campaign against the legitimate interests of dog owners.

In a July 2009 letter to the Orlando Sentinel you state, “The mayor then voted with commissioners Phil Anderson and Karen Diebel in favor of a park plan that could attract hundreds of dogs a day to the shores of Lake Baldwin and would result in the concentrated deposit of fecal matter on the ground and directly in the water.” You also stated that the plan would “create environmental and health hazards to our community.” You made these statements knowing that the park has attracted “hundreds of dogs a day” since 1999 and that the city’s lakes are tested frequently and have been found to be safe. City testing results show that Lake Baldwin is not only in compliance with the latest EPA standards but has similar or lower Chlorophyll-a, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen levels than all other city lakes, none of which host a dog park.

In April of 2010 you initiated a Parks and Recreation Commission effort to stop dog-centered events by a Park Avenue retailer because some dogs who attended the events were later found to run around Central Park for a few minutes in violation of an existing ordinance. The audio of this meeting was brought to my attention. In this meeting you claim authority over matters that are not in the purview of the Parks and Recreation Commission, you cross examine the Director of Parks and Recreation as if you have the authority of a judge, and you try to convince the commission to find the pet retailer in violation of the law (something only the Code Enforcement Board has the authority to do).

In October 2010 you appeared before the city commission to express your personal distaste for off leash use of Fleet Peeples Park as follows, “I don’t want your dog that just went in the lake, ran through a bunch of mud, sniffing everybody else’s behind, coming over and jumping on me.”

On November 6, 2010 you visited Fleet Peeples Park knowing your presence would be controversial given your history of advocating against the interests of dog owners and groups representing dog owners. You filed a police complaint accusing members of the Friends of Fleet Peeples Park of assault on that date and copied a letter to the city commission concerning the incident. On November 8, 2010 you appeared before the city commission to complain about the Friends of Fleet Peeples Park even though it is clear you brought the circumstances resulting in the complaint upon yourself. The State Attorney’s Office disposed of your complaint for insufficient evidence.

On February 1, 2011 you wrote a letter to the Mayor and Commissioners complaining about a lack of transparency by the Friends of Mead Gardens. Having become familiar with your treatment of the Friends of Fleet Peeples Park I can reasonably conclude that the head of the Friends of Mead Gardens may have been concerned that you would undermine his group’s efforts to promote improvements to the park.

Bonnie, I presume you are well intentioned but the evidence provided by your participation on city boards illustrates a pattern of endlessly arguing and litigating your personal views rather than working to lead our community. As such, I would find it extremely disappointing for our city if your ambitions to serve on our city commission were fulfilled by the voters. I will be voting for Sarah Sprinkel, I will be working to convince others to do the same.

Bonnie, you can count on my candor on all issues whether or not you are elected to the Winter Park City Commission.

Regards, Pete Weldon
700 Via Lombardy
Winter Park, FL 32789

Posted in Election 2011.

rev="post-2034" 9 comments

By Peter Weldon – February 15, 2011

I am voting for Steve Leary

February 15, 2011

Below is my letter to Scott Callahan noting I am voting for Steve Leary in the March 8th election.

Scott,

I viewed the Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board interview and will be supporting Steve Leary.

I doubt my decision as a single voter is particularly meaningful to you or to Steve but I wanted to share my thinking with you as you were generous with your time and attention when we met and spoke about your interest in running.

You say the Mayor has done a “mediocre” job. You equate leadership with accommodation in your critique. This can and will never be the case in any elected body. What you are really saying is that you support the people who have continually pressed what should have be dead issues, consuming untold amounts of energy and time of both the commission and city staff, energy and time that should have been invested in addressing issues that would positively impact our citizens and our community. You are a thoughtful person and I believe with greater perspective on the history here you will have greater respect for Ken Bradley’s contributions to Winter Park and to the commission.

On issues pertaining to the dog park fees and the commissioner salary increase you say the right things but reach the wrong position. It is as if you are supporting the decision of those that voted for these things because they are supporting you, rather than because of the facts. The decision to pursue the dog park fees has been a social and political disaster for our city. This is an issue (like many others) that has been created by certain political players for unknown and unproductive reasons. Beside the fact that the fees don’t pay for their administration and enforcement, the issue distracts us from the focus required to properly address important issues. The right answer is to kill the dog park fee and move on. The salary issue is another case where you have the reasoning right but the position wrong. The citizen’s voted to change the charter to allow the commission to change its salary. No argument there. However, forcing through an increase when the employees are being asked to shoulder much of our current economic burden is just bad judgment. We can raise the salaries for commissioners when the city raises them for employees.

Finally, your support of the super majority voting requirement to change the comprehensive plan is not tenable. It sounds wonderful to “stabilize” the development standards in Winter Park. The reality, however, is that the super majority requirement effectively freezes a comp plan that was written in large part by one person, Carolyn Cooper. I suggest you actually print and read the Winter Park comprehensive plan and then print and compare it to those of other notable Florida cities (Naples and Coral Gables, for example). I think this exercise will make it clear to you that we need a simple majority process to change what we have now (you can start here: http://www.winterparkperspective.org/category/development/). I am glad to see that Carolyn supports you because she certainly would not support anyone who would even entertain changing her plan for Winter Park, the most prohibitive comp plan in the state of Florida. This is not a nod to unfettered redevelopment of Winter Park. It is a call for common sense (that being an attribute I believe I am voting for in supporting Steve).

Scott, you can count on my candor on all issues whether or not you are elected to the Winter Park City Commission.

Enjoy the ride.

Respectfully, Pete Weldon

Posted in Election 2011.

rev="post-2016" 1 comment

By Peter Weldon – February 15, 2011

Whose money is it?

February 2, 2011

On January 24th three of five Winter Park commission members voted down a proposed 50 year commercial lease on the five acre parcel of land owned by the city at the corner of Denning Avenue and Morse Boulevard.

The short form of this long story is that two commissioners wanted you to steeply subsidize a 50 year lease of city owned land in order to “refurbish” a dilapidated building that utilizes 60 percent of the land’s capacity, to “retain” a long time employer who offered an unenforceable commitment to stay in Winter Park, and to “save” trees that are still standing.

My letter to the commission following this vote follows.

January 27, 2011

Dear Mayor and Commissioners,

I offer some thoughts concerning the recent lease opportunity for the Denning property and the future disposition of this land.

While I understand some of you wanted this deal to happen for your own reasons I point out two key reasons why it never made sense for the city.

First, the deal would have made sense for both parties only if the city could have sold, leased, or otherwise used 2.5 to 3 acres of the property for new development while leasing the balance with the existing structure (even if the city subsidized some parking for the lessee on the city’s section of the total parcel). The position and configuration of the existing building made this impossible. Further, it was unrealistic from the beginning to expect CEI to go beyond a lease value justified by the existing 60,000 square foot building, and they understandably declined to do so.

Second, the rational for subsidizing 30 percent to 50 percent of the total property’s lease value based on the possibility of retaining RFL as a local employer was never justifiable. Under the proposal RLF rightfully pursued their best interest by limiting their risk to a 10 year commitment while the citizens of Winter Park were asked to subsidize the lease for 50 years. Further, the proposed 10 year commitment could have included a sub-lease clause that would allow RLF to never occupy or partially occupy the building, and move out of town at any time. Their commitment to Winter Park was never enforceable and it was unreasonable to expect RLF to agree to an enforceable commitment. An unenforceable commitment has no value.

The issue now is how to manage this property going forward.

The reasons for the failure of the CEI proposal make it clear that the existing building lowers the value of the land. Any other proposal to lease the land with this building on it should fail for the same reasons. Accordingly, I suggest the building be demolished and the property grassed over to make the site more attractive for a potential buyer or lessee.

For now, the Denning property serves as a bankable addition to city general fund reserves which is justifiable without generating current income.

I originally supported the view that the land should not be sold. When and if a compelling plan arises for reconfiguring civic venues this land will be of strategic value as it can be sold, leased, swapped, redeveloped for public use, or turned into a park (supporting incremental residential development/annexation). If properly leased, the land could still be sold or swapped with the lease attached at a future fair market value. I am still supportive of this view but with increasing reservations as the possibility clearly exists for a future city commission to misuse this asset in pursuit of personal political agendas or by simply entering into a bad deal. The city is not a real estate management company.

The land belongs to the citizens of Winter Park. It does not belong to any set of commissioners.

As the land is not currently needed it may be sold with the proceeds added to general fund reserves and used to reduce current property taxes. In other words, return the value of the asset to the citizens. If land is needed in the future for civic purposes it would be purchased subject to a referendum, with the civic value justified by the voters on the merits, not because the city happened to own 5 acres of land. I realize this is a difficult view for those who seek to use city assets for their own purposes. However, given a clear understanding of the rights and responsibilities of the citizens and of the elected commission, careful and thorough consideration of this approach is justified.

Regards, Pete Weldon
700 Via Lombardy
Winter Park, FL 32789

Posted in Development, Money, Policy.

rev="post-1978" 3 comments

By Peter Weldon – February 4, 2011

Common Sense Wins in Winter Park

December 18, 2010

The Winter Park City Commission approved amendments to the Commuter Rail agreement by a 3 to 2 vote on December 13, 2010. The Orange County Commission then approved these amendments unanimously the next day. What does this mean? It means that SunRail trains will stop at a new commuter rail station located with the existing Amtrak station in Winter Park if and when SunRail becomes a reality. (It currently appears that SunRail is on track to receive authorization and release existing funding to start construction of the system.)

The great achievement for Winter Park is that common sense has triumphed over righteous nonsense to get us a revised agreement with realistic financial caps and stronger opt out language now, rather than wait for seven years of SunRail operation to get to a negotiating point with Orange County. We should thank the three Winter Park commission members who voted for the amendments (Bradley, Anderson, and McMacken) and the Orange County staff and Commissioners for their reasonableness in agreeing to significant changes to an existing agreement they had no requirement to re-address.

If and when SunRail becomes a reality these trains will be coming through our city whether we like it or not. These recently approved amendments to Winter Park’s commuter rail agreement with Orange County offer clear and compelling improvements over the existing agreement that should have been the subject of unanimous commission approval.

Dillaha and Cooper were the two Winter Park commissioners voting against changing the commuter rail agreement for the better. Faced with the opportunity to get a much better deal for the city now (and the continuing opportunity to negotiate further), these two continued their efforts to obstruct SunRail and Winter Park’s participation (see this post).

This ongoing debacle has consumed far too much time and effort of our city and our commission. Hopefully, the approval of these amendments will end the nonsense, allowing Winter Park to participate in SunRail free for the first seven years of fare paying service. At the end of seven years the city will have the right to shut down our station rather than pay operating and maintenance costs to Orange County. Further, these costs are capped by the new amendments and a future city commission or citizen initiative can require a city wide vote to agree to pay those capped costs or shut down the station any time in the future.

Time to move on.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Posted in Commuter Rail.

rev="post-1912" 5 comments

By Peter Weldon – December 19, 2010

Cleaning up after the dog fee

October 18, 2010

Monday, October 11, 2010 our city commission approved fees to use Fleet Peeples Park with your dogs effective December 1, 2010. Commissioners Dillaha, Cooper, and McMacken voted for the fees. Commissioner Anderson and Mayor Bradley voted no. (I am not a dog owner.)

Hundreds of Winter Park residents and non-residents take advantage of Fleet Peeples Park weekly to exercise dogs off leash and socialize with other dog owners. This has been going on for over ten years. Dog owners are a constituency whose needs should be addressed just as the city addresses needs of other constituencies ranging from the Winter Park Historical Association, to the library, to low income housing and social programs.

Some people involved in the volunteer group Friends of Fleet Peeples park have been truly nasty in response to what they perceive as threats to their unfettered use of the park. Members of our Parks Commission and City Commission have been equally nasty to these people and their position overtly biased. It is out of control. Parks Commission member Bonnie Jackson, for example, appeared before the city commission to express her personal distaste for off leash use of Fleet Peeples Park as follows, “I don’t want your dog that just went in the lake, ran through a bunch of mud, sniffing everybody else’s behind, coming over and jumping on me.” Jackson and Dillaha are also pushing an effort to remove on leash dogs from Mead Gardens and other city parks as well as working to prohibit animal centered events on or near Park Avenue. Ms. Jackson has demonstrated no understanding of or tolerance for the realities of pet behavior or ownership, and seems ill suited to fairly represent the broad spectrum of interests using our city parks.

Fees have been imposed not as a means to support and improve the park, but in an effort to limit use of the park. Note, however, that the city now takes full responsibility for the off leash dog park. Users can now rightly demand that the city routinely clean, maintain, and improve the park to standards acceptable to paying customers. (That the costs of doing so are not known or provided for is testament to the questionable judgment applied in deciding to initiate fees at this juncture.)

I encourage every member of the Friends of Fleet Peeples Park and every interested dog owner in Winter Park and beyond to pay the now required fees and to send an email to MayorandCommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org noting your fee payment and demanding the following as a paying user of the park:

  • The city needs to implement an on-site day pass system for Fleet Peeples Park.
  • The city needs to provide on-site staff daily to pick up feces and to routinely encourage all users to clean up after their dogs and abide by other park rules.
  • The city needs to provide daily on site enforcement to ensure all users of the park have paid the necessary usage fees.
  • The city needs to fund and implement the current approved master plan for Fleet Peeples Park.

The city is now obligated to take full responsibility for cleaning, maintaining, and improving an off leash dog park to Winter Park’s high standards, as well as enforcing collection of usage fees. All dog owners paying the fee to use Fleet Peeples Park can and should hold the city accountable.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Posted in Money, Parks, Policy.

rev="post-1890" 20 comments

By Peter Weldon – October 18, 2010

Defending our City Commission

September 30, 2010

I have never before had reason to tell you about a unanimous decision of the Winter Park City Commission that I strongly agreed with. I have a reason now.

Unfortunately and unwisely, the commission decided in their budget decisions to provide for the possibility of increasing their pay ($200/mth for commissioners and $250/mth for the mayor) which has not been changed since my mother changed my diapers. This is virtually all the Orlando Sentinel had to talk about (here also) and it sends a very incomplete message.

We should be focusing on the bigger picture.

All Winter Park citizens should thank the city manager for recommending a budget that kept the tax rate constant while faced with declining property values, resulting in lower property tax revenue. City management made this recommendation knowing it required further cutbacks for city employees.

All Winter Park citizens should thank each member of the city commission for accepting the budget proposed by the city manager and then asking to remove an additional million dollars in spending to further boost the city’s depleted reserves. These were unanimous actions by our commission.

This means that while some may see a slight increase in their 2010-2011 Winter Park property taxes depending on their assessment and Save Our Homes status, overall, the property tax revenue claimed by the city will decline by about 9 percent and unrestricted city reserves are now expected to increase from less than $2,000,000 in September 2007 to over $8,900,000 by September 2011.

Restoring reserves has been a critical priority for the city since they were severely depleted by the 2007 legal settlement over the city’s refusal to proceed with the previously approved post office redevelopment. Reserves are critical in providing for hurricane impacts and other uncontrollable events, and offer much needed flexibility in executing long term plans.

This unanimous outcome is somewhat unique among political bodies and clearly indicates that our city management and commission have the correct financial priorities for Winter Park. On this most critical of issues they are representing our long term best interest and doing so unanimously.

Now, we need to make progress on fixing our flawed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code policies so we can build our tax base in a way that is compatible with the character of Winter Park.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Posted in Money, Policy.

rev="post-1872" 11 comments

By Peter Weldon – September 30, 2010

Who Owns the Risk?

September 27, 2010

To: Mayor and Commissioners, City of Winter Park, FL

Subject: Who owns the risk? – or- What does Winter Park have to look forward to if Amendment 4 passes?

I write to encourage unanimous support for the 2010-2011 city budget you preliminarily approved at the meeting of September 13, 2010. While there are important concerns about the wisdom of recommending spending increases for projects of personal interest to certain commissioners who also recommend decreasing previously established benefits for city employees, overall, your instincts are to be encouraged and applauded.

Each of you deserves praise for the unanimous votes to leave the millage rate unchanged and to provide for an additional million dollars in reserves over and above that initially recommended by city management. City management and the commission have done a very effective job in managing our finances under very difficult circumstances. It is now time to unanimously approve this budget.

This budget cycle should be what we now call “a teachable moment.” It should now be clear to each of you how little control the commission has over the revenue side of city operations and how painful cuts on the spending side can be, both to city employees and to ambitions for our city held by individual commissioners, interest groups, and citizens at large. Current realities hopefully bring into clear view the scope of risk the city commission is responsible for managing and the consequences of decisions that expose our city to great risk without return.

Some truths should now be evident to all.

  • Emotionally driven decisions expose us to risk and result in great social and financial costs.
  • Narrow agendas do not pay the bills or position Winter Park for the future.
  • Financial surpluses are a prerequisite to social improvements in the absence of voter interest in assuming debt paid off by their property taxes.

We should ask now what happens when the next burst of real estate appreciation offers reserves in excess of spending levels.

  • Will we squander most of it on vertical integration that is only supportable at the margin, pet projects, and self inflicted legal settlements that consume all reserves that then take years to recover?
  • Or, will we be prepared to invest in projects that secure the character, quality, and value of our city?

We should ask now how our current policies anticipate and encourage redevelopment that will add to our city, sustaining the continual reinvestment necessary to maintain the character and quality of Winter Park.

We can only fulfill the vision we all share of a unique city with ample and exemplary parks, and the best public safety and services in central Florida if we have the revenue to pay for it. Our vision can become reality only if we define who we are, what we want, and then go out and get it knowing there is a balance to be found between the interests of the city and those of private parties whom we encourage to voluntarily assume risks the city and all citizens will benefit from.

I and many other citizens expect our city commission to address these issues and make the policy changes necessary to secure a positive future for Winter Park.

Yours Truly,

Pete Weldon
700 Via Lombardy
Winter Park, FL 32789

Posted in Development, Money, Policy.

rev="post-1864" No comments

By Peter Weldon – September 30, 2010

The End is Near

August 26, 2010

It has taken several years and much effort to wake the people of Winter Park to the reality that righteous nonsense, lies, and hypocrisy are not a substitute for experienced judgment and leadership. Many more citizens are beginning to recognize the reality.

Purveyors of divisive prattle in Winter Park are revealing themselves.

(Click the image then press “Ctrl +” or “Ctrl -” to resize within a browser window.)

Craig Miller finances Bridges and Dillaha character assassination.

The facts can be found here.

Please help as we seek honorable, experienced, and capable people to serve our city in the March 2011 city commission election. Talk to your neighbors, talk to former city leaders, help our city recruit the best possible leaders. I welcome the chance to support, encourage, and work with those qualified and willing to serve.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Posted in Elections, Ethics.

rev="post-1823" 2 comments

By Peter Weldon – August 26, 2010

Dishonorable

August 22, 2010

Karen Diebel, former Winter Park Vice Mayor and candidate for US House Seat in Florida District 24, believes in individual freedom, individual responsibility, smaller government, and financial restraint. I am a supporter.

Craig Miller, an opponent of Diebel’s in the Republican primary for the District 24 US House seat, along with former and current Winter Park city commission members Margie Bridges and Beth Dillaha, believe in character assassination and personal vendettas.

Miller mailed a letter to District 24 voters written by Bridges and Dillaha. The authors know this letter contains false and misleading claims about Diebel.

The fact is that Diebel voted repeatedly to lower the property tax rate and to reduce spending in Winter Park while building reserves during her service from 2007 to 2010. Bridges and Dillaha both voted to increase the 2009 property tax rate over Diebel’s objection (see page 9 here) and both voted to maintain the property tax rate for 2010, again over Diebel’s objection and desire to reduce the rate (see page 12 here). During Diebel’s tenure on the Winter Park commission and with her support the property tax rate was reduced by 14% and annual general fund spending declined by almost 6%.

Bridges and Dillaha knowingly misstate the facts about several events in claiming that Diebel is a spender and not a true conservative.

The former city manager had a sweetheart deal with a prior city commission that made it more and more expensive to terminate him the longer he stayed around, even though the city Charter requires that the city manager serve at the pleasure of the commission. Following his termination the former city manager sued Winter Park for even more money and Dillaha supported a settlement of $490,000 that is included in the total cost she now criticizes Diebel for (see page 2 here).

Bridges and Dillaha are anti-commuter rail activists who criticize anyone who supports this infrastructure investment and their claims about the existing Winter Park commuter rail agreement with Orange County are false. (Learn more here.)

The Bridges and Dillaha claim about buying out developers is the most outrageous hypocrisy. A settlement was paid as a direct result of the actions of Bridges, Dillaha and their political supporters for they were responsible for stopping the Carlisle project in Winter Park resulting in the developers suing the city. The settlement was paid to avoid a $25,000,000 liability for Winter Park taxpayers that was created by Bridges and Dillaha. You may also wish to know that Bridges voted for the settlement (see page 4 here).

  • That Craig Miller would participate in character assassination says a lot about his qualifications for the US House seat from District 24.
  • That Bridges and Dillaha would knowingly mislead District 24 voters and refer to themselves as “honorable” five times in their letter is both a disgrace and an insult to the character and quality of the people of Winter Park.
  • That Karen Diebel chooses to discuss the real issues and rejects mudslinging reinforces my support for her candidacy.

Regards, Pete Weldon
700 Via Lombardy
Winter Park, FL 32789

Posted in Elections, Ethics.

rev="post-1799" 5 comments

By Peter Weldon – August 22, 2010