A well-informed local gentleman who knows much about such things breaks the Paid Parking referendum down to its core, explaining his take on the upcoming vote.
In a nutshell he says, we’re screwed if we do and we’re screwed if we don’t.
He explains writing: “The referendum states The City shall not implement paid parking…
- In Florida law and statutory construction, a “shall not implement” directive regarding an existing program acts as an absolute legal prohibition. It mandates that a state agency, local government, or licensee must freeze, halt, or refrain from executing new components, expansions, or enforcement mechanisms of that program.
For an existing program, it prevents the baseline operations from growing, adding new regulatory tiers, or extending to new populations/geographies.
Any attempt by an agency or official to carry out a prohibited implementation renders the action illegal, unauthorized, and subject to being struck down in court.
So, the existing program can continue regardless of the vote, if the Commission wishes.
Could the YES option, if accepted, be applied retroactively, cancelling the existing program?
- Under Florida law, a local ordinance can only be applied retroactively if the local government explicitly shows a clear intent for it to do so, and that retroactive application does not violate the Florida or U.S. Constitutions by creating new obligations, imposing new penalties, or impairing vested rights.
The text of the ordinance must show clear, unmistakable evidence that the local law-making body meant for it to apply to past events or prior conduct.
The referendum text, should the Commission adopt it, does not declare this, and the program again continues.
So, if the YES option passes, and the Commission accepts it, what really happens?
Any extension or modification of the existing paid parking program will be illegal—what does that mean? The program would be basically frozen, so changing rates or modifying permit policies, and such, would not be possible.
How long is the City willing to operate a “frozen in time” program? That makes the program a “dead horse”, more of a liability than an asset at some point.
So, if YES wins, this leaves the Commission with choices: adopt it and be faced with a program they cannot change or reject it and so ignore the will of the voters, or (most unlikely) accept the voters will and voluntarily cancel paid parking.
Paid parking is part of the landscape for the near future regardless of the vote. Of course, the Commission could voluntarily stop the program since they plan to raise our taxes to cover it regardless.
What we have here, says the expert, is a rogue commission and city taxpayers are stuck paying for their actions.
The Gang of Four on the current Commission are Genece (Cruella DeVille) Minshew, Tim (The Conniver) Poynter, Joyce (I’ll Have To Call Chip Ross) Tuten, and James (The Potted Plant) Antun.
There is the one glimmer of hope he concludes adding: IF the YES vote is big enough, one of the Gang of Four MIGHT have second thoughts–four votes are required to reject the referendum.
In any case paid parking (though someone will probably sue to stop it) continues on but with no ability to expand, i.e. raise rates.
A new Commission or a new referendum is needed to finally kill it.
Darron Ayscue, who was reelected unopposed, is the lone voice of reason on the Commission’s motley crew of schemers, liars, whiners and screwballs.
***
Local Paper Cleans Up Its Act: The weekly Nassau Community Press reappeared this past week strutting around like a reformed alcoholic in a new suit of clothes and filled with self-assurance.
The paper the previous week hit rock bottom. It looked like the end of the road for the fledgling media newcomer, which appeared on newsstands with incomplete sentences, stories with repetitious paragraphs, misspellings, and different fonts on the same page for no reason. The paper appeared as if it had been laid out in a blender.
Then it entered rehab and emerged as a reformed publication.
New bylines appeared; the layout was clean and crisp, articles were readable and, as far as I could tell, factual. However, the lengthy headline issue still needs to be addressed, and many photos still require captions.
Based on the masthead a new crew of editors and reporters have arrived to help the staggering outlet get back on its editorial feet and stay clean.
If the paper ever conducted a readership survey, I’m willing to wager that the best-read section each week is the “In The Courts” page, a collection of mugshots of miscreants with a brief sentence on why they were arrested. People probably scan them to see if they recognize a familiar face or which neighbors to avoid. The saddest one this week was an attractive 17-year-old juvenile gal arrested for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, criminal attempt, and firing a deadly missile into a vehicle. This is not the gal you want junior bring home for Sunday lunch.
I don’t know what the title “Programs Director” in front of Asher Landon’s name in the masthead means, but I assume this person might be the new editor. In the masthead the name was sandwiched between two new reporters, Amy Armstrong and the former News Leader reporter with the fortunate name of Julia Roberts.
The veteran Ms. Roberts would be a welcome addition to the paper’s staff if she’s cured herself of the annoying habit of omitting critical pieces of information thereby allowing her articles to slant left. If Programs Director Landon is indeed the editor, then he/she should direct the editorial staff to stick to the old tried and true who, what, when, where, why and how news story formula. Reporters should also be provided a copy of the slim booklet, “The Elements of Style.” It never goes out of date.
Publisher Melissa Mitchell would do her readers a favor by introducing the publication’s new staffers with a brief biographical sentence or two. This would be particularly welcome on the “Opinion Page”.
Jerry Turk, the paper’s angry disheveled weekly columnist, continues to demonstrate there is nothing easier than being an opinion writer and that the term “journalistic standards” is an oxymoron. There are no heavy lifting and no other physical labor requirements, and Turk makes it even easier…no research.
There are two other opinion writers – Tracy Connors and Greg Maresca – on the page, both well-groomed and sporting ties, while Turk looks like he dressed in a windstorm. The two new guys need to break up their content as their last two columns, although well written, were one continuous paragraph.
All three write like they dress.
Turk is always welcome to comment here. I have never edited him but have limited him to two. His last series of comments (5) here were twice as lengthy as my entire commentary. However, I’m always willing to print his critiques unedited.
Since he has his own forum in the Nassau Community Press, I’m curious as to why he doesn’t use it to criticize me and my opinions?
***
More Taxing News: A Leon County circuit judge ruled this week that the wording on the ballot for a proposed Florida constitutional amendment that would increase the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 this year and $250,000 in 2028, must be changed.
He said that the language approved by lawmakers was misleading, politically charged and factually inaccurate.
The decision does not remove House Joint Resolution 1F from the November 2026 ballot. Instead, the order bars Secretary of State Cord Byrd from using the current wording and directs Attorney General James Uthmeier to prepare a revised ballot title and summary within 10 days.
Local jurisdictions don’t like the amendment correctly assuming it will hamper their reckless spending habits. Local governments and other critics sound their usual phony baloney alarms screaming that large exemptions could reduce revenue available for police, fire protection, infrastructure and other services.
Infrastructure and other services are never defined by these big spenders. If Fernandina Beach is an example is means more employees, more new vehicles, a new building to house all those new hires and store their shiny new cars and trucks.
The proposal is part of a push by state leaders to reduce or potentially eliminate property taxes on homesteaded property. Supporters have argued that rising property values have produced rapidly increasing local tax collections and placed additional pressure on homeowners.
The Legislature titled the amendment “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes” and says it would benefit taxpayers, ensure funding for core services, protect small businesses and promote fairness for Florida residents. Makes sense to me and provides solid reasons to vote for it.
***
Meet The Candidate and get a hot dog and a soda too. Scott Inglis, my preferred candidate for City Commissioner, will hold an informal session, Wednesday, August 12 from 4-8 p.m., at American Legion Post 54, 626 South 3rd Street.
It’s open to the public and Scott will answer questions and explain his positions while folks can gulp complimentary sodas and munch free hot dogs.
The primary election is Tuesday, August 18.
.
You explained a parking YES vote clearly and in a fine journalistic style. Kudos to you.
Dave….the citizens who are in favor of Paid Parking always say they don’t want their taxes to go up. Well guess what…..the Commission just tentatively chose to raise property taxes to the maximum they were allowed! Betting money is it stays there no matter what happens to Paid Parking! The reason people think that, is because Paid Parking has been a failure falling short of net revenue projections. So the citizens are going to take it in the property tax shorts regardless, courtesy of the “bait and switch” Commissioners.
Did you see the budget the City Manager unveiled? That millage rate is not ratcheting down.
Early voting has begun…..Vote YES against Paid Parking and vote for the limiting property taxes referendum in November!
Dave, For years, I have been wracking my brain to remember the name of the first English textbook in college. Due to “The Elements of Style”, I was never able to meet the length requirement of any following assignment. Thank you for providing the answer, at last.
FIRST: Boycott, boycott, boycott the commissioners business and publicly shame them any chance you get, for the paid parking disgrace.
SECOND, Dave, why do you want to vote for Matt over Taylor Wilton Simpson ? ? ? Matt is against the Save Act, which desperately need to save this country. There is no way this guy deserve a vote.
Meant “. . . why do you want to vote for Matt Taylor over Wilton Simpson ? ? ?”