Letters to the Editor
City development process is well thought-out

I would like to respond to the Viewpoint article which was submitted by Elise Evans concerning the city's development process which was characterized as unfair. First, I would like to establish that the city is confident that the project Mrs. Evans is referencing is in compliance with the city's Land Development Code (LDC).

Mrs. Evans opinion makes it sound as if the city takes a "cavalier" approach to the plan review process. The city has thought long and hard about the plan review process, and devised a system of checks and balances to assure compliance. Projects in a "commercial" category such as this one, which involve the construction of a new building are reviewed in a three-step process. The plans are first reviewed by city staff. Staff works with the developer to iron out any issues that are contrary to the city's LDC. Once staff believes that the developer has complied with the LDC requirements, the plans are forwarded to the Development Review Board (DRB). The DRB is composed of citizens of the community, who are appointed by the city council. Typically they are individuals who have experience in planning and zoning, engineering, real estate and etc. The DRB reviews the plans in a public meeting in which comments from the public are welcomed and encouraged. At the conclusion of their review, the DRB will make a recommendation that the plans be forwarded to the city council for final review or returned to the developer for revision or modification. Lastly, the plans are forwarded to the city council along with the city staff and the DRB's recommendations. The city council reviews and discusses the plans in a meeting, which is open to the public. Like the DRB, the city council welcomes and encourages comments from the public regarding the project.

Typically, other jurisdictions do not require such formal proceedings unless the project involves a change in zoning, conditional use or variance from the adopted regulations.

To insinuate that our process is "cavalier" and does not provide checks and balances or protect the neighbors is simply not the case.

Edwin "Buz" Eddy Gulf Breeze City Manager Midway Fire Board challenged to save money, lives

Once again, [Midway Fire Commissioner] Clyde Broome is whining that everyone has "an agenda" against the Midway Fire District [MFD] . Enough already! Yes, [MFD], we have an agenda. Try to follow along.

Amendment 1 spoke rather plainly to all agencies spending out tax money. [Commissioner] Clyde obviously understood that, so Midway fielded a grossly unfair and inequitable attempt to circumvent Amendment 1 with a flat, non-deductible $250 fire tax. Clyde would have required a family with a $150,000 home to pay the same tax as a family with a two million dollar waterfront mansion. There was also the matter of a small inclusion that would have allowed Midway to raise that fire tax without limit and without voter approval. Talk about hidden agendas.

That absurd idea failed by a margin of five or six to one! See the agenda, Clyde?

There is also an apparent lack of reality involved. [Commissioner] Clyde says everything they have is "essential.' That term applies to equipment and services necessary to the core mission of Midway, which his to provide the best fire protection possible within the budget available. Staff and fire trucks are "necessary." Christmas parades, smoke houses and other things that take funds from the core mission are just "nice."

With a serious recession and continuing inflation, building a new multi-million dollar fire station and duplicating training facilities really available and PJC and PFD would be insanity.

That is the agenda. Midway must cut the fat. Midway commissioners have a responsibility to do the best they can with the available funds. Anyone who can't or won't do that should consider a "protest" resignation.

Maurice Cockerham

Gulf Breeze