Following the popular article, “Billion Dollar Theft Planned by City,” the role of Assistant City Attorney Linda Hudson became a focus for further inquiry.  Toward that end, I requested copies of her city emails from the time frame of that article through the present, per Florida’s Public Records Act.

Emails were the only documents requested, as they are purely digital and require minimum computer resources to locate, search, sort, review, copy or send.  Past requests of a similar nature came with a reasonable city technology fee of $25, usually overnight.

This request became an entirely different story.  Following a commitment from “records@talgov.com” to begin the request and identify costs, the City Attorney’s influence took over.  In the meantime, I paid the quoted $69.24 “technology charge” for sorting out the emails from the city’s computer.

With no advance notification as to additional costs, I received a $500 charge along with information that an army of law clerks was spending $100/hour manually reviewing and searching emails for my request.  The total expected charge to me for this search and review was quoted at $11,600.  The lack of notice and the manual method of searching were both surprising.  Something was up.

This was, of course, a scheme to evade the requirements of Florida Public Records Law and to refuse to provide the records as requested.  Until payment is made on the first un-warranted $500 charge, no further record requests will be performed for me, and no records released. They had effectively erected a cost barrier, however false the premise for the charges.  To put it bluntly, they refused to provide the records.

THE SEARCH FOR LINDA HUDSON’S COURT NOTES

Per claims by Lewis Shelley in the City Attorney’s Office, and Matt Lutz in the Treasurer-Clerk’s Office, each of more than 125,000 emails from my request have to be manually pulled up, read, reviewed for content, and evaluated by law clerks under their direction.  They have suggested it could be completed in 20 weeks, as long as I keep paying.

These clerks are ostensibly looking for copies of very specialized documents allowed as exemptions to the Public Records Act known as Attorney Work Product.  In  previous, similar searches, the assistant city attorney withheld 140 separate “attorney work product” emails, only to have every one later released as unqualified.  The courts have expressly ruled that “embarrassment” of the author is not a legislatively-defined exemption.

In order to be temporarily exempt under Florida Law, attorney work product documents have to be written exclusively to reflect a legal strategy or theory for immediately- pending litigation.  The parties to the matter must be named, and the document may not have “gone public”.  Emails, with their ease of forwarding, are unlikely to be private, and no control exists to be sure they haven’t “gone public.”  Genuine litigation strategy is not generally  shared by email.

In reality, Ms. Hudson has all her emails sorted into folders and would have immediate knowledge of current litigation (She authors a monthly update on pending litigation topics for city managers.)  Any truly-qualifying  “attorney work product” emails that might exist would be readily identifiable for removal from the search results I’ve requested.  However, such an obvious, simple solution would not further their elaborate charade to refuse delivery of public records.

A humorous, remote possibility that the City Attorney and his staff really do have to look through millions of emails every time they want to review a pending case may perhaps explain why they so frequently agree to out-of-court settlements.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

This convoluted, wasteful exercise to avoid releasing public records from an assistant city attorney is one more example of the questionable government practiced downtown these days.  It is no less than a violation of the Florida Public Records Act.  But, it could be far more serious than that.

This incident puts a spotlight on the City Attorney and his staff:  We have a private domain operating within City Hall, actively working to evade scrutiny as well as responsibility to the public.  How many laws are being circumvented?  What rights are being trampled?  What shady deals are going on?  Without access to our public records, we can’t know.

Further, our new Interim Treasurer-Clerk may have bought into their deception.  He has failed to respond to multiple inquiries on this request.  Public records distribution is a function of his office.

Another concern arises:  If the City’s Information Systems Services (computer services) is duped into cooperating with this secrecy, there does exist the possibility that crucial public records could be disappearing, with no trace.  We need immediate backups for long-term storage outside the city system with no possibility of erasure.

The public needs a good, hard look into our City Attorney’s Office. This kind of evasive action doesn’t occur without reason.

If you’re wondering where the City Commissioners and the Mayor are in this, they’re on vacation.  And when have they ever looked into the City Attorney’s office?  They know what’s going on.

Following the popular article, “Billion Dollar Theft Planned by City,” the role of Assistant City Attorney Linda Hudson became a focus for further inquiry.  Toward that end, I requested copies of her city emails from the time frame of that article through the present, per Florida’s Public Records Act.

Emails were the only documents requested, as they are purely digital and require minimum computer resources to locate, search, sort, review, copy or send.  Past requests of a similar nature came with a reasonable city technology fee of $25, usually overnight.

This request became an entirely different story.  Following a commitment from “records@talgov.com” to begin the request and identify costs, the City Attorney’s influence took over.  In the meantime, I paid the quoted $69.24 “technology charge” for sorting out the emails from the city’s computer.

With no advance notification as to additional costs, I received a $500 charge along with information that an army of law clerks was spending $100/hour manually reviewing and searching emails for my request.  The total expected charge to me for this search and review was quoted at $11,600.  The lack of notice and the manual method of searching were both surprising.  Something was up.

This was, of course, a scheme to evade the requirements of Florida Public Records Law and to refuse to provide the records as requested.  Until payment is made on the first un-warranted $500 charge, no further record requests will be performed for me, and no records released. They had effectively erected a cost barrier, however false the premise for the charges.  To put it bluntly, they refused to provide the records.

THE SEARCH FOR LINDA HUDSON’S COURT NOTES

Per claims by Lewis Shelley in the City Attorney’s Office, and Matt Lutz in the Treasurer-Clerk’s Office, each of more than 125,000 emails from my request have to be manually pulled up, read, reviewed for content, and evaluated by law clerks under their direction.  They have suggested it could be completed in 20 weeks, as long as I keep paying.

These clerks are ostensibly looking for copies of very specialized documents allowed as exemptions to the Public Records Act known as Attorney Work Product.  In  previous, similar searches, the assistant city attorney withheld 140 separate “attorney work product” emails, only to have every one later released as unqualified.  The courts have expressly ruled that “embarrassment” of the author is not a legislatively-defined exemption.

In order to be temporarily exempt under Florida Law, attorney work product documents have to be written exclusively to reflect a legal strategy or theory for immediately- pending litigation.  The parties to the matter must be named, and the document may not have “gone public”.  Emails, with their ease of forwarding, are unlikely to be private, and no control exists to be sure they haven’t “gone public.”  Genuine litigation strategy is not generally  shared by email.

In reality, Ms. Hudson has all her emails sorted into folders and would have immediate knowledge of current litigation (She authors a monthly update on pending litigation topics for city managers.)  Any truly-qualifying  “attorney work product” emails that might exist would be readily identifiable for removal from the search results I’ve requested.  However, such an obvious, simple solution would not further their elaborate charade to refuse delivery of public records.

A humorous, remote possibility that the City Attorney and his staff really do have to look through millions of emails every time they want to review a pending case may perhaps explain why they so frequently agree to out-of-court settlements.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

This convoluted, wasteful exercise to avoid releasing public records from an assistant city attorney is one more example of the questionable government practiced downtown these days.  It is no less than a violation of the Florida Public Records Act.  But, it could be far more serious than that.

This incident puts a spotlight on the City Attorney and his staff:  We have a private domain operating within City Hall, actively working to evade scrutiny as well as responsibility to the public.  How many laws are being circumvented?  What rights are being trampled?  What shady deals are going on?  Without access to our public records, we can’t know.

Further, our new Interim Treasurer-Clerk may have bought into their deception.  He has failed to respond to multiple inquiries on this request.  Public records distribution is a function of his office.

Another concern arises:  If the City’s Information Systems Services (computer services) is duped into cooperating with this secrecy, there does exist the possibility that crucial public records could be disappearing, with no trace.  We need immediate backups for long-term storage outside the city system with no possibility of erasure.

The public needs a good, hard look into our City Attorney’s Office. This kind of evasive action doesn’t occur without reason.

If you’re wondering where the City Commissioners and the Mayor are in this, they’re on vacation.  And when have they ever looked into the City Attorney’s office?  They know what’s going on.

In part one of this two-part series, it was shown how our commissioners from both the City of Tallahassee and Leon County have allowed a private contractor, the Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation (TTHP), to take control of a public citizens’ advisory group, the Architectural Review Board (ARB).  Half the membership is positioned to be compromised ethically.  Two genuine citizen members have been replaced by TTHP board officers, making four total on the ARB.  How does this matter?  Neighborhoods.  This is where the effect of voting control has huge impact upon large numbers of people.  This is how other people, who know better than you how to take care of your own property, intend to make you do as they say, whether you like it or not.

Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO) Zoning

Tallahassee’s Land Development Code provides for designating a neighborhood as an Historic Preservation District, which gets automatically rezoned by the city.  It’s called Historic Preservation Overlay zoning (HPO).  With HPO, the entire visible portion of every property (structures and landscape) is controlled by the Architectural Review Board, in perpetuity.

District HPO rezoning can be done to any platted subdivision or any neighborhood, including commercial or industrial districts, over fifty years of age.  It then applies to every building and property within the designated area, old or new.  Future property use is sharply curtailed, regardless of the primary zoning allowances.   New construction is also under ARB control.  Board members can invent confounding building design requirements on the spot.

Guidelines incorporated into Tallahassee’s Land Development Code for determining HPO districts or regulating HPO properties are based on a national standard code which has been found to be “unconstitutionally vague” (Illinois Supreme Court).  This vagueness, based on a “feeling and association” which contributes to a “sense of time and place” allows virtually any properties to be declared historically important, thereby justifying the rezoning process.

For day-to-day management of property issues, the ARB’s directive is to ensure all visible changes are appropriate to this “sense and feeling” of the district’s design and history.  The actual exercise of such a fuzzy standard can be astonishing and frustrating.  Appeals are nearly impossible.  Cost or time are not factors they consider.  It took one owner four months to get a roof shingle approved during Winter 2009.  New paint on another home had to be sandblasted off, as the owner proceeded without the ARB Certificate Of Appropriateness. Driveways, roofing, windows, siding, fences, additions, doors, landscape features, painting, railings, handicap ramps — all require formal review…an endless, meddling intrusion.

Billion-Dollar Land Grab Plan Emerging From City Attorney’s Office:

We are rapidly approaching the magic fifty-year window for perhaps 20,000 homes in Tallahassee in about 150 neighborhoods:  Betton Hills, Los Robles, Old Town, Killearn Estates, Indianhead Acres, Woodland Hills, Lehigh, Apalachee Ridge, Waverly Hills, Huntington Woods, Piedmont Park, plus very many more:  Every subdivision built before or during the 1960s will be front and center soon.  Then will follow the 1970s developments.  Tallahassee will be a living museum akin to Williamsburg, VA.  Tourists might come to visit and marvel….in about a hundred years.

Consider the market value of your home:  20% of that worth represents a reasonable valuation for a typical, voluntarily- deeded building conservation easement, with right of exterior control.  The City of Tallahassee is going to seize that right from every property owner, without paying for it, through HPO rezoning.  A billion dollars of property rights–stolen– from five-billion dollars of privately-owned real estate.

Here is the formula:  Historic preservation ordinances manipulated into an illegitimate abomination by our City Attorney’s Office (CAO) + An ethically-compromised, puppet ARB + A sole-source, no-bid, unregulated city contractor (Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation) + An utterly compliant Planning Department + A Planning Commission that always rubber-stamps ARB votes and officially appends the HPO rezoning, and a City Commission that may know what is happening but won’t act in opposition to their City Attorney. The two Planning stages are conveniently contaminated by dual-role members who also serve on the ARB:  This ensures continuity of the compromised ARB decision. There is no part of this process that will withstand scrutiny. Add in the Board of Adjustment and Appeals as enforcement agency.  Yes, they can assess fines or take your house away.  You have to cooperate.  This is full government power and authority in action.

It’s Already Happening:  Lafayette Park

Look at what has already happened in Lafayette Park Neighborhood, an interesting mix of 650 older homes in the triangle bounded by Miccosukee Road, Seventh Avenue and Gadsden Street.  Here, where HPO rezoning is now pending, a small club calling itself a neighborhood association had fewer than 30 active members.

In 2008, an historic preservation application was originated by the TTHP in collusion with part of this Lafayette Park Neighborhood Association.  This group provided faked documentation “proving” enormous community support for historic designation.  This support was a presupposed necessity at that time.

The application, through changes manipulated by the city attorney, now contains a patently counterfeit “owner” certification signed by club members in place of the code-required property owners’ signatures.

The City Attorney’s office stands behind this counterfeit certification as being legitimate, thus opening the door for anyone to begin rezoning another’s property in Tallahassee, without their permission.

No reasonable person can conclude anything from this owner-permission fraud other than the fact that something gravely wrong is going on in the Tallahassee City Attorney’s office.

More Shenanigans on Lafayette Park Application

Included in the Lafayette Park application were over 500 nearly blank pages of forms, supposedly describing the specific history and details of each property.  However, only the addresses were filled-in, plus phony historic descriptions such as “brick”.  Yes, just “brick”, or in many cases, “vernacular,”  an authentic-sounding, pseudo-expert, historic architecture adjective which is not applicable to any home in Tallahassee.  There was not one legitimate State of Florida Historic Property Form as deemed appropriate by the Department of State, which coordinates historic preservation on a state level.

Interestingly, public record emails show the ARB members didn’t bother to pick up their review copies of the 1800-page application before arriving at the first meeting to vote on it. Vehement property-owner protests were ignored.  The board hid behind Assistant City Attorney Linda Hudson:  She engineered or justified every atrocity the ARB committed against the property owners.  They did their deed:  The ARB voted unanimously to approve this defective application.

This is the fruit of those ethical compromises described in the first article.  This is the result when a private contractor is allowed to take over a public citizen advisory board.

Six months after the ARB voted, growing wrath from three hundred Lafayette Park property owners finally jolted the city commissioners from their inertia.  In reaction, they put the neighborhood historic designation process in abeyance, hoping for calmer attitudes.  Now, three long years after it began, this application still remains in limbo as a “pending rezoning.”  Sellers and realtors who fail to disclose it are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages when it moves forward.

City Commission Turns A Blind Eye To  City Attorney’s Behavior

The City Attorney designated the Lafayette Park application process “quasi-judicial.”  CAO warned the city commissioners of terrible disclosure forms necessary, should they look at a single citizen letter or hear one complaint.  The commissioners dutifully closed their eyes and ears to the people who elected them.  Hundreds of earnest, impassioned emails and letters were filed away, unread.  This is well documented with public record correspondence between commissioners’ staff and Assistant City Attorney Linda Hudson.

That disclosure form is a mere formality for the record.  Our City Commissioners had a perfect legal right (and a moral obligation) to listen to constituents and read their emails and letters.  They willingly chose not to do it. You are not alone if you think “quasi judicial” is code-speak for the City Attorney to tell our elected commissioners to look the other way while a piece of nasty business is going on.

New Code, New Loopholes…

Now, City Attorney staff are fine-tuning their scheme:  Seizing upon a requested code revision from the Long Range Target Issue Commission, with an advisory “Citizens Workgroup”, they are re-writing land development code language for neighborhood historic designations.  Expect new loopholes big enough to shove neighborhoods through. We’ve seen the current code’s boilerplate property-owner protection evaporate at the first touch of the city attorney staff. Already, one workgroup member has informed the City Manager the results will not protect private property rights.

Grandma’s Porch….?

“Historic Preservation” is a very positive, heart-warming phrase, conjuring up an image of Grandma’s house, porch rockers, a shady yard and happy times.  Shame on anyone who would venture to speak against such a wonderful thing.  Beware!

In Tallahassee, “Historic Preservation”  is a sugar-coated, misleading label designed to conceal a cold legal procedure whereby your right to control your own home is taken away through this thing called “overlay zoning.”  True zoning is a passive categorization of land use to segregate incompatible uses. HPO zoning is an aggressive, continuous manipulation of every property and property owner. Afternoon ice cream with Grandma on the porch has nothing to do with this. It’s a method of control where property owners are forced to become tenants, while city government and the TTHP become their landlord through the ARB.  It’s about Grandpa rolling over in his grave at what’s going on.

A Solution is Possible

This catastrophe to our personal lives and homes can be prevented through two simple code changes:

1.  Specify in the land development code that HPO zoning cannot apply to Neighborhood district designations.

HPO rezoning should only be done on a property-by-property basis, when individual property owners (who will learn all too well the burden such zoning imposes) specifically apply for it.  It will have trifling value once the City grant fund is depleted.

2.  Make all HPO rezoning owner-revocable at any time through a simple, signed form, filed through the Tax Appraiser’s office.

Eventually, every owner of an historic re-zoned property will discover what the Tallahassee Architectural Review Board is like in actual practice.  The only way to keep such a board in line is to have them face the consequences of having an owner opt out and walk away, rather than put up with their cooked votes.  No governing board, given infinite authority, and freedom to act without written rules, will operate honorably.

The Not-So-Simple Part….

Another part of the solution is not so simple:  The Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation, while contracting with both the City of Tallahassee and Leon County, is apparently striving to subvert our honest governing processes for their own benefit.  This contractor’s unscrupulous efforts are openly supported and aided by the City Attorney’s Office, which is even more suspect.  This contract needs to end.

And, finally, the City Attorney’s office needs immediate, major changes.  If this much harm is happening through their efforts on an issue so small as historic preservation, we probably have a major earthquake about to occur in the other city departments.

——————————

The Architectural Review Board, The Planning Department, the Planning Commission and the contract with Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation are all jointly operated by both Tallahassee and Leon County.

Email every City Commissioner:  http://www.talgov.com/email.cfm?id=commissioners

Email every Leon County Commissioner:  http://www.leoncountyfl.gov/BCC/email/

A copy of this story, with extensive supplemental information and source data, will be posted at HistoricLafayettePark.com. This website newsletter was founded specifically to expose these abuses.

Mark S. Daniel

Editor & Publisher, HistoricLafayettePark.com

TallyMark@Rocketmail.com

July 4, 2011

Mr. Michael Wing, an affable, pleasant, soft-spoken man is the Executive Director, who also serves as staff of the Architectural Review Board which will “approve” your house and plan.  He also sits on the City’s Historic Property Grant and Loan Finance Committee, along with a few honorary City Department heads and local bankers.  Mr. Wing is readily available and eager to talk historic preservation, especially if you have an old house and want help to save it for the future.

So.  Here is someone on the City’s Historic Property Grant & Loan Finance Committee, and this person is the only one present who knows details on applicants’ historic properties–in a professional, historic sense.  The grant committee is going to pretty much defer to him on each property they review for a grant or loan.  That’s why he is there.

Mr. Wing has been on this grant committee since 2005. He has been instrumental in obtaining grants and loans of amazingly large sums for several persons whom he has subsequently recruited for membership on the Architectural Review Board.

Naturally, these recruited members will look to him for guidance and are likely to cast their vote as he recommends on matters coming before the Architectural Review Board.  One can presume they really appreciate those thousands of dollars.  Who wouldn’t?  And it’s not as if he’s a fringe element and the votes would be suspicious–he’s the historic preservation officer.  They just go along.   One of the current members got $100,000 prior to joining the ARB.  Another member received three loans and three grants!

Because of the code-defined makeup of the Architectural Review Board, which requires four members to have historic properties (which are eligible for grants or additional grants), this representative of the City’s Historic Grant and Loan Finance Committee is also looked to for direction on voting from these additional property-owner members.  They know that someday they may wish to apply for a City renovation grant and this person will potentially be making the key presentation to the full grant committee.  They, too are likely to follow his lead when casting their votes.  Why not?  He is the Executive Director who has written the application they are voting on, and has prepared the Staff Recommendation  to accept it.

Add in another interesting fact:  The membership of the Architectural Review Board has gradually changed, and representatives of the Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation (TTHP) have increased their presence on the ARB from the code-specified two members to four members.  This is a code violation, but fully supported by the City’s staff Attorney, Linda Hudson.  Everyone downtown looks the other way:  It must be “ok”, since she said so.  Personally, I think “two” means “two”, and that’s not very ambiguous.  In fact, it’s very exact and specific, and for the City Attorney to let one of his staff say that “two” means “four or more” would implicate him very seriously in this financial and historic property control game.

For clarification, this key member of the City’s Historic Property Grant & Loan Committee, Michael Wing, works for the TTHP, as a paid employee with the title Executive Director.  They have placed him in charge of the Architectural Review Board, as well as placing him on the City Historical Property Grant Committee.  These roles he fills are defined as part of his job in the contract provided by the City Attorney’s office.  There is nothing coincidental or odd here.  He is supposed to have those two jobs.  He is fulfilling the duties for which he is paid.

———–

So we have an Architectural Review Board which, today, has five members who have either received City grants of thousands of dollars or who may anticipate receiving City grants of thousands of dollars, all guided by Michael Wing of the TTHP.  One of these five members works in the Planning Department, the next step for the application….

There are four members of the Architectural Review Board who are also on the Board of Directors of the Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation.  One of these, in fact, is acting as the Chairman of the Architectural Review Board.  This contractor has taken control of a public citizen’s advisory board in violation of both Leon County’s and Tallahassee’s statutes, but with the written approval of the City Attorney’s staff, regardless of the fact that it violates the codes.

The Membership List of the Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation, being mentioned in the code as a condition of their contract representation on the Architectural Review Board, should be public information.  A FL Chapter 119 Public Records request to the City of Tallahassee was refused outright by City staff attorney Linda Hudson.  She said she didn’t have the information and she was not going to ask for it.  Thus, a possibility exists that there are additional, undisclosed members of the TTHP on the ARB.  Ms. Hudson works directly under the supervision of James English, our City Attorney appointed by the City Commission.

————

A the TTHP website, Taltrust.org, there is a link to various historic preservation-oriented businesses: a seemingly innocuous, useful source of information.  Four of those businesses are historic property design professionals who serve on the Architectural Review Board: two are current members, and two served in the very recent past.

In seeking official historic preservation status as the first step enroute to a substantial grant of free money from the City, who would not consult one of these design professionals?  You have to appear before the board with a plan, anyway.  At any time currently, or in the recent few years, access to a deciding member of the Architectural Review Board has been provided through their advertisement on the Taltrust.org website.  Pay your fee.  Get your plan.  Get your influence.  Go for the vote.

Add all of this up, and except for the multiple members of the TTHP which provide an illegal majority, you will have a “fix” in for historic designation and a City grant, which is technically legal and part of the code or contract with TTHP.  This is a system written and designed by the City Attorney’s office.  And, ethically, on paper, it’s crooked as hell.  We can check voting records, but we cannot know what is in the hearts and minds of people.  Fortunately, ethics laws follow the “appearance” of impropriety.  But that pesky, illegal membership situation…..

There is a genuine question as to the fairness of the distribution of the City’s historic preservation grants.  The structure of the system doesn’t look good.

What is really going on?  This is a difficult question.  I think, as a community with good intentions, we have set up a system intended for good people to serve who have experience in the procedures for formal historic preservation.  The guidance and knowledge for what really “fits” a particular style of building of a particular era is pretty difficult to find, without experienced people volunteering their time and a trustworthy organization keeping the pool of knowledge and talent on tap, so to speak.  Without the formal approach, true preservation can be haphazard and irreversable errors can be unintentionally made to fine buildings.

I sincerely believe no one has been working the system for personal gain.  But, the system appears to be worked and abused for other reasons. It may be for greater say in the hands of fewer people over property they have no real right to control.  Private property is, indeed, private.  It may be zealotry for preservation at any cost.  The setup of the Architectural Review Board needs to be reviewed.  The setup of the contract with Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation needs to be reviewed.  The whole system needs to be looked at closely.  The entire ordinance structure governing the city’s historic preservation process lacks a certain, fresh, open, unambiguous fairness.  One tiny part of the ordinance, for neighborhoods, is now being studied by a citizen group.  This effort will be looked at more closely in the second part of this series.

Meanwhile, we need to understand that compromises in ethical structures can leave honorable people vulnerable to public questions of intent.  They may be no less honorable for the questions.  However, the questions are also valid.  It’s how we open a community dialog to improve ourselves and our future.  It’s time for that dialog in Tallahassee on the subject of Historic Preservation.

———–

A recent appearance of mine before the City Commission on this issue did elicit some genuine interest from Mayor John Marks.  He arranged a very productive meeting with his Chief of Staff, Rick Minor to begin looking into this issue.  Mr. Minor brought the newInterim City Treasurer-Clerk, Jim Cooke, onboard, and I was able to clarify for them where the abuses are occuring, as well as answer many questions which will guide them a step further toward solutions.  I hope for the best, and heartily thank Mayor Marks for his personal involvement, as well as Mr. Jim Cooke for his sincere interest.

This article is part-one of a two-part series.  Thank you to Steve Stewart of Tallahassee Reports’ Website for publishing it.  A copy will be posted on HistoricLafayettePark.com. The second article is being researched and should be available soon.

Preview of part-two:
We’ve seen here how a possibly ethically-compromised Architectural Review Board, aided by the City Attorney’s office, and a no-bid, sole-source contractor for historic preservation services can grease the wheels of bureaucracy to obtain grants for those who want to participate in Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO) rezoning.  There is a flip-side to this situation:  What happens when this same system is used to take someone’s property rights when they had no intention of participating?  Those wheels are still greased and the City Attorney’s office will not be on your side!  Stay tuned for this exciting second article.

Further information on our historic preservation system in Tallahassee, as well as specific substantiating documents for this article can be found at HistoricLafayettePark.com.

Your comments will be helpful in exposing where our money goes.  Please add your voice.

Mark S. Daniel
Editor & Publisher, HistoricLafayettePark.com
Tallymark@Rocketmail.com