NOT willing to endorse a housing fee. Willing to push for a program.

Sam Seevers: There should be more of a mention of partnerships w/business. Moves to incorporate that into the motion. No disagreement.

Unanimous.

Bagby objects to this phrasing regarding housing: It’s better to have developers provide homes than actual money, otherwise it’s back to “pay to build.” The housing objective is desirable, he says—and state mandated—but “there doesn’t have to be a sustainable revenue stream, there just has to be a sustainable program.” He offers a substitute motion to Wood’s proposal, which was to approve the EAR with the housing paragraph restored.
Dewey says he wants to vote on the EAR separate from individual topics. After discussion, Wood revamps his motion … and as of this point, I’m now lost as to what exactly the procedural details are. But they’re still discussing housing.

Moves to amend by deleting “fire protection” from the list of city services since the city doesn’t provide firefighting service.
Miller says that can be fixed without a motion since it’s a “scrivener’s error,” as Land Use Attorney Scott Shirley puts it.

Jim Wood: “We should at least leave it in the kitbag.” Moves to restore the paragraph the LPA deleted (Wood is a former member of Destin’s Attainable Workforce Housing Committee).
Attorney Jerry Miller: First council has to move to approve the plan. Then councilors can approve amendments.

Wood moves to approve the EAR.

Sam Seevers: A paragraph about allowing dogs on the beach (I don’t know if the paragraph is pro or con) refers to the council discussing the subject last year. She says they did not, and proposes deleting the paragraph.

Seevers proposes removing the phrase “in addition to access to dog friendly beaches.”

Councilor Dewey Destin: Are we voting to amend, or voting to approve the EAR. The answer: Vote to amend first.

Unanimous.

First up, the mayor read the Arbor Day proclamation. The ceremony is Friday.

Now, a discussion of the EAR report. Community Development Director Jerry Mucci is stating staff’s disagreement with the Local Planning Agency as to whether the city should have a housing fund for affordable housing.

“The housing recession we’re in now will not last forever,” Mucci says. “I believe even the most pessimistic person would expect things to improve in the next three to five years … the city will need to be proactive.”

Maybe four regular attendees in the audience. A couple of committee chairs making reports tonight. One or two people I don’t know, which makes me curious: Which item are they here for? What position will they take? Are they going to speak or simply watch and whisper?

He prays their handling of the agenda items be “quick, just and fair.” Not a bad thought.

(forgive me the “lo,” but a slightly pretentious title now and again makes this much more fun).

Everyone’s taking their seats on the dais. I’m thinking two hours tops … but I wouldn’t put money on it.

How much does John McCain pay for his haircuts?
What is his bowling score?

Since the national press keeps insisting these are relevant to how we pick our presidents, why aren’t they giving us full disclosure? What does the senator have to hide?

Warhawk and Middle East expert Kenneth Pollack on McCain’s frequent references to the insurgents in Iraq as “al-Qaida”: “A perfectly reasonable catchall phrase” because campaigning “does not lend itself to long-winded explanations of what we really are facing.”

And it’s not like calling the insurgents “al-Qaida” or saying that Iran is financing “al-Qaida” is going to confuse anyone, is it? It’s not like the question of whether Iran and the masterminds of 9/11 are working together (they’re not, actually—their branches of Islam consider each other heretical) is important? It’s not as if calling the insurgents “al-Qaida” would excuse our staying in Iraq instead of pulling out and going after the real al-Qaida on the Pakistani border, is it?

No, I can’t imagine why the American public would want long-winded explanations of the difference.