Time for a change

[Unregistered]

Hello, everyone. I want to bring to attention the issue with the current districting requirements for candidates. Up until this election cycle, candidates have had the freedom to choose which district he or she wishes to run for. For this election cycle, the new districting requirements are in effect. These "requirements," however, are not reflected in the City Charter, the City of North Port's "Constitution." Two referendums were given to voters on the districting issue, with the last one (in 2014) having confusing language, as well as low voter turnout. Any changes that were supposed to come about due to these referendums are not reflected in the City Charter. I hear from voters almost daily, about their concerns and confusion with the current "rules" regarding districting. It is my belief that any candidate should be able to run for any district that he/she wishes. This allows for more and better candidates. North Port is not too large for this. Below is the language of the two referendums. Pay close attention to the language of the 2014 version.

ORDINANCE 2012-16
QUESTION TWO
District Residency Requirement
Presently Commissioners are elected City-wide and must reside in the City. It is proposed that before
2016 the City be divided into five districts, with one Commissioner residing in each district. A
Commissioner candidate would have to reside in the district they represent for one year prior to
qualification. Are you in favor of amending the Charter to provide that the City be divided into five
districts, with one Commissioner per district, elected at large?
YES for Approval 12,680 votes
NO for Rejection 9,274 votes

ORDINANCE 2014-20
QUESTION ONE
District Residency Requirement
Previously, the only Charter requirement to serve as a City Commissioner was a one year residency in
the City. In 2012, the voters added a requirement that City Commissioners must also reside in one of
five districts to be drawn by the 2016 election. Voters would still be able to vote for all City
Commission seats. Are you in favor of deleting the district residency provision from the Charter prior
to its implementation?
YES for Approval 2,180 votes
NO for Rejection 4,350 votes

First and foremost a commissioner should reside in his/her district. This would represent fair and equitable representation throughout the city. The two ord's are confusing as written, but the intent is clear. I think the courts would consider the intent of the ordinance over the wording. I do not believe if you lived in D1 you could possibly know the problems in D3, or even care, the old I dont live there scenario, you would know the city as a whole,hopefully, but in my opinion you should live in the district you represent for at least a year prior to running for any open seat. Then again a judge could throw out the entire ordinance due to the language.

[Unregistered]

As it SAYS time for a change Yes the words are confusing. I think a politician wrote the last reply to you. I think your right so shake it up run where you want. Because the language will help you for sure. I agree np is to small for the district games. The only reason is because their friends are living in the district. So if you want to make change challenge it with the way it is worded you win. Do not let others opinions sway you from what is right. Get rid of the old time for the new. And that my friends is the only way change will happen

[Unregistered]

Wail Hail.. trzing knot 2 lauff n peez muhsef. butt eye deed it anywayz. <Sorry momma i know ya tot me mo betta...>

Unfortuntely, while delivery is quite comedic.. the facts within are factual, sobering and clearly unbecomin'..

I know the funny part is the facts are right on target

[Unregistered]

I COULDNT WAIT,U GUYS R SO OUT OF CONTROL I MADE THE PAGE 4 U..NORTH PORT FLORIDA COP WATCH,is working now
https://www.facebook.com/North-Port-...14262/timeline

[Unregistered]

As it SAYS time for a change Yes the words are confusing. I think a politician wrote the last reply to you. I think your right so shake it up run where you want. Because the language will help you for sure. I agree np is to small for the district games. The only reason is because their friends are living in the district. So if you want to make change challenge it with the way it is worded you win. Do not let others opinions sway you from what is right. Get rid of the old time for the new. And that my friends is the only way change will happen

I believe the idea of a residency requirement for commissioners is a great and progressive idea. Not to long ago, we would see a handful of loyal republicans band together and despite there lack of qualifications be voted in, most were neighbors and lived in one of the estates. They had no loyalty to there districts, everything was handled on a citywide basis,We all have friends, yes you would owe your loyalties to the people in your district first and then citywide. My question is, if you lived in district 1 why would you care what happened in district 4 which you represent ( you should care, but in reality that will only go so far). You certainly will not be accessible to your district constituents, when you live on the other side of the city.Now you would have two voting reps in district 1 who could help you get paved roads, water/sewer etc. There should be, at least we hope, a system of checks n balances to prevent patronage preference.
Fair and equitable representation, its done on the federal, state,county levels why not northport.

[Unregistered]

I believe the idea of a residency requirement for commissioners is a great and progressive idea. Not to long ago, we would see a handful of loyal republicans band together and despite there lack of qualifications be voted in, most were neighbors and lived in one of the estates. They had no loyalty to there districts, everything was handled on a citywide basis,We all have friends, yes you would owe your loyalties to the people in your district first and then citywide. My question is, if you lived in district 1 why would you care what happened in district 4 which you represent ( you should care, but in reality that will only go so far). You certainly will not be accessible to your district constituents, when you live on the other side of the city.Now you would have two voting reps in district 1 who could help you get paved roads, water/sewer etc. There should be, at least we hope, a system of checks n balances to prevent patronage preference.
Fair and equitable representation, its done on the federal, state,county levels why not northport.

Corey, this is a loophole, most likely soon to be corrected, If someone wants to exploit it to run, by all means take your shot, it's now or never. There mistake could be someones gain. It's time for a change !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stephanie Gibson]

I like the idea of districting. It does ensure that each area has a Commissioner to represent the issues and needs of a particular area. The needs of the north west part of the city are completely different from those of us on the south east side. As the City grows, the need also grows. I am all about intent and as the voters have twice indicated the need for districts, i think that has been asked and answered. However, it does appear that there is a loophole should one care to hire a lawyer and press the point.

(THIS is why Commissioners should not scoff at Yates when she is taking a fine tooth comb to the frog hairs in the language. It is much cheaper to clear up BEFORE than it is to battle out in the courtrooms.)

[Unregistered]

First and foremost a commissioner should reside in his/her district. This would represent fair and equitable representation throughout the city. The two ord's are confusing as written, but the intent is clear. I think the courts would consider the intent of the ordinance over the wording. I do not believe if you lived in D1 you could possibly know the problems in D3, or even care, the old I dont live there scenario, you would know the city as a whole,hopefully, but in my opinion you should live in the district you represent for at least a year prior to running for any open seat. Then again a judge could throw out the entire ordinance due to the language.

A good Commissioner knows the issues throughout the city. North Port is not so large that a candidate in district 1 would not know the issues in district 3, or even district 5. The wording could and should get this districting "requirements" tossed out, because the confusing wording in the charter allowed Vanessa Carusone to run again. Judges have said in the past that in such a dispute, the ruling is supposed to go in favor of the candidate. Regardless of the wording or any of this, the filing officer in a jurisdiction, which in North Port's case is the city clerk, has no authority to deny a candidate filing papers. The Commission is the judge of the election, so says the City Charter. The districting has created confusion, and prevented good candidates from running. Also, the issue is bigger than districting. It's also about a City Hall that acts like a group of tyrants imposing their will over the people. There are 62,000 of us. We need to rise up and fight back! It's about more than districting. It's about fighting back against a corrupt city management.

[Unregistered]

I like the idea of districting. It does ensure that each area has a Commissioner to represent the issues and needs of a particular area. The needs of the north west part of the city are completely different from those of us on the south east side. As the City grows, the need also grows. I am all about intent and as the voters have twice indicated the need for districts, i think that has been asked and answered. However, it does appear that there is a loophole should one care to hire a lawyer and press the point.

(THIS is why Commissioners should not scoff at Yates when she is taking a fine tooth comb to the frog hairs in the language. It is much cheaper to clear up BEFORE than it is to battle out in the courtrooms.)

The previous city attorney, Robinson, has used this type of wording multiple times. It is designed to confuse and mislead, and it is intentionally done. A good Commissioner cares about the needs of all parts of North Port. Since all Commissioners represent all of North Port, the district 1 and district 5 elected Commissioners, for example, will be making decisions for districts 2, 3, and 4 as well as their own. Because of this, I don't see the benefit of forcing a candidate to live in a certain district.

[Unregistered]

I believe the idea of a residency requirement for commissioners is a great and progressive idea. Not to long ago, we would see a handful of loyal republicans band together and despite there lack of qualifications be voted in, most were neighbors and lived in one of the estates. They had no loyalty to there districts, everything was handled on a citywide basis,We all have friends, yes you would owe your loyalties to the people in your district first and then citywide. My question is, if you lived in district 1 why would you care what happened in district 4 which you represent ( you should care, but in reality that will only go so far). You certainly will not be accessible to your district constituents, when you live on the other side of the city.Now you would have two voting reps in district 1 who could help you get paved roads, water/sewer etc. There should be, at least we hope, a system of checks n balances to prevent patronage preference.
Fair and equitable representation, its done on the federal, state,county levels why not northport.

Everything is still handled on a city wide basis. A Commissioner who lives and is elected in District 1 will still be making decisions for District 2, 3, 4 and 5. The new districting "requirement" does not stop this. Additionally, let's say there are two candidates with similar platforms who will make the same decisions. What difference does it make if they live in two different districts, or next door to one another? They are still doing the same things, making the same type of decisions. Good Commissioners will focus on an entire city, not just their district.