Yesterday the Key West referendum authorizing a 99 year free lease on about 4 acres of the Truman Waterfront for a so-called "assisted living facility" passed by a vote of 4,009 to 2,109 (about 65% to 35%). This was a set back in the community's attempts to bring a substantial assisted living facility to Key West -- due to the excessive give-away of most of this land for non-assisted living purposes, and the very small amount of affordable assisted care planned to be provided.
Those of us who understand how little the average Key Wester will get back in exchange for all of this free waterfront land must now move onward to take whatever actions are possible to prevent the FKACC from turning this land over to big for-profit interests who will forever keep it out of reach of so many of us.
For those who only saw the slick, misleading FKACC dog and pony show but didn't get the full story, this blog provides the unmasked facts that the FKACC did not want you to know about their plan. These are not the ramblings of paranoid conspiracy theorists (as the FKACC tries so hard to have you believe). They are just the facts, mam, without the fuzzy "if you question our plan you don't care about seniors" cloud that the FKACC public relations blitz has used.
If you really DO care aboiut our seniors (including YOURSELF one day), you will take the time to understand all of the issues involved, as exposed here. And you will help to make sure that the City will compell those who implement the FKACC plan to do MORE for the seniors than their plan calls for. The FKACC members repeated several times last night that they plan to work hard to implement EXACTLY the plan that they've been pushing. It will take the rest of us to counter their push.
The plan must be changed to one that benefits more average Key Westers.
I have posted in this blog the past letters and other efforts that I have submitted to the local media in an attempt to cut through the haze. With the FKACC's deep-pocketed backers buying many newspaper and radio ads, it was extremely hard to get the real facts to the public. It was amazing how many people thought that the 4+ acres they were giving away were actually planned to hold assisted-living units! (If you thought so, read the older entries in this blog to get the real story.)
As we move forward, this blog will continue with a discussion of what we all must do to take back control of this facility that is so important to us. Before it is truly too late.
At this point, it's not too late, to Do The Right Thing.
Showing posts with label referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label referendum. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Election Day
Tonight the people of Key West spoke on the issue of Assisted Living at the Truman Waterfront. Or at least on what they THOUGHT was the issue. Unfortunately a large percentage of them never got the real message on what they were voting for.
FKACC Board member Joan Higgs stated it best during her appearance with Board member Ed Block on the Channel 19 election results show hosted by Bill Becker. When asked by Bill why none of the candidates opposed the referendum, she stated something like "Would you want to vote against your grandmother?" The FKACC had done their job in convincing people that voting FOR this referendum represented a vote FOR seniors, despite the fact that the FKACC plan by design keeps almost all of the average Key West seniors out.
I know for a fact that at least two of the City Commisioners were against this referendum, however neither of them dared speak against it because the FKACC had done such a good job of equating a vote against it to abuse of our poor pitiful grandparents. And their constant repeating of their outright false statement about how this was the ONLY chance for assisted living in Key West obviously was heard by too many people who took it as fact.
And it sure didn't help that the Citizen, which has a member of the FKACC Board on their own Editorial Board, both endorsed it and took extra efforts to quickly publish hazy misleading rebuttals to those who questioned the FKACC plan.
And the fact that the Keynoter would not even publish letters questioning the plan.
And that the local radio news gave the FKACC people the last word, on the day before the election. Without any attempt to question their assertions.
It's actually suprising there were as many "no" votes as ended up being cast. At least one person out of three saw through the FKACC haze. I congratulate them for attempting to give the city a chance for a plan that will actually let more than a few average citizens into the facility.
More tomorrow.....
FKACC Board member Joan Higgs stated it best during her appearance with Board member Ed Block on the Channel 19 election results show hosted by Bill Becker. When asked by Bill why none of the candidates opposed the referendum, she stated something like "Would you want to vote against your grandmother?" The FKACC had done their job in convincing people that voting FOR this referendum represented a vote FOR seniors, despite the fact that the FKACC plan by design keeps almost all of the average Key West seniors out.
I know for a fact that at least two of the City Commisioners were against this referendum, however neither of them dared speak against it because the FKACC had done such a good job of equating a vote against it to abuse of our poor pitiful grandparents. And their constant repeating of their outright false statement about how this was the ONLY chance for assisted living in Key West obviously was heard by too many people who took it as fact.
And it sure didn't help that the Citizen, which has a member of the FKACC Board on their own Editorial Board, both endorsed it and took extra efforts to quickly publish hazy misleading rebuttals to those who questioned the FKACC plan.
And the fact that the Keynoter would not even publish letters questioning the plan.
And that the local radio news gave the FKACC people the last word, on the day before the election. Without any attempt to question their assertions.
It's actually suprising there were as many "no" votes as ended up being cast. At least one person out of three saw through the FKACC haze. I congratulate them for attempting to give the city a chance for a plan that will actually let more than a few average citizens into the facility.
More tomorrow.....
Friday, September 28, 2007
US1 Radio Morning Magazine (September 28, 2007)
As mentioned the other day , Bill Becker of US1 Radio's Morning Magazine show invited me to come onto the show and discuss the problems with the FKACC plan for the Truman Waterfront. Originally I was to appear near the end of the show, but the Mayor cancelled his scheduled appearance earlier in the show -- so they moved me to his slot, right up front.
Basically, I talked for about 5 minutes, covering several of the issues that are discussed in depth in my letters found earlier in this blog. Bill's questions were probing without being confrontational. I was very nervous, being my first radio interview, but I think that I articulated my points reasonably well.
If you're a glutton for punishment, you can listen to the entire one hour show here. There are a few teasers in the first 5 minutes or so, and the actual interview starts about the 10 minute point.
It did appear to me that Bill was trying to get me to point fingers and/or espouse "conspiracy theories" with some of his questions. I guess it would have been more interesting to some people if I started making insulting accusations against members of the FKACC, or if I theorized about whether some developer or corporation was trying to influence the direction they've taken.
But the fact is: I do not know anything about that aspect of the project, and I won't speculate in that direction.
Anyone who has read my letters knows that I am solely concerned with how poor the FKACC plan is. About how little affordable assisted living it provides. I have not accused the FKACC people of any dastardly deeds -- only with locking in on a poor plan and sticking with it without regard for the actual NEEDS of Key West. I have stated more than once that they are good people with a good cause -- but that they blew it. That may be taken as an insult, but only to those who insist that they know what's best for us all without asking us. Those who DO take the time and effort to find out what the community really needs would not be insulted.
One statement I made drew a significant response. Bill asked me about how much nursing care would be available in the INDEPENDENT living component of the project. I correctly stated that there would be none. I also stated that there wouldn't be "nursing" in the Assisted Living component either. Unfortunately in my nervousness I left out the word "care" (ie, "nursing care"). This left the FKACC people an opening to challenge my statement.
I did correctly state that when a resident of the facility reaches a point where nursing care is required, they would have to MOVE OUT and seek a nursing home or convalescent center elswere. That statement was valid and correct.
But the very next day (Saturday morning) the Citizen newspaper rushed to print TWO letters from the FKACC board refuting my statements on the radio. (I can't remember the last time I saw them print letters that quickly -- usually it takes several days before a response letter makes it into the paper.) Of course the Citizen has a member of the FKACC Board on their own Editorial Board which tends to get things expedited. Nothing like "fair and balanced" journalism....
Both of the letters generally just rehashed their standard talking points about how this was the ONLY chance to get an assisted living facility (totally false), etc. But they did make an effort to refute my statement about nursing at the facility. They described how a nurse would be "on staff" at the facility. But of course there's a big difference between "nurse on staff" and "nursing care". One involves just monitoring the situation, the other involves actual medical care. Again the FKACC clouded the issue, and right before the election.
But that wasn't the end of it. The following Monday, Bill Becker brought back the FKACC people to do "damage control". I had struck too close to home and so the big guns came out on the DAY BEFORE THE REFERENDUM and once again got their opportunity to repeat their same old story, with the same inaccuracies and fuzziness. All this while Bill Becker made such a point about how much he respected their opinions, and without any challenging questions.
I felt compelled to send Bill the following email:
Basically, I talked for about 5 minutes, covering several of the issues that are discussed in depth in my letters found earlier in this blog. Bill's questions were probing without being confrontational. I was very nervous, being my first radio interview, but I think that I articulated my points reasonably well.
If you're a glutton for punishment, you can listen to the entire one hour show here. There are a few teasers in the first 5 minutes or so, and the actual interview starts about the 10 minute point.
It did appear to me that Bill was trying to get me to point fingers and/or espouse "conspiracy theories" with some of his questions. I guess it would have been more interesting to some people if I started making insulting accusations against members of the FKACC, or if I theorized about whether some developer or corporation was trying to influence the direction they've taken.
But the fact is: I do not know anything about that aspect of the project, and I won't speculate in that direction.
Anyone who has read my letters knows that I am solely concerned with how poor the FKACC plan is. About how little affordable assisted living it provides. I have not accused the FKACC people of any dastardly deeds -- only with locking in on a poor plan and sticking with it without regard for the actual NEEDS of Key West. I have stated more than once that they are good people with a good cause -- but that they blew it. That may be taken as an insult, but only to those who insist that they know what's best for us all without asking us. Those who DO take the time and effort to find out what the community really needs would not be insulted.
One statement I made drew a significant response. Bill asked me about how much nursing care would be available in the INDEPENDENT living component of the project. I correctly stated that there would be none. I also stated that there wouldn't be "nursing" in the Assisted Living component either. Unfortunately in my nervousness I left out the word "care" (ie, "nursing care"). This left the FKACC people an opening to challenge my statement.
I did correctly state that when a resident of the facility reaches a point where nursing care is required, they would have to MOVE OUT and seek a nursing home or convalescent center elswere. That statement was valid and correct.
But the very next day (Saturday morning) the Citizen newspaper rushed to print TWO letters from the FKACC board refuting my statements on the radio. (I can't remember the last time I saw them print letters that quickly -- usually it takes several days before a response letter makes it into the paper.) Of course the Citizen has a member of the FKACC Board on their own Editorial Board which tends to get things expedited. Nothing like "fair and balanced" journalism....
Both of the letters generally just rehashed their standard talking points about how this was the ONLY chance to get an assisted living facility (totally false), etc. But they did make an effort to refute my statement about nursing at the facility. They described how a nurse would be "on staff" at the facility. But of course there's a big difference between "nurse on staff" and "nursing care". One involves just monitoring the situation, the other involves actual medical care. Again the FKACC clouded the issue, and right before the election.
But that wasn't the end of it. The following Monday, Bill Becker brought back the FKACC people to do "damage control". I had struck too close to home and so the big guns came out on the DAY BEFORE THE REFERENDUM and once again got their opportunity to repeat their same old story, with the same inaccuracies and fuzziness. All this while Bill Becker made such a point about how much he respected their opinions, and without any challenging questions.
I felt compelled to send Bill the following email:
| Date: 10/1/2007 8:47 AM To: Bill Becker - US1 Radio News Network Subject: One last comment It's a shame that the FKACC people get TWO oppotunities to give their side, while those who dispute them only get one. She continued the same old "poor poor pitiful elderly" that they've been doing for the last 3 years. I (and others like me, who are far more than "a few" as she claims) want to do MORE for those people. THEIR plan doesn't do enough. She ignored the gist of my complaint -- that MOST of the land will be used for people who are NOT "poor pitiful seniors". I wanted MORE of the project to focus on them. Of course they know that if they don't cloud the issues their plan would never be accepted. I realize that your show isn't a "debate" show, but it would have been nice if her assertions were challenged as much as you challenged mine. But regardless, thank you for letting me at least try to counter their attempts to push the "poor pitiful seniors" into the back of the property by the dumpsters while setting up a bunch of nice retirement homes for the wealthy. (They may have had better intentions than that, but that IS what their project has become.) Most likely too little, too late, but at least I tried. David Lybrand |
KWTN Letter to the Editor (September 28, 2007)
Monday, September 24, 2007
Letter to US1 Radio (sent September 26, 2007)
(On September 26, a representative of the FKACC appeared on Bill Becker's "Morning Magazine" show on US1 Radio. It inspired me to write the letter below to the US1 Radio news address. In response, Bill Becker invited me to appear on his show on Friday, 9/28. More on that in a later post.)
| Subject: The FKACC plan discussed on today's show Today you provided a "candidate forum' for the promoters of the Florida Keys Assisted Care Coalition (FKACC) plan for the Truman Waterfront. With your other ballot-issue forums you provide for each candidate to state their views over the air. I'm asking that, in concern for fairness, you provide the same consideration for those who have a problem with the FKACC's plan. Someone should be allowed to refute the misleading and downright erroneous statements being made by the FKACC's representatives. For example, in today's interview the FKACC representative lumped anyone who opposes their plan in with unreasonable people who would, when given a free $100, complain that it wasn't $200. That's ridiculous. The opponents of their plan are against the bloated nature of the project in relation to the amount of affordable assisted care it would provide. We're not a bunch of unreasonable lunatics, we're concerned that the average citizens will see too little benefit from the plan the FKACC is hyping. We'd be happy to have an assisted living facility on the Truman Waterfron -- just not THAT plan. Even more erroneous, close to being a LIE, is the statement made several times today that "if this is voted down it's all over". That's hogwash. The FKACC people would be free to clean up their plan and resubmit it in the next election (which will be in January). If they choose to ignore the concerns of the citizens and "take their ball and go home", they wouldn't be showing very good faith. But even if they do that, the city can, and SHOULD, still provide an assisted living facility there. Just one that actually meets our needs! Not a big give-away of free land for a bunch of good-sized homes that are NOT FOR ASSISTED LIVING (as the FKACC's plan insists is required for this project). NOT ONCE today did they mention that 80% of the land they want would NOT be used for assisted living! It'll be used for "independent living" -- a glorified retirement community with concierge service. Look it up on their site! 95 large units, consuming all but two smaller buildings "in the back", will be for nice retirement homes. NOT for assisted living. THAT is the issue! And they continue to IMPLY that any unit in there would be available for "all incomes". BULL. Their specific plan (see their site) says that only half of the assisted units will be affordable, and only 8 out of the 95 "independent living" units (retirement homes) would be affordable. This is far below City standards for the "affordable" component of any development. Can you imagine the waiting list for those, while the wealthy can buy into the others? Is that what we want our land to be used for? We can provide MORE affordable assisted care there than the FKACC people plan to, despite their claims of doom and gloom if we don't accept their well-financed pitch and build the waterfront retirement homes for the rich. This is NOT a crazy idea -- it's one that is being obfuscated by the smoke and mirrors of the FKACC plan. Let's do better! This is NOT an "anti-Assisted Living" issue, it's a "don't waste our valuable resources on a facility that's not good enough" issue. We can do better, and we SHOULD. I hope you give someone a chance to provide the other side of the issue before the election. I'd be willing to speak on that behalf if no one else does. David Lybrand Key West |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
