SEAWALLS - Audio/Photo Presentation

[Paula]

Wow, I go away for a few days and come back to this. All of you who promised to stay away from these kinds of threads :nono1:. It was fun to read the posts, though (Allifunn, bad girl with your drive-by postings!). So, let's walk back to the lounge together.

But, I can't control myself and have a few more things to say before I walk back to the lounge:

1. I call the guests at our cottages every week to welcome them and I always ask how the beach is (because I want to get their opinion and we've had some seawalls built in our area and a house that's falling off the dune). For all of our spring break guests -- mostly families -- they've said it has been gorgeous, so they're clearly not looking at the seawalls or yellow tractors behind them at the dunes or the empty lot that is getting built right next to our beach access. So, what we see depends on our perspective. They are not involved in the politics of the area.

2. When potential renters ask me what the beaches are like, I say that they are beautiful toward the water's edge (white sand, emerald water, great sunsets) and that the dunes took a beating from the hurricanes. I say some gulf front owners are rebuilding their dunes and have seawalls, and other areas have been left natural. I say I prefer the natural look because frankly I think the "cliffs" that used to be dunes are starting to look quite nice again with vegetation on them and they are as Mother Nature intended. I also say that the dunes did a fantastic job protecting most of this area from much more damage and we are very appreciative of them regardless of what they currently look like. This comment is based just on what looks appealing, not on whether one does or doesn't have the right to protect one's home or how one chooses to do it.

3. Some people say that those of us who don't live in the area should stay out of these discussions because we don't really understand. I'd like to say that some of us out-of-towners did manage to get an owner/county moving on taking down a damaged home was that hanging precariously off a dune and the beach will soon be safer because of this intervention. I've heard both the owner and county are moving forward pretty smoothly on this -- it just needed a little push.

4. It's a shame that there is so much rudeness on some of these threads. Fortunately, it comes from very few people and I don't think I live near any of them. I love my neighbors

Now, my friends, let's go back to lounge...

 

[TooFarTampa]

most news articles reflect the views of the editor in chief, so i'm thinking their's is not a GF owner.

jr

Not quite true (or supposed to be). Editorials (on the opinions page) reflect the opinion of the editor or editorial board. News articles are not supposed to reflect anyone's opinion, certainly not those of the editor and not those of the writer either. They do, however, often reflect perspective, not usually on purpose, especially if the right questions have not been asked or the right observations have not been made. Occasionally articles reflect bias, though theoretically that would be edited out before it hits print. Sometimes not.

I agree that there are phrases in the article that were poorly chosen for their limited perspective, but overall I found it interesting.

 

[John R]

Not quite true (or supposed to be). Editorials (on the opinions page) reflect the opinion of the editor or editorial board. News articles are not supposed to reflect anyone's opinion, certainly not those of the editor and not those of the writer either. They do, however, often reflect perspective, not usually on purpose, especially if the right questions have not been asked or the right observations have not been made. Occasionally articles reflect bias, though theoretically that would be edited out before it hits print. Sometimes not.

I agree that there are phrases in the article that were poorly chosen for their limited perspective, but overall I found it interesting.

as you state, opinions will show from writers and editors. if the paper has a slant, most of the opinions will reflect that. my.02

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Only if you separate the results from the process.

That's a powerful one sentence statement. And it's true.

Kurt, I analyzed the article as obectively as I could, all things considered.

But when the issue with Ro Cuchens is brought up in an article on a national level, well, to me, it's just one more piece of superfluous information that the article could have left out.

It's sole purpose, as I saw it, was to further some vendetta that is inappropriate on a national scale under the guise of a "news" article.

If Mr. Cuchens is indeed found to have acted inappropriately on a formal basis, well then, and only then, should his name be published in any sort of negative light. I won't even mention the word litigation. Oops...just did.

Again for those of you who may assume that we used Cuchens' company for our retaining wall, we didn't. I have no personal interest in this situation other than I would hope and expect that all our commissioners are walking a "relatively" straight line.

Truly glad to see we're also splitting hairs here. It implies that there just may be some merit to the rest of my review.

Thanks,
BMBV

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

...most news articles reflect the views of the editor in chief, so i'm thinking their's is not a GF owner.

jr

At a minimum....

The "talking slide show" that is directly linked to the online article (see msg #1 this thread) is created by Richard Fowlkes, a community activist and he is NOT a GF owner.

I can't but help believe there's a DIRECT link between him and the authors of the Gannett article.

Someone please prove me wrong.

BMBV

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

as you state, opinions will show from writers and editors. if the paper has a slant, most of the opinions will reflect that. my.02

John R,

True. But the slant, as you call it, may only be observed by those who have a better handle on a particular sitation more than others normally would.

And it's "OUR" collective responsibility to point out those "slants" rather than letting the "uninformed" become improperly biased.

BMBV

 

[TooFarTampa]

At a minimum....

The "talking slide show" that is directly linked to the online article (see msg #1 this thread) is created by Richard Fowlkes, a community activist and he is NOT a GF owner.

I can't but help believe there's a DIRECT link between him and the authors of the Gannett article.

Someone please prove me wrong.

BMBV

A quick Google search tells me that Richard was a staff photographer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and United Press International, that he has done some hard-hitting news photography in recent years, and that he has won some awards for his work.

As for "direct" link, well, I'm guessing Richard is retired or semiretired. It is very likely he contracted with Gannett to provide them with the photo presentation on a freelance basis. So yes he would be getting paid. That is what freelancers strive for. Payment for your work is good.

Maybe you didn't like it, but after all the heated discussions on this board I found it pretty direct and well-reasoned, and not overly alarmist at all. Please try to separate yourself from this comment I am about to make, because I am not directing it to you our your particular seawall: There is no doubt there are inconsistencies, there has been poor regulation, there is at least some illegal armoring going on, and Ro Cutchens has done little to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, which in the eyes of many is JUST AS BAD as an ACTUAL conflict of interest, because he is a public official and needs to maintain a high public standard. The idea that he should sue for his name being mentioned in news articles for things that have actually occurred is laughable.

 

[Kurt]

There is no doubt there are inconsistencies, there has been poor regulation, there is at least some illegal armoring going on, and Ro Cutchens has done little to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, which in the eyes of many is JUST AS BAD as an ACTUAL conflict of interest, because he is a public official and needs to maintain a high public standard. The idea that he should sue for his name being mentioned in news articles for things that have actually occurred is laughable.

And that is what I was getting at. It doesn't matter if a 4-0 vote had brought the same results. It seems some raw nerves are getting stung by salt spray.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

.....
Maybe you didn't like it, but after all the heated discussions on this board I found it [the Gannett article] pretty direct and well-reasoned, and not overly alarmist at all.

It really depends on your viewpoint and I respect your opinion. Would you give me at least "slanted"?

Please try to separate yourself from this comment I am about to make, because I am not directing it to you our your particular seawall: There is no doubt there are inconsistencies, there has been poor regulation, there is at least some illegal armoring going on,...

I've got a clean conscience regarding our retaining wall so I have no problem with your statement.

... and Ro Cutchens has done little to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, which in the eyes of many is JUST AS BAD as an ACTUAL conflict of interest, because he is a public official and needs to maintain a high public standard. The idea that he should sue for his name being mentioned in news articles for things that have actually occurred is laughable.

I'm not a personal friend of Ro Cutchens but if I were him, I wouldn't be laughing. Just an observation. Oh yea, aren't journalists suppose to be advocates of "innocent until proven guilty"? ;-)

I've asked others and would like to know what you think. Is the article a "news" article or is it an "editorial"?

Also I ask that you please factor in Richard Fowlkes' talking slide show. Same question, is it "news" or is it an "editorial" talking slide show?

I truly would like to hear what you think about the above 2 questions.

Thanks for the level headed response!
BMBV

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

And that is what I was getting at. It doesn't matter if a 4-0 vote had brought the same results. It seems some raw nerves are getting stung by salt spray.

Well put !! And that's it in a nutshell !! In other words, I believe what you're saying is that many people were (are) looking for somebody to blame for all the problems on the beach, some perceived and some actual. Cuchens looked (looks) like an easy target.

But I hope you and others truly see (Cuchens' vote) that it's just a side issue, not the root cause of anything we're discussing.

Some believe he profitted from the retaining wall controversy. Probably. Expected. He was undoubtedly in the right place at the right time. If he had simply recused himself on all the voting, he still would have picked up X amount of the projects out there just because he was in the business.

Let's agree on this at least.