When it comes to Southwest Florida’s natural environment, President Donald Trump’s administration is both giving and taking away.
The giving consists of a reported $250 million request for next fiscal year’s federal budget.
The official request is scheduled to be revealed on Monday, Feb. 10 with the rest of the federal budget. The Everglades funding was widely reported in Florida media, attributed to a “senior administration official.”
The taking consists of a proposed rule that reinterprets the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to decriminalize the unintentional killing or injuring of migratory birds—a major consideration for the wildlife that inhabits Southwest Florida and the Everglades.
The money
The report of the $250 million request comes in advance of release of the Fiscal Year 2021 budget, which is scheduled to be released Monday, Feb. 10.
If the $250 million is in fact requested as reported, it would provide a stark contrast with last year when Trump requested only $63 million of the $200 million the federal government had promised to provide Florida for Everglades restoration.
The inadequate $63 million request so alarmed Florida’s senators and representatives that on March 14, 2019 Rep. Francis Rooney (R-19-Fla.) and Rep. Brian Mast (R-18-Fla.) joined Florida’s Republican senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott to issue a letter to Trump calling for full funding. It was the third time since Trump took office that he had failed to meet federal funding obligations.
Trump took a trip to Lake Okeechobee on March 29, were he was lobbied by Florida officials and made vague promises to provide more money. Following the lawmakers’ complaints Florida did receive $200 million in the 2020 fiscal year budget.
This year is an election year and Florida is crucial to Trump’s re-election chances. Additionally, he is now officially a Florida resident.
When he announced his retirement after stating that he was open to hearing impeachment evidence against the president, Rooney stated that he had done what he had set out to do in Congress by getting the $200 million. Everglades restoration was a Rooney priority since his election in 2016.
The Paradise Progressive has requested comment from Rooney’s office regarding the budget request.
The birds
On Jan. 30 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced that it was proposing a new rule that decriminalized unintentional injuring or killing of migratory birds under the MBTA.
While the rule will not directly affect the large migratory bird populations of Southwest Florida, it does peel back one more layer of regulatory protection for them.
In the previous administration, the MBTA was interpreted as covering accidental killing and injury of migratory birds, making such injuries and deaths a criminal act.
While prosecutions were few, the rule provided regulators and prosecutors with an additional tool to prevent harm to migratory birds. For example, when birds were killed due to the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, BP was charged with criminal acts in addition to civil damages, providing further inducement for the company to settle with the government.
The rule has long been appealed by industry, which argues that it should not be held criminally responsible for accidental bird killings in the course of normal operations.
“With five federal circuit courts of appeals divided on this question, it is important to bring regulatory certainty to the public by clarifying that the criminal scope of the MBTA only reaches to conduct intentionally injuring birds,” Rob Wallace, assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks stated. “That said, we will continue to work collaboratively with states, cities, conservation groups, industries, trade associations and citizens to ensure that best practices are followed to minimize unintended harm to birds and their habitats.”
The rule is in the proposal stage and members of the public have until March 19 to comment on it.
According to the FWS statement, comments for or against the rule can be made by going to:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0090; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: JAO/1N; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
It took about a day for Southwest Florida representatives and congressional candidates to react to the acquittal of President Donald Trump by the US Senate on Wednesday, Feb. 5. The resulting statements, tweets and Web postings were predictable based on party loyalty.
Perhaps more revealing were which incumbents and candidates reacted and how quickly.
As of 5:00 pm today, of Southwest Florida’s representatives, Rep. Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) was most immediate and most vocal. Steube, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, had long denounced the impeachment proceedings as a “witch hunt.” He called Trump’s acquittal “justice” and applauded the Senate debate.
No statements were issued in any online medium by Reps. Francis Rooney (R-19-Fla.) or Mario Diaz-Balart (R-25-Fla.).
Of the two Democrats running for Congress in the 19th Congressional District, Cindy Banyai issued a statement immediately after the acquittal calling it “unsurprising,” “shameful” and “a sad chapter in American history.”
“Impeachment is an important tool and check on unbridled, self-serving power in our government,” she stated. “Shame on the Senators who chose party over country. This acquittal moves us to the dangerous precipice of dictatorship.
“I’m worried an unchecked Donald Trump will move forward to run ram-shod over our institutions, further eroding our democracy and enriching himself and his cronies at the expense of the American people,” her statement continued. “Those who care about democracy should take this opportunity to double-down on their commitment to the people and work to ensure we have proper leadership in the future. Invest in good grassroots candidates and vote!”
Of the eight Republicans running in the 19th Congressional District, four issued comments, most on Twitter: Byron Donalds, Dane Eagle, William Figlesthaler, and Ford O’Connell. All expressed some degree of satisfaction with the verdict.
Antonio Dumornay, the lone Independent, did not issue any statements or post on social media.
Dr. William Figlesthaler delivers his own State of the Union address in a campaign video. (Image: Dr. Fig for Congress campaign)
Feb. 6, 2020 by David Silverberg
Final 4th Quarter 2019 financial figures are out for the political campaigns in Southwest Florida’s 19th Congressional District, so it’s time to survey the standing of all 11 candidates.
But it’s not enough just to recount what candidates have reported to the Federal Election Commission. In a series of articles called “Follow the money,” The Paradise Progressive will analyze what the numbers mean for each campaign, what they tell us about each candidate’s popular support and how each candidate is positioned for the days ahead.
Because it’s such a crowded field these articles will appear singly as individual profiles.
We’ll look at candidates in the order of the amount of money they raised in 2019.
Willliam Figlesthaler
Republican Dr. William Figlesthaler is the top-funded candidate in the race for the House of Representatives in the 19th Congressional District.
This Naples-based urologist and first-time politician has the highest total of all candidates reporting their 2019 finances, with $536,295 in receipts.
However, of that amount the vast majority, $410,000, came in a loan to the campaign from the candidate. Otherwise, 37 other donors contributed to the campaign for both the primary and general elections in amounts starting at $3,000.
Virtually all donors are active or retired doctors or associated with the medical field. Additional donors are family members: his Russian-born wife Olga and relatives Karolina, Elizabeth and William Figlesthaler II. Figlesthaler also received $2,000 from the campaign committee of Rep. Greg Murphy (R-3-NC), a member of Congress and fellow urologist from North Carolina, where Figlesthaler did his residence.
Figlesthaler spent $29,541.35 in 2019. Most of that was spent on consultants for media and fundraising, a video and website development. However, he also came up with a unique and bizarre form of advertising: screens in the men’s urinals in Hertz Arena.
As men urinate on the red, white and blue-colored plastic screen at the bottom of the urinal, they can ask themselves the question printed on the screen: “Are you ready to drain the swamp?” and presumably somehow connect the Dr. Fig name on the screen to Figlesthaler.
The stunt certainly got Figlesthaler local TV air time and media coverage.
“Quite frankly, they’re pissed off,” Figlesthaler said of voters to NBC-2’s Dave Elias, who reported the urinal story on Jan. 20. “They’re tired of what’s going on in Washington.” And was this a good idea? “The mere fact we’re talking about it right now tells me it was probably a good idea,” he concluded.
Whether it changes anyone’s mind and convinces voters remains to be seen. It’s not clear whether there’s any equivalent promotion for the women’s lavatories, so essentially Figlesthaler ignored half the voting population.
Analysis
Politically, Figlesthaler is a straight out Trumper and undeviatingly follows the Trumpist line on all issues. He’s working off the 2016 angry voter meme and making the old “drain the swamp” slogan the centerpiece of his campaign—one now abandoned even by Trump. He’s anti-abortion. He plays up his lack of political experience or knowledge. The only local issue he addresses on his website is water purity—he’s all for it.
It appears that he was inspired or convinced by his fellow urologist Greg Murphy in North Carolina that with enough money a candidate with virtually no name recognition, legislative record or political experience could win a seat in Congress.
Given the amount of personal money he’s putting into his campaign and his array of media and political consultants Figlesthaler is running what should look to an outsider like a fairly professional campaign. Consultants include Anedot, Baton Rouge, La., for fundraising; Compliance Consulting, a global compliance firm; Landslyde Media Group, a single-person, Cape Coral-based consultancy; Southeastern Strategies, a marketing firm; and Lakeside Media, a video production company.
That said, there’s no indication that Figlesthaler has any field organization, volunteers or infrastructure or is making any effort in that direction.
Figlesthaler seems to have no knowledge or interest in local issues and he certainly has no established political base beyond his small circle of doctor friends and their spouses, who actually reside all over the state rather than in the District.
Given his medical background and medical-heavy donor base he could clearly weigh in on healthcare and medical issues. However, his website states only: “As a physician, I have served thousands of Southwest Florida patients. I have seen firsthand how government-controlled healthcare drives up costs and destroys patients’ quality of care. I will fight for a free market system that ensures competitive prices and quality of service.” In other words, he opposes the Affordable Care Act.
Figlesthaler’s is a shallow, highly ideological campaign focused on national themes and complete indifference to local issues. Also, his small donor list doesn’t indicate an enormous groundswell of grassroots support.
By most traditional measures, Figlesthaler would not be considered a serious candidate and this would simply be a vanity project. However, his initial personal investment and the resources at his command mean that he must be considered a contender. In this he is following the model of his idol, Donald Trump.
Such campaigns have succeeded in the 19th Congressional District before. However, if he wins, Figlesthaler seems set to join the parade of inexperienced, naïve Southwest Florida candidates who went to Washington and were disillusioned by the rigors and realities of legislating, ill-serving the interests of Southwest Florida.
In a statement issued today, Collier County Democratic Party Chair Annisa Karim responded to Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s statement that an impeachable offense does not necessarily warrant removal from office. The statement follows in full:
Hello Democrats!
What we are seeing in Washington is absolutely crazy. We have Senators and Congressmen putting Party over Country and it has to stop.
Here’s what Marco Rubio said yesterday: “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.”
Here’s how I responded: “Actually, Senator, that’s exactly what it means. Your position as a public servant and the Constitution compel you to act in the best interest of your Country. How incredibly unpatriotic of you to acknowledge that the President’s actions rose to the level of impeachment and you are simply going to ignore your constitutional duty. That is a dereliction of duty; you should be ashamed.”
Updated, 5:30 pm with Cindy Banyai statement and corrected individual contribution totals.
Ford O’Connell
Republican Ford O’Connell and Democrat David Holden led their respective fields in 4th quarter 2019 fundraising for the congressional seat being vacated by outgoing Rep. Francis Rooney, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Among the eight Republicans in the race, O’Connell, a conservative media pundit and outspoken Trumper, brought in $310,205 in total receipts.
Holden, facing fellow Democrat Cindy Banyai, raised $103,078.04 in the same period. Banyai raised $13,207.96.
David Holden
Banyai issued a statement saying she was “determined to run a campaign for the people of Southwest Florida.” She pointed out that with only half a quarter of formal fundraising, she raised over $13,000 last quarter from 218 individual donations, with an average contribution amount of $37.
Having sworn off large corporate contributions and loans, Banyai stated she was relying on voter contributions.
Cindy Banyai
“Campaigns should not be bought and sold by people at the top of our economic system,” she stated. “With most of the country sitting in the middle and lower economic classes, these are the people that need representation. And who better to represent them than one of them?”
On the Republican side, after O’Connell, Republican fundraising totals were: Dan Severson, $107,531.14; Randy Henderson, $68,391.74; and Heather Fitzenhagen, $31,550. Totals for Darren Aquino, Dane Eagle, William Figlesthaler, and Byron Donalds had not yet been posted as of this writing.
No totals were available for Independent Antonio Dumornay.
Of all the candidates, David Holden had the largest disbursements, spending $33,720.28. Severson spent the most of all the Republicans, laying out $4,362.57.
O’Connell’s money mainly came from a $200,000 loan. He received $110,205 in individual contributions. Holden’s campaign took out a $45,000 loan and he received $58,078.04 in individual contributions.
Michael Bloomberg is endorsed for New York City mayor by Rudy Giuliani on Oct. 27, 2001. (Photo:AP)
January 30, 2020 by David Silverberg
It’s a bold, audacious strategy: Put all your chips on Florida. Ignore or avoid all the other primary contests. With your name recognition, vigorous campaigning and votes from transplanted northerners you can take Florida. Then the other primary states will fall into line, you’ll be the party’s nominee and you’ll be on your way to the general election and the White House.
It makes sense: it avoids all the complications of the early contests, it reduces your campaign costs and you can run a ring around a crowded field to a smashing victory.
That’s certainly what Rudy Giuliani thought in 2008.
It’s what Mike Bloomberg thinks in 2020.
And so, he’s doing the dance again. Let’s call it “the Florida sidestep.”
The parallels between Giuliani and Bloomberg are striking: Both were New York City mayors and relative outsiders to their parties. To both Florida seemed—and seems—a fruit ripe for plucking.
What can Rudy Giuliani’s experience tell us about what awaits Mike Bloomberg? How much does the past inform the future?
It’s time to compare and contrast!
The Giuliani bid
In 2007, as today, the field was crowded. President George W. Bush had reached his term limit and there was a massive scramble in both parties to replace him.
On the Republican side names kept popping up and falling by the wayside: George Allen, Tommy Thompson, George Gilmore, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, John Cox.
Anyone remember Alan Keyes?
Among the more credible Republican candidates were US Senator John McCain of Arizona, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Ron Paul of Kentucky.
But by January 2008 Rudy Giuliani loomed over all of them.
Giuliani was widely hailed as “America’s mayor.” On Sept. 11, 2001 he had led his city and rallied the country in the face of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on the American homeland. He stood out as a tower of strength, competence and calm amidst chaos and horror. The nation’s admiration for his performance on that day was virtually universal. He’d been named Time’s Man of the Year in December 2001. He was respected, admired and adored.
Giuliani and his team thought he could ride his fame and respect into the White House and it was a reasonable expectation.
That year the election season started early: the Iowa caucuses were on Jan. 3. Huckabee led with 34 percent of the results followed by Romney, Fred Thompson and McCain. Giuliani came in a distant sixth with 4 percent. In New Hampshire on Jan. 8, McCain beat Romney for first place, with Huckabee beating Giuliani for third place by 11 percent to 9 percent.
The disappointing results in these early, rural, very conservative states didn’t faze Giuliani or his team. Giuliani led the national polls in February and by March he was considered the frontrunner, despite the early setbacks.
After Iowa and New Hampshire the different candidates focused on widely different primaries. Giuliani bet big on Florida, whose primary was Jan. 29. He was going to use victory there as his stepping stone to a massive win on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.
Florida seemed by all logic to be Giuliani country: There were hundreds of thousands of transplanted New Yorkers, especially on the east coast. They knew and presumably loved him. He had a 20-point lead in the polls. He concentrated his campaigning and resources early in the year and his rivals didn’t start their Florida campaigns until late in the month. Rallies around the state were well-organized long in advance of the primary. Media attention, both national and local, continued to focus on him and his presidential prospects.
And yet, Giuliani didn’t catch fire. His rallies were sparsely attended. The vigor and enthusiasm emptied out of his campaign like gas leaking from a balloon. Other candidates raced down to Florida to campaign. At the last minute Florida Gov. Charlie Crist endorsed McCain.
In the end, McCain won Florida with 36 percent of the vote, reaping all the state’s 57 delegates to the Republican convention. He was followed by Mitt Romney with 31 percent and Giuliani trailing with only 14 percent.
The next day Giuliani dropped out of the race.
The Bloomberg bid
This year Michael Bloomberg got into the Democratic race on Nov. 24, much later than his Democratic rivals, who at their greatest extent included 25 candidates. He has not participated in any Democratic debates and he is not going to be on the ballot in any of the early primary elections.
Instead, Bloomberg is concentrating on key battleground states in the later rounds of primaries: California, Texas—and Florida.
“The road to the White House goes through Florida, is the saying,” Bloomberg told the Miami Herald. “That’s probably true.”
What ground Bloomberg lost with his late entry, he is trying to make up with heavy television advertising, a very professional campaign organization and a lot of spending. In January he spent $14.3 million in Florida, according to Politico. In December he spent about $2 million a week. He’s been hiring staff who worked on the campaign of Tallahassee mayor and gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum.
Then and now
There are some very significant differences between the Bloomberg campaign and Giuliani’s 2008 effort.
The first is the calendar. In 2008, the Florida primary preceded Super Tuesday when 24 states and American Samoa held their primaries on the same day. Giuliani viewed Florida as a stepping stone.
This year the process is reversed. Florida’s March 17 primary follows Super Tuesday on March 3 when 15 states and Democrats abroad vote. As a result, the nominee may already be known by the time Floridians go to the polls. However, if Super Tuesday doesn’t settle the matter, Florida very well could be the state that does.
So if Florida was a stepping stone in 2008, it could be the capstone in 2020.
Also, while Bloomberg is skipping the initial four primaries, he can’t ignore or write off all the pre-Florida primaries the way Giuliani did. In addition to California and Texas, Bloomberg is investing in other Super Tuesday states.
Bloomberg is not precisely following the Giuliani model. Nonetheless, there are interesting parallels between the two men and their campaigns.
The commonalities
Some of Giuliani’s and Bloomberg’s shared characteristics are blindingly obvious: Both are New Yorkers and both served as the city’s Republican mayors.
Fun historical fact: Sept. 11, 2001 happened to be New York City’s mayoral primary day. Rudy Giuliani was limited to two terms and was stepping down. Because of the terrorist attacks, the primary was postponed (to the best of this author’s ability to determine the only time in American history that an election has been postponed, including during wartime).
After the attacks, Giuliani wanted to stay on as mayor and there was some support for the idea given the city’s challenges. Initially, he wanted the term limits lifted so that he could run for a third term. For all the adoration he was receiving and for all his supporters’ efforts to change the law, the state legislators who held the power to make the alteration were unalterably opposed. To them and much of the media, it seemed like a naked power grab.
With this third term hopes dashed, Giuliani attempted to have his term extended by three months. Two of the three mayoral candidates hoping to replace him agreed to the three-month extension. The third, Fernando Ferrer, refused. The state legislature also refused to condone it.
Ultimately, with great reluctance and little grace, Giuliani gave up his efforts and endorsed the Republican nominee for mayor: Michael Bloomberg, who won the general election and took office on Jan. 1, 2002.
In addition to Giuliani and Bloomberg’s obvious commonalities there are other, related ones: both men are essentially political centrists and both are outliers in their respective parties.
Whatever he may be today, in 2008 Giuliani was essentially a center-rightist. He’d been tough on crime in New York before 9/11 made him the nation’s foremost anti-terrorism crusader. Nonetheless, when he ran for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination he was viewed by the Party faithful as a big-city, anti-gun, social liberal. He’d had dysfunctional family relationships and been married three times, which made evangelicals uncomfortable.
As his rival Mitt Romney put it at the time: “I don’t think the Republican Party will choose a pro-choice, pro-gay civil union candidate to lead our party.”
Romney was right. Giuliani didn’t sit well at all with the Party activists who decided primaries, especially in Florida. And all those transplanted New Yorkers he was counting on? They were all Democrats.
For his part, Bloomberg started political life as a Democrat, in 2001 switched to Republican to run for mayor and became an Independent in 2007. Last year he became a Democrat again and is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Long-time Democrats can be forgiven if they are somewhat skeptical of his political loyalties.
Most Democrats are also suspicious of Bloomberg’s wealth. Prior to his political career he built his fortune through Bloomberg LP, a global financial services, software and mass media company that made him the eleventh richest person in the United States with an estimated fortune of $60.5 billion in 2020, according to Forbes.
It’s that kind of wealth that allows him to make his self-financed presidential bid. But it doesn’t sit well with a party trying to mobilize the economic 99 percent and it also opens him to charges of trying to buy the election.
For all their differences and party allegiances, both Giuliani and Bloomberg share core values born of New York City realities: social tolerance leavened with an emphasis on law and order; support for immigrants and immigration; a global outlook; laissez-faire business encouragement; and a simple, pragmatic belief in common-sense good governance.
The BIGLIEST difference…
Into this mix in 2016 came yet another New Yorker: Donald J. Trump. His political presence marks the biggest difference between 2008 and 2020.
It is interesting that Giuliani, Bloomberg and Trump all worked with each other in New York, doing deals, moving in the same social circles and boosting the city. They know each other well and all come out of the same cauldron. They’re also all of the same generation: Giuliani is 75 years old, Bloomberg 77, Trump 73.
In 2008, Trump was a political nonentity who had no impact on the presidential race. Eight years later, Trump propelled Giuliani and Bloomberg in different directions.
In 2016, Giuliani signed on to the Trump team, campaigned for him and evolved (or devolved, depending on your perspective) into a Trump “killer lawyer”—a fixer and factotum, defender and deal maker. Submitting to his master’s whims and delusions, in the eyes of most of the sane world Giuliani appears today as a Trump puppet and enabler, a toadying sycophant and slavish servant whose behavior even Trump sometimes regards as bizarre. According to author Michael Wolff in the book Siege, Giuliani volunteered to work for Trump for free when the president was under investigation by Robert Mueller (as opposed to lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who demanded $1 million per month and was initially refused).
Bloomberg, by contrast, saw the danger Trump presented from the time that Trump launched his campaign. It was the reason that he addressed the Democratic National Convention in support of Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Michael Bloomberg addresses the 2016 Democratic Convention.
“I’m a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one!” Bloomberg memorably said in that speech. “Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy.” He warned that Trump, whom he called “a dangerous demagogue,” threatened America’s economy, trade and unity.
“The bottom line is: Trump is a risky, reckless, and radical choice. And we can’t afford to make that choice,” he warned.
But by whatever magic, that was the choice that was made and Bloomberg has not let up in his opposition to Trump.
“I’m running for president to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America,” he stated in the announcement of his 2020 campaign. “We cannot afford four more years of President Trump’s reckless and unethical actions. He represents an existential threat to our country and our values. If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage. The stakes could not be higher. We must win this election. And we must begin rebuilding America.”
On a more pragmatic basis, Bloomberg apparently fears that the Democratic center cannot hold during the primary process and Trump may win the general election. And so he entered the race.
So will it play in Florida?
Polls, both national and statewide, will be going up and down between now and the presidential primary and the only one that counts is the one on Election Day. That said, a St.PetePolls.org poll of 2,590 likely Florida Democratic presidential primary voters conducted on Monday and Tuesday (January 27 and 28) found Bloomberg coming in second behind former Vice President Joe Biden by 41.3 percent to 17.3 percent.
Apparently those TV ads are having an impact.
Bloomberg’s spending could make possible the Florida sidestep strategy that Rudy Giuliani was unable to implement in 2008.
Ironically, the biggest factor in Bloomberg’s candidacy may not be Bloomberg—but Trump. If Trump remains in office despite impeachment he will feel he has “won” and is likely to claim complete exoneration. With a sense that he has no restraints or restrictions, his actions and statements are likely to become even more dangerous, daring and deranged and he just may drive Florida Democrats toward Bloomberg’s centrism.
Regardless of whether the strategy works, Bloomberg is certainly right about one thing: Donald Trump represents an existential threat to democracy and the future of the United States.
Can Bloomberg build sufficient support to overcome the kind of party opposition to his campaign that Giuliani faced in 2008? Can Bloomberg beat Joe Biden in the Democratic fight for the center? And can he get the nomination?
This year it’s Florida’s Democratic voters who may hold the answer.
A view of the Everglades. (Photo: Big Cypress National Preserve)
Jan. 24, 2020 by David Silverberg
President Donald Trump’s rollback of protections for streams and wetlands is “the darkest day for Federal protection of wetlands since it first started 45 years ago,” according to Prof. Bill Mitsch, a globally recognized wetlands expert and eminent scholar and director of the Everglades Wetland Research Park at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU).
“This is a horrible setback for wetland protection in the USA,” he wrote in a statement posted on LinkedIn.
Prof. Bill Mitsch, 2019
“I have followed this tug of war for all these years between those who appreciate the many ecosystem services that wetlands provide, including cleaning our waters, sequestering and permanently storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and providing the best habitat for hundreds of threatened and endangered species, and the industrial-scale agricultural, energy, and real estate giants” he wrote. “It has always been a David vs. Goliath [battle].”
Mitsch was writing after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday, Jan. 23, finalized a rule that removed protections for many of the nation’s streams, rivers, wetlands and groundwater.
The rule was part of the “Waters of the United States” rule put in place in 2015 under the administration of President Barack Obama that protected a variety of streams, rivers and wetlands from pollution, in particular those that ran intermittently or underground and served as sources for larger bodies of water.
The Trump rule, called the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” eliminates many of the previous protections, meaning that developers and industries no longer have to get permits under the Clean Water Act before dumping waste and pollutants like pesticides and fertilizers into many waterways. However, it continues regulation of larger, navigable bodies of water.
“I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration’s disastrous Waters of the United States rule,” Trump boasted on Sunday at the annual convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation in Austin, Texas. “That was a rule that basically took your property away from you.”
In Southwest Florida, with the Everglades and badly polluted rivers like the Caloosahatchee and the St. Lucie rivers flowing out of Lake Okeechobee, the rollback of protections could have a significant impact, especially on future algae blooms.
In response to a question from WINK-TV on the impact of the new rules on Southwest Florida, an EPA spokesperson stated:
“The waterbodies mentioned in your question – the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee River, and Estero Bay – are jurisdictional under the previous regulations and will remain jurisdictional under the new rule. Under the new rule, perennial and intermittent tributaries to these waterbodies would be regulated as ‘waters of the United States.’ In addition, those wetlands that are adjacent (as defined in the new rule) to these waterbodies and their perennial and intermittent tributaries would be ‘waters of the United States’ under the new rule.”
“Jurisdictional” waters are those still regulated under the Clean Water Act of 1972.
As the EPA explained in its statement:
“In the Clean Water Act, Congress explicitly directed the EPA and the Army Corps to protect ‘navigable waters.’ The Navigable Waters Protection Rule regulates these waters and the core tributary systems that provide perennial or intermittent flow into them. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule establishes four clear categories of waters are federally regulated:
The territorial seas and traditional navigable waters,
Perennial and intermittent tributaries to those waters,
Certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments, and
Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters.”
However, it follows from the Trump rule that if waterways are not navigable or do not flow into a protected body of water or if wetlands are not immediately adjacent to jurisdictional waters, they’re no longer protected and can be subject to unregulated pollution.
Comment from Rep. Francis Rooney (R-19-Fla.), who has made water purity a centerpiece of his congressional tenure, was unavailable as of this writing. Similarly, there was no comment from Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) who has made water quality a priority of his administration. Nor was there any comment on the state water website, Protecting Florida Together.
Mitsch, who has spent his entire career studying wetlands and who has proposed a natural cleaning method he calls “wetlaculture” to clean polluted wetlands like the Everglades, put out a call for action in the wake of the Trump regulatory rollback.
“I am calling for those of us who appreciate some of the good things that nature has provided for us, whether you are Republican, Democrat, or Independent, to speak out about the rape of our landscape that will surely follow this action. I especially call upon those who are in the business world to help establish environmental bonds, local and state ordinances, and novel approaches to save our remaining wetlands. I also call upon the children and young adults, who are much more knowledgeable about wetlands than their parents and grandparents, to join the ‘silent majority’ who appreciate the role of wetlands to move forward, with or without our Federal government, to save our planet.”
Republican congressional candidate Dan Severson leads a prayer for President Trump at the Lee County Trump Republican Club. (Photo: Dan Severson for Congress campaign)
Jan. 23, 2020 by David Silverberg
Dan Severson, Republican candidate for Congress in the 19th Congressional District, raised $107,531.14 in total fundraising receipts for the last quarter of 2019, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Severson spent $4,362.57 on his Republican primary campaign. His campaign committee, Severson for Congress, took out a $101,500 loan and raised $4,350 in individual contributions.
Severson, a former Minnesota state legislator who has used religious terms in expressing his support for President Donald Trump, is the first candidate to file his 2019 fourth quarter receipts. He currently has $103,168.57 cash on hand for the campaign, according to the filing.
The only other candidate to file a financial report to date was Democrat Cindy Banyai, who raised $913.69 in the third quarter of 2019. Her fourth quarter filings are not yet publicly available.
Totals for the other nine candidates running in the race have not yet been publicly released.
Marchers in Saturday’s Women’s March fill Naples’ Fifth Avenue. (Photos: Author)
Jan. 20, 2020 by David Silverberg
Today, marchers in Naples and Fort Myers will commemorate the life and legacy of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK). This past Saturday, Jan. 18, activists marched in support of democratic values, liberal causes and to protest the Trump administration’s corruption and assault on women and their concerns.
Saturday’s Women’s March to Win in Naples and the march in Fort Myers were vigorous, enthusiastic and exuberant. The same spirit will likely pervade today’s marches.
But do such marches and demonstrations make a difference, especially in broadly conservative and predominantly Republican Southwest Florida?
The ultimate results won’t be known until the election in November. However, the robust turnouts for the women’s marches demonstrated that liberal political activism in Southwest Florida is alive, well and energetic—and poised to make a difference in both election results and people’s attitudes.
Organizers of the Naples march, formally titled Women March to Win, included Collier Freedom, the Collier County Democratic Party and its Environmental Caucus, SWFL Justice for All, Showing Up for Racial Justice, and Collier Students for Change. The Fort Myers march was hosted by the Alliance and Women’s March Fort Myers, a 501c3 non-profit organization.
The Naples March was significant in that it was the first time since the marches began in 2017 that organizers received a permit to use the street rather than just the sidewalks. Marchers started and ended in Cambier Park.
Both local marches were part of demonstrations that took place around the country.
The historical context
Women’s March participants take the stage at Cambier Park to mark 100 years of women’s suffrage.
Marches and parades probably began when humans started walking upright. They’ve always been expressions of enthusiasm and triumph but in the current context they’re also important for marking critical historic occasions.
This year’s Women’s Marches commemorated the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage and in a more recent context, the outpouring of protest in 2017 against President Donald Trump’s racism, bigotry and misogyny.
The MLK parades celebrate MLK’s commitment to non-violence, peaceful resistance and his efforts to achieve equality, fairness and justice.
So such parades and demonstrations serve the purpose of passing on a legacy to the next generation, honoring the struggles that have gone before and remembering the values that powered the movements.
A show of strength
Some of the groups hosting the Women’s March in Naples.
Turnout at demonstrations is always a measure of the strength of a movement and the broadness of its appeal.
In 2017, an estimated half million people turned out in Washington, DC for the first Women’s March, vastly eclipsing Trump’s paltry inauguration crowds. In Naples, 2017 turnout was unexpectedly large, with several thousand people filling Cambier Park and surrounding streets. It was especially surprising in light of Naples’ seeming somnolence, its apparent conservatism and its reputed indifference to politics. Organizers had expected a crowd of around 500 people; ultimate participation was orders of magnitude larger.
This year, an estimated 3.000 people participated in Naples based on a count of wrist bands provided by March organizers in an effort to get an accurate tally. The count may actually be higher, according to Cynthia Morino-Clark, a March organizer, since not all volunteers attending the march received wristbands. In Fort Myers, WINK News estimated that over 2,000 people marched from the Alliance for the Arts to Centennial Park.
Turnout should be good in this year’s more traditional, more officially organized MLK parades.
In addition to their other purposes, demonstrations of this type also forge solidarity among demonstrators. Particularly in Southwest Florida where liberal activists may often feel that they’re struggling in isolation, demonstrations are an expression of common purpose and wider support.
Electoral exposure
Democratic congressional candidate David Holden and supporters.
Parades, marches and demonstrations are always an opportunity for electoral candidates to show support for the cause and greet people.
Democratic candidates for office appeared at both Women’s Marches this year: congressional candidates David Holden in Naples and Cindy Banyai in Fort Myers; Sara McFadden and Maureen Porras for state legislature in Naples and John Jenkins, a candidate for Collier County Commission.
Democratic congressional candidate Cindy Banyai (center) and supporters demonstrate in the Fort Myers Women’s March. (Photo: Cindy Banyai campaign)
Voter turnout was a major theme of the Women’s Marches, which featured exhortations to vote and voter registration opportunities during the rallies.
Conversely, the Women’s Marches were also an opportunity to protest against Trump administration policies and prejudice.
The Trumper provocateur.
That sentiment wasn’t universally shared. A Trump provocateur inserted himself at the head of the Naples parade, although he was later separated by police from the main body of the march. He then posted himself outside Cambier Park. He has appeared to disrupt other events in the past, like gatherings of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School survivors. Asked his name, he replied “Donald Trump Jr.”
Spreading the word
Spectators at the Naples Women’s March show their support.
Demonstrations, marches and parades help spread a message. Though spectators were sparse at the Women’s March in Naples, the march did elicit spontaneous support from observers.
Coverage of the march by local traditional media was erratic. WINK-TV reported both marches with extended coverage. The Naples Daily News covered it with photos on page three the following day. NBC-2 television news did not mention a single word about the march in its 6:00 pm broadcast that night and only posted a short story prior to the march on its website.
The MLK Parade, since it is scheduled annually and is a more formally organized event, should receive at least some coverage in all Southwest Florida’s media outlets.
The usefulness of events
A very determined marcher.
The United States Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to peacefully assemble and petition government for a redress of grievances. As long as those rights remain inviolate, demonstrations, marches and protests will occur.
Demonstrations can make a difference—and in a place like Southwest Florida, where a single party dominates all government, they are particularly important as an expression of popular sentiment and peaceful dissent.
Organizers of tomorrow’s Women March to Win in Naples, Fla., have received a permit to march down Fifth Avenue, Naples’ main street, in contrast to past marches, according to an organizer of the event.
In past years, marchers have gathered at Broad and Third streets in Naples and were only permitted to march on the sidewalk to reach Cambier Park.
This year the march will be shorter in distance, beginning and ending in Cambier Park. Participants will gather at 9:00 am in the park and step off at 10:00 am. Following the march, speakers will address the crowd in Cambier until 2:00 pm.
In Fort Myers, marchers will gather at The Alliance for the Arts, 10091 McGregor Blvd, at 10:00 am and rally until 1:00 pm.
A flock of ibis on the wing.
Dr. William Figlesthaler delivers his own State of the Union address in a campaign video. (Image: Dr. Fig for Congress campaign)
Michael Bloomberg is endorsed for New York City mayor by Rudy Giuliani on Oct. 27, 2001. (Photo:AP)
A view of the Everglades. (Photo: Big Cypress National Preserve)
Republican congressional candidate Dan Severson leads a prayer for President Trump at the Lee County Trump Republican Club. (Photo: Dan Severson for Congress campaign)
Marchers in Saturday’s Women’s March fill Naples’ Fifth Avenue. (Photos: Author)
Women’s March participants take the stage at Cambier Park to mark 100 years of women’s suffrage.
Some of the groups hosting the Women’s March in Naples.
Democratic congressional candidate David Holden and supporters.
Democratic congressional candidate Cindy Banyai (center) and supporters demonstrate in the Fort Myers Women’s March. (Photo: Cindy Banyai campaign)
Spectators at the Naples Women’s March show their support.
A very determined marcher.
The Paradise Progressive 