Letter: Saving High Springs is serious business
Letter to the editor
This whole “debate” on whether or not the candidates running for Seat 3 on the High Springs City Commission should participate in a debate seems like a no-brainer to me. It should happen.
This is what I don’t get: Why is there so much resistance from a candidate who refuses to engage with citizens in any meaningful way? Why does he have to be “protected”? Why do his supporters attack anyone who expresses a preference for honest discourse regarding real issues? Why is there such intense pushback to allowing any citizen to ask legitimate questions of both candidates? This seems to insulate the candidate, make him feel safe, and does not ask too much of him. Yet doesn’t High Springs deserve better?
Suggesting a forum, rather than a debate, feels like a safe, controlled alternative. The moderators control the room, have the ability to favor one candidate over the other, and can shut down speech/answers that the moderator deems unfavorable. This format has great potential to be uneven, unfair, censored, and dishonest. It is a sham and holds no one accountable, serving as a safe space for one person and exclusion for everyone else.
These candidates are adults. Each person has the responsibility to manage his/her own conduct. It is not about being in control of the process, but about being in control of one’s self. It seems to me that anyone who is unable or unwilling to handle a civil debate is not in the race — or in office — for the right reasons.
In my opinion, there is already a conflict of interest with the Brewery being the mayor’s campaign headquarters… for it is THAT business that the mayor seems to have gone outside of regular channels (documented in public meetings) to promote and support through his official position.
Additionally, it is disturbing that several campaign events have revolved around alcohol — whether it’s a meet and greet at the Brewery or a pub crawl. Both can be construed as conflicts of interest because the mayor has not been shy about pushing for an entertainment district, to turn High Springs into something it is not. His supporters are not the only residents of High Springs, though they often act as though they are — shutting out, shutting down, or attacking anyone who disagrees.
These entertainment campaign events do not address substantive issues that concern the citizens of High Springs. It seems to me that glad-handing and back-slapping are the two major results of these events. I am sure there will be conversations — maybe even some about High Springs’ needs — but no conversation will be accountable to the citizens who cannot engage in public, rather than private, discourse; or who are neither invited to nor are in attendance at these events. Of course, supporters of these kinds of events will defend them and will also defend their buddy’s refusal to participate publicly.
From what I see, neither the mayor nor his supporters have spoken to real issues facing the City. High Springs is going through a financial crisis, where jobs and services are at stake, with the immediate remedy pricing out some of the town’s citizens. Responsible City leaders are working hard to put the town back in the black. For that, we need responsible leadership.
Residents don’t want their money wasted or frivolously assigned to projects to which they did not agree, nor especially to projects which do not generate significant sustainable revenue.
It is important to know which candidate will be the best fit for supporting sound fiscal responsibility, as well as provide representation for all citizens of High Springs. Saying you are doesn’t make it so. Stand on your platform and share it with voters.
A public debate is essential.
Carol Bishop, Alachua County
[Editor’s note: The City of High Springs election on November 4 features a City Commission Seat 3 contest with two candidates (Tristan Grunder and Julie Ann Tapia-Ruano), five charter amendments, and a code amendment. Click here for more information.]
The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Assertions of facts in letters are similarly the responsibility of the author. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.
I think you lost me at “these candidates are adults.” Julie Tapia-Ruano certainly does not act like one. She is emotionally labile, immature, reactive, and does not accept responsibility for her actions. Given that, I don’t need a debate to see that Tristan is truly the best candidate.
Grunder just did a night out at Blue Star Grill and invited the community to dine with him and his family. I just checked social media and it appears he has been very active in inviting people to meet him.
He is also participating at the Woman’s Club event, so I don’t really understand what I’m seeing here (or on Facebook).
From a neutral perspective, it seems like there’s a small (yet vocal group) of people who insist on nitpicking him, and they don’t really want a debate.
I don’t know what there is to debate when much of the mess we’re in has nothing to do with Grunder. It has to do with the former staff.
Tapia-Ruano doesn’t appear to have anything new to offer, and doesn’t seem to differ much from Grunder. If anything, it seems that she’s placed her identity and purpose in being involved in local politics, while appearing unpolished, unprofessional, and petty.
If she loses, I hope she learns from it. If she wins, I hope she governs better than she campaigns.
Grunder needs to answer questions publicly. Only those who support him go to his meet and greets and if I were to ask questions, I would not necessarily get a true answer but he has only one person to answer to. He maintains control. We don’t want prepared questions. We want our questions answered.
Linda,
If I follow your logic, I can only assume the following:
1. You don’t consider his invitation to dine with his family to really be “public.”
2. Only those who have already made up their minds will attend campaign events.
3. You believe you wouldn’t get a true answer out of him, regardless of the forum.
4. The only way to get him to answer your questions is to get him in front of a crowd pressure him into telling you what you want to hear, or to validate your pre-existing opinions.
5. Being in front of a crowd somehow robs him of control, as though he can’t think or respond for himself regardless of who is in front of him.
I’d like to know what questions you personally want him to answer and why you think the response would be different if it were asked somewhere like the Woman’s Club forum.
As usual, Grunder gets a pass on what’s going on in High Springs. Past commissions are always blamed for everything. The point is to work together to fix. He lost the CDD issue. He did not help the Fire issue. While Chief Peters and PIO Mangan apologized for their inaccuracies, Grunder only praised himself for protecting city staff. Three other commissioners are standing up for the citizens. Sometimes staff have to be laid off and services limited. This is painful because the commissioners personally know the people who are affected.
Not continuing to meet with the Mayor’s Youth Council since last May is a problem. These young people take such pride in their activities. I remember last year’s emotional 911 ceremony in which they participated.
His inability to maintain a professional presence in the chambers, losing his temper and making dramatic faces and movements such as lying back in his chair, staring at the ceilings.
Julie has attended almost all meetings for the last two years. She has an extensive resume in both her personal and professional life. She maintains a professional manner and is willing to meet/debate with Grunder at any time.
Please take some time to check out my comments. Vote for Julie Tapia-Ruano for Seat #3 on November 4th.
You act as though all citizens think the same. It is possible for different commissioners to represent the interests of a diverse community with equally diverse points of view.
It would be unfair to highlight Grunder’s lack of decorum and neglect to point out Tapia-Ruano’s reputation for failing to resolve petty conflicts with neighbors, which came to light in the last election even as she tried to say she was “4 neighbors,” which doesn’t speak well of her ability to govern those whom she may disagree with.
It seems you’re not really interested in transparency, but would rather push your agenda and paint him as negatively as possible while giving a pass to Julie.
Unfortunately, some people believe the truth to be ‘negative’, rather than it just standing on its own. The truth is evident and can be backed up, but all the opponents have to respond to it are personal attacks on those who speak it. They cannot articulate what they believe, only in whom they believe.
Your version of “truth” is your personal interpretation. Some of the statements you’ve posted are factually inaccurate. It’s understandable to have differing opinions, but it’s important to base them on verified information.
If you’re genuinely interested in Mayor Grunder’s positions or policies, I encourage you to visit his website, follow his official campaign page on Facebook, or attend one of his many meet-and-greet events. Just this weekend, he shared an infographic outlining his core beliefs (widely circulated across the same community pages you’re active on). Engaging with those sources would provide you with accurate information directly from him.
Please explain what I purported to be ‘truth’… and, you are right, my statements were based on my personal perspective.
It’s gone to their heads. High & Mighty complex.