- May 4, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
City Charter states the districts should align with natural boundaries.
“This is crazy.” “This is wrong!” “This is still a sham!”
Those were the accusations when the Districting Commission met for the second time June 2. Alternative No. 2 is the commission’s recommendation to the Palm Coast City Council, which will hold a special meeting 9 a.m. June 14, to consider public input.
The commission’s decision sparked rowdiness from a crowd of about 50 people, most of whom appeared to support District 3 candidate Dennis Cross. Cross will be eliminated from contention if Alternative No. 2 is adopted because he would be changed from District 3 to District 2. District 2 is occupied by City Council member Frank Meeker and is not open this election cycle.
Cross made four objections June 2 to Alternative No. 2. First, he said the commission was supposed to be appointed on the first day of the month after the U.S. Census data was released, according to the City Charter.
According to the U.S. Census website, final data was released March 17; the city didn’t appoint the commission until May 17.
“We got the process started as quickly as possible,” City Manager Jim Landon said in a phone interview after the June 2 meeting. “It’s just not something we do every day.”
Cross also said that the Districting Commission should be represented by all four districts, and it’s not; District 4 isn’t represented. However, the city’s charter doesn’t state that as a requirement.
Cross’ second point was Alternative No. 2 would change candidate qualifications in the middle of an election campaign, adding that he was issued a petition certification letter as a certified District 3 candidate.
“I hope everyone on this commission understands that any candidate, when they enter into a campaign ... we’ve already accepted contributions and made expenditures,” Cross said. “So changing the rules midstream for qualification is not acceptable.”
Another objection by Cross was that the Districting Commission did not evaluate each alternative sufficiently.
“The audio recording indicates the pros and cons of Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 were never discussed,” Cross said.
Clint Smith, a member of the Districting Commission, said Alternatives 1 and 5 were automatically eliminated because they didn’t meet the population requirements that state the new zones should be within plus or minus 5% of a targeted population of 18,795.
City Charter states that the new zones should be contiguous and follow boundaries such as canals and streets — a requirement the others don’t meet as strongly as Alternative No. 2.
The final objection by Cross was based on “political fairness.”
“I don’t care if I was the candidate or not ... I’d be here today challenging this if (District 3 candidate Jason DeLorenzo) was eliminated,” Cross said.
Several attendees left before the meeting adjourned, shouting out comments regarding the unprofessionalism of the committee.
Cross said his next plan is to raise the same objections at the June 14 special meeting of the City Council.
“I’m going to have to ... rely upon our City Council members to exercise some sound common sense for which we think we elected them,” Cross said.
Cross said it’s in the best interest of Palm Coast voters to have several candidates.
“The one thing you learn as a candidate when you go door -to-door to get your petitions signed is people want choices,” Cross added. “They are tired of elections that go unchallenged and uncontested.”
