Welcome to Surprises in Largo

VOTE: 11/8/22

Reader feedback makes plain that Surprises in Largo has kept our promise of sharing generally unknown facts about trends in local government, while leaving the judgment of these up to you. Our cabinet of curiosities has included: changing attitudes towards greenspace, unstoppable efforts to house staff luxuriously, an unbalanced distribution of the effects of inflation between government and taxpayer, novel approaches to commission deliberations, an apparent transition to a strong manager form of government, the extraordinary influence of special interests, a tendency of local government to prefer the publicity it generates over objective evaluations, odd notions of public communications and engagement, hearing loss when citizens voice concerns, many struggles with using math, David versus Goliath in influencing public opinion, aversions to commonplace accountability mechanisms. Readers, regardless of their notions of “Largo can do better” on disparate issues, tell us that they connect the dots among the surprises in governing style and attitude which we have recounted. Read all 12, here, again.

The election is the antidote? Maybe, but certainly not completely. Surprises in Largo expects to remain needed regardless. Upsets or close votes can’t hurt the people in our battle against being taken for granted. Please vote but choose wisely. The deck is stacked against your informed consent on what has been going on. After all, much of what we have reported on has appeared only here, though every word of it can be documented and none of it has ever been contested. Complacency means not feeling the need to even respond to criticism. Surprises in Largo is here to help you make good choices.

First, follow the money.

This publication arms you with questions rather than answers. Check out the campaign finance reports on Largo’s election webpages. Good projects sell themselves on the merits. Advocates avoid encouraging the idea that they are buying your vote. Good candidates seek office absent any perception that special interest strings may be attached to their future decisions. Is that what you see in the campaign finance reports?

Perhaps this page will prompt more of both.  

Second, trust but verify.

On the main referenda items, city leaders have made this tough. Horizon was configured to seem contingent on voter approval of extended leasing. There remain no reliable estimates of any aspect including this. But ground has been broken. Preserve was configured to be just about negotiating a sale of supposedly useless greenspace. The project was renamed to make it appear to be part of Largo’s own public preserve. Public education started a fortnight before ballots were mailed. Most public questions were referred to the developer. We have all been deluged with their version of the “facts”. You tell us. Is your vote for or against the projects? It seems more like we are being asked to affirm ramming untested wishes through by any means necessary.

On the candidates, Surprises asks for just a little more effort to get informed before you vote. Two candidates who served on the commission before or currently aren’t running against one other. Still, start there. Google their past campaign promises and records in office. We’ve found some notable differences in promise-keeping, can you? Two candidates have never served on the commission. Nevertheless, there is viable test of their worthiness. Compare the campaign promises of these candidates with recent commission actions. Which candidate seems more willing and able to buck recent trends?

Your vote matters more than usually. Look beyond favor or disfavor for a candidate or a referenda item. Consider, instead the primacy of the many frustrations so many have recently voiced on so many different issues, most not explicitly on the ballot. You are voting on the sense of just not being heard, arising from the presumption of public apathy. We will not shame you, but the facts are that you voted for a commission, the vast majority of whom are serving uncontested terms longer than Vladimir Putin’s. You voted for a commission indifferent to special interest influence. You voted for a commission which has intransigently refused all entreaties to objectively evaluate its performance or that of the city manager, for a plan and budget which can’t be evaluated. You voted for a commission which proceeds irrespective of public protest at their meetings. You voted for a commission that cuts corners in getting what it wants. Think of your vote, chiefly as a way of sending a message that your government needs to follow its own rules, to listen to you, and not just appear to do so in the weeks when they are asking for your vote.