Opinion
By Amelia Morales, 6-5-23
(Editor’s note: This is one of several articles submitted for Pride Month Retrospective. Somehow this letter escaped our notice until now, but it is still relevant.)
Dear Editor and Citizen’s Journal Readers,
Watching Mr. Knocke’s CDF-Nassau County question Pride’s use of the city’s public recreational spaces in Fernandina has been, well, entertaining at first and then shocking upon closer inspection. Thank you Citizen’s Journal for reporting on the developments accurately. Thank you CDF for standing up.
Putting aside the news of the death-threat issued by a pro-pride person, the shocking part is the permit processes engaged in by Pride and the City officials. Admittedly, one has to put on their legal thinking-cap to run the permitting failures to ground, but such is required when we citizens and Commissioners agree to abide by “the rule of law.”
Debrief on Pride’s Drag Bingo Permit
Bingo cancelled. CDF was correct. Would law enforcement have stepped up had not the city attorney acted on CDF’s notice of gambling violation? CDF saved Fernandina from violating state gaming laws. Note: previous violations by the city and Pride may still pose a risk to the offending parties. Discussion is needed locally on these breaches, and if not accommodated, Gaming Commission oversight may be warranted.
The City Attorney, Ms. Bach, agreed with CDF and cancelled the Bingo. But she also rendered another opinion that the drag show at the public golf course is not adult entertainment as defined under the city code. This is blatantly wrong based on the plain language of the City’s ordinance cited by CDF.
Ordinance 14-52 regulates Drag shows as adult entertainment under two definitions of the activity in our ordinance:
1. Adult cabaret or theater means an establishment, whether licensed for sale of alcoholic beverages consumed on the premises or not, presenting performances or other live activity having as a dominant theme or distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matters depicting, describing or relating to specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas, for observation by patrons therein.; and
2. The catchall definition “….lingerie modeling or any other similar adult entertainment business, however styled, means, without limitation, any place of business which advertises or conducts activities for compensation that is designed or intended to establish a sexual or social communication, engagement or relationship, whether on or off the premises, between its clients and its employees.”
If Bach’s opinion is allowed to stand, and drag shows are allowed in our public recreational areas, the city is in grave danger of violating the law repeatedly and opens the city to outside oversight of enforcement of our own laws. There must be a process or forum available to challenge Ms. Bach’s opinion. If no process is made available, then we citizens will need to research other options to hold the city accountable to enforce the laws on its books.
Finally on this Drag Bingo debrief item, Ms. Bach bolstered her erroneous legal opinion by citing the city’s Human Relations Ordinance (HRO) as a basis to allow drag shows on our public recreational property. Presumably, she is concluding that to deny drag shows in public recreational areas is discrimination against gender identity expression. Heads up: If the HRO ordinance lends cover for adult sexually-themed theatrics to be promoted on our public and private places of accomodation contrary to the wording of the Adult Entertainment rules, then the “HRO has got to go!”
As an aside, notice how “human rights” gets perverted to cramming sexually explicit stuff in our community? This is why organizations like CDF and Citizens Journal are absolutely necessary. In effect, Pride and the other sexual content pushers have created the need for CDF. Thank Pride for CDF. The folks pushing unnatural and overtly sexual content have had very little resistance and their policy-implementing activities have quietly and doggedly marched forward. I believe they have overplayed their hand and our community needs to shore up our elected officials and back up the bus. Rescind Permits, repeal sexually-based HRO, etc.
Central Park Pride Event Still Awaits Commission Approval of Safety Plan
A theme in city governance on permitting has emerged: On Pride matters: Look the other way. On building permits: inspect, charge, violate, and delay.
On the Bingo rules, the City looked the other way (see 2022 violation, etc.). Now we have a defective application by Pride for use of the Park. The city is in active “Look the other way” mode right now.
Like CDF showed the city that their allowance of Bingo is illegal and were proved correct, now look at how the permit for the Pride Park event is also illegal, if not cured. Citizens must renew the request for cancellation of the park usage/permit for the following legal reasons:
1. On October 18, 2022 the Event Committee (EC) provided an approval conditioned on “City Commission decisions as it relates to public safety” Correct me if I am wrong, but such condition has not been met and the permit therefore cannot be considered as issued.
In order for the permit to issue legally according to the EC, the Commission (not the Mayor), must render “decisions as it relates to public safety.” Without such action, the safety standards in the city ordinance on Special Events have not been met per City Ordinance 65-19(1)(2)(3)(4)and (5).
2. The following defects in Pride’s application are Public Safety issues and render the application as fatally defective (void) and non-curable under the time frame provided in the ordinance at 65-16 and the default provision at 65-21(d)(2):
a. The Application requires an “Event Description” noting, “Event set up map must be submitted with the application” (Emphasis added) Not only did Pride fail to provide any description of what would be occurring (recall the public’s objections), but failed to provide the mandatory set up map. These two items are key. At the EC, it was Capt. Bishop who “voiced concern” and felt it necessary to promise to “deploy drone safety procedures” at the EC meeting. No wonder the EC deferred to the Commission.
b. Page two of Pride’s application also has gaps of information that can only render the application as incomplete. Pride fails to give details on Banners which require separate permitting per ordinance 65-27, Use of Marquees, and any information on amplification/noise (despite their promoting music and speakers). It is unconscionable that for an event of 1500 people that this application can be considered as complete or permissible.
c. Pride’s Facebook page indicates that booths are available for a fee and food trucks will be present. Yet Ordinance 65-24(b) restricts the assignment of space covered by the event permit without express written consent of the city manager. Perhaps this is why the map is mandatory.
d. City ordinance 65-13(c) prohibits this Commission from issuing a permit as the application with such missing documentation “will not be accepted.”
e. Complete applications must be submitted a minimum of 60 days prior to an event.
3. Given that the permit was conditioned on Commission action and therefore has not been fully issued, Pride is in violation of City Ordinance 65.13 (a) due to their premature advertising of the event, taking registrations, and selling sponsorships. Such flagrant disregard for this city ordinance should render Pride in default per 65-21(d)(3) and (6) and they should be cancelled for this event and disqualified for future permits per 65-21(e).
In conclusion CDF was right on gaming in the city; Ms. Bach is wrong on Adult Entertainment; the HRO has got go; and the Pride park event is currently illegal. A citizen should not have to go to great lengths to get a municipality to obey and enforce its own laws. Perhaps outside authorities have oversight of such failures and can assist citizens on a city’s compliance with its own laws. If any legal-beagle commenters know of what authorities have oversight of a city’s failure to enforce its own laws, please advise us! Perhaps it’s the Inspector General’s Office, or the grand jury option.
Thank you Citizens Journal for this space and your fearless reporting.
Amelia Morales
Fernandina
The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal Florida.
