As you’ve no doubt read by now, the Pinellas-Pasco State State Attorney’s Office has cleared St. Petersburg police officer Terrence Nemeth in the shooting of 17-year-old Gibbs High School student Javon Dawson after the young man allegedly pointed a gun at Officer Nemeth when police arrived to break up an out-of-control graduation party.

Officer Nemeth is still on leave. Dawson’s family is calling the decision a travesty of justice. The Uhurus are making veiled threats of “consequences.” Just yesterday, after protesters descended on his office, Gov. Charlie Crist asked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to do its own review of the case. But, if everything reported so far is correct, there’s probably enough evidence here, including DNA and gun residue, to show Dawson did fire a gun at the party.

But there’s an interesting aspect of the case that could have larger consequences for St. Pete in the future.

Take a look at the St. Petersburg Times’ special report on the shooting, and you’ll find a copy of Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe’s memo to St. Pete Police Chief Chuck Harmon that outlines the results of the investigation. In that memo are the names of witnesses that came forward and talked to the state attorney’s office about the shooting.

If you recall the climate surrounding the shooting in June, police and investigators had an extremely difficult time finding witnesses for the case, despite the fact that some 250 kids were present at the graduation party where Dawson was shot. This spurred all types of commentary on the no-snitching code that’s prevalent in many black communities here in Tampa Bay and across the nation.

The Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney’s Office finally convinced some witnesses to talk, and now, their names are splashed on the Times website for all to see. That includes any Internet-savvy gang members that investigators say Dawson was affiliated with.

I’m not sure how I feel about that.

As a rule, I always err on the side of “the more information, the better.” Sometimes revealing names and confidential information on a subject might be uncomfortable, but that’s our job as journalists.

But if I look at this from another point of view, as someone who regularly goes into communities that are hostile to fact-finding folks like police investigators and journalists, I worry this could have a negative effect on future investigations. If witnesses know their names will end up in print (or on the Web), will they still come forward when the next shooting happens? I’m not faulting the Times — I can’t say for sure if I would or wouldn’t do the same thing — but I am surprised the state attorney’s office didn’t redact any names from the report. Just two weeks ago, I was stonewalled by the SPPD for just trying to get a police report of a 2-year-old art theft. Now, a state agency has released the names of witnesses and perhaps put them in danger.

Again, I’m not passing judgement, only curious on the conversations that did (or did not) go on about the ethics of publishing these kids names.

What do you think?

(Photo Credit: Beard Papa)

I don’t want to linger on the civil liberties questions raised by the Tampa International Airport’s purchase of four body imaging machines. It wouldn’t do much good anyway, TSA already purchased them.

But if you still believe TSA’s good intentions, let me point out three things that seemed to slip by St. Petersburg Times reporters.

First, a quote by our local Transportation Security Administration spokesman John Van Dyke:

“Our goal is to be proficient with them before the Super Bowl,” in Tampa in February, he said.

Mr. Van Dyke seems to imply that these will help keep Tampa and her tourists safe during the Super Bowl. But those scanners would only scan travelers leaving Tampa, not those coming in for the event.

Second, another TSA spokesman, Christopher White, tells the Times that they will protect passenger’s privacy:

Images are deleted after viewing, and officers can’t “save, store, print or transmit” them, said TSA spokesman Christopher White.

Then tell me — how did the Times get a photo for the front of their Metro section? This is not even going into the fact that nearly everyone has cell phone cameras these days.

Third, White claims the images are detailed, but do not show nudity:

He describes the images as robotic, like someone in a tight-fitting leotard. “You can see detail, but it’s not a naked picture,” White said.

So, do you mind telling me what those nipple-like dots are on the breasts of the woman pictured on the Times website?

From the video, which CL’s PoHo posted here):

“I think it is wrong to allow adoptions of children by gay and lesbian couples. It sends a wrong message early to a child during formative years that’s hard to overcome just by sitting down and talking to them. …”

“I think lesbianism and homosexuality is morally wrong. The law is supposed to discriminate sometimes, in some respects, it is supposed to discriminate against social order and anarchy.”

In a response to the video, Rouson told the Times he’s “evolved” since that 2006 taping of Florida This Week.

In an interview with me last month, I asked Rouson if any of his values had changed since he changed from a Republican to Democrat to run for the Florida State House seat 55. Here’s an excert:

Did you switch parties for political expediency or a change in your values?

My values have remained constant and consistent for the last 20 years. The ones who are most harping about the political party change are those who feel the most threatened by it. And that is my opponent. No one in the Democratic Party is angry or criticizing the 50,000 change in registrations that’s been occurring over the last several years. In fact, the Democrats are celebrating that, for the first time in 50 years, because of the influx of new registrations of Democrats, we now lead in party affiliation in this county. So, to me it’s a little disingenuous to try and attack me only on that.

In contrast to Rouson’s past comments, his primary opponent, the Rev. Charles McKenzie, has long advocated for gay and lesbian rights. In my interview with him in May, McKenzie did mention his position on human rights. He’s a longtime fixture in progressive circles and also sits on the board has been involved with the Florida ACLU, which supports same-sex adoptions.

So back to the main question: Do you think Rouson’s newfound tolerance is heartfelt, or just a political ploy?

According to the Times article, Schramm’s bad day started with an enormous penis statue he had installed in front of his Grand Central District gallery. Responding to a complaint, police told Schramm to remove the penis. He refused, citing “art.”

Fast-forward a few hours: gallery patrons are drinking beer and viewing various erotic paintings and sculptures when police descend upon the storefront. Schramm tries to prevent an officer from entering and he’s slammed to the ground and arrested. The police walk inside, demand identification from patrons and then discover a nude model hanging from the ceiling in some sort of harness.

That’s a violation of a city (and county) ordinance that prohibits the display of genitals while alcohol is served.

This incident raises a number of questions. First off, if everything in the article is true, Schramm did violate the ordinance. Yes, it’s a stupid ordinance (and why strip clubs in Pinellas suck), but it is the law. But what about the earlier attempt by police to remove the giant penis statue? Who gave St. Petersburg police officers the authority to determine obscenity laws? And was Schramm’s refusal to remove it the precursor to police raiding the gallery?

Schramm just can’t catch a break. Last year, bigoted vandals targeted Erotic Lounge spraypainting “no fag porn” on the gallery’s windows. That was a few months after Schramm caught a lot of heat for his first erotic art show.

With incidents like these, it’s no wonder the ‘burg has a hard time keeping edgy, genre-bending artists in town. Perhaps someone should remind city leaders and the police department that there’s more to art than some melting clocks.

UPDATE: Looks like Schramm is closing his business and that huge penis is for sale on eBay. Check out the details here.

As the Confederate Flag Dude himself told me last month: “The flag is going to be flown. As long as I have breath in my body and am able to function and articulate. And even if I’m gone, it doesn’t make a difference, the flag is going up.”

So, I think those opposed to the flag need to think beyond trying to change the minds of those proclaiming “Southern Heritage.” They need to think of a suitable response.

Enter: the Alleycat Players.

The local arts group wants you to submit your own flags that define the South.

From their website:

We’re accepting artists’ submissions in both digital format and as physical fabric art creations. We’re going to create an art exhibit that combines displaying the fabric art flags with large-scale projections of the digital creations.

We will be accepting artwork and forming alliances with other artistic/cultural groups for this project through May of 2009, and will be arranging our exhibition for June-July 2009.

Create flags that are representative of our better selves and our varied traditions, and we’ll fly them all!

Something tells me the Confederate Flag Dude is not going to like this …

(h/t to Calebism)

You can stop holding your breath. It’s not closing. (h/t to Seminole Heights Blog.)

Whew.

(And here’s a few words from someone who really could care less.)

Last December, I profiled a group of mostly white, new residents who decided to form their own neighborhood association to focus on issues like crime, code enforcement and youth programs. They called themselves the Buena Vista Neighborhood Association and wished to represent a wide swath of Bartlett Park. As expected, the original association wasn’t too keen on the idea of splitting the neighborhood. Accusations were hurled; friendships were disrupted; all in all, a pretty fractious split. (To get an idea of the level of anger associated with the split, head on over to the LEOaffairs forum — a messageboard for cops that neighborhood people have largely hijacked. It’s been so heated that they’ve taken to slamming me on reporting on the split. It’s quite entertaining.)

Well, the new Buena Vista Neighborhood Association went to CONA last night looking for some official recognition. Unfortunately, I couldn’t be there (Tom Petty or a raucous CONA meeting… hmm… hard choice), but Times writer Andrew Dunn did make it.

From his report:

About 150 residents attended the meeting, which also included a crowd of politicians running for Pinellas County offices. A sizeable contingent wore “Don’t take the heart out of Bartlett Park” stickers and factions bickered in the hallways of the Sunshine Center. …

Julie Richey, 27, presented on behalf of Buena Vista. She said her group had been more effective since it split ideologically from Bartlett Park, starting neighborhood cleanups and youth activities.

She also said the Bartlett Park association had not shown enough initiative in combating crime. She listed drug dealing, frequent gunfire, prostitution, vacant homes and dog fighting as some of its problems. …

This statement angered many in Bartlett Park, who said they have been working for decades to address those issues, and that the neighborhood has come a long way in recent years. Many called the statement a slap in the face.

“When I moved here in 2006, it was a scarier place than it is today,” said Andrea Hildebran, who presented on behalf of Bartlett Park. “Kids would not have been biking by enjoying a Saturday two years ago….We need to give enormous respect and appreciation to the people who have lived in Bartlett Park when the bullets were flying.”

The rift between the two groups is rife with he said, she said allegations, with the truth hard to divine. Buena Vista, whose president Scott Swift ran an unsuccessful bid for Bartlett Park president, claims some of its members were prevented from voting and that Bartlett Park members refused to incorporate their ideas.

Bartlett Park supporters said Buena Vista members did not attend meetings and they insisted the elections were fair. …

CONA membership ended up overwhelmingly denying membership to the new Buena Vista association. And, even more newsworthy, CONA plans to write a section in their bylaws outlawing this type of neighborhood split.

My take? Oh, I’ll get some more LEOaffairs slams for this one, but I’ve waited to add my two cents for a while now.

The real issue here is politics, bickering and ego created this situation. And the rest of Bartlett Park suffered for it.

This is not a condemnation of all the people involved, or even the leaders necessarily, but an underlining point that neither of these groups saw fit to compromise enough to allow the other to do what they all were supposed to do: help the freakin’ neighborhood.

In the news accounts of this neighborhood, you always read the same voices. There’s a reason for this: the people I talk to — single mothers (and fathers), renters, a lot of the elderly — don’t want to talk on record. They don’t want to be a part of the politics. They think both organizations are self-serving. Both groups have a very small membership compared with the larger community. A community that is largely distrustful of attempts to “help” them.

This is the real roadblock in Bartlett Park, and though active residents have made some real progress in the community, it’s not complete without the rest of the community buying into it.

One of my favorite quotes from the Times blog is the last one, from Buena Vista president Scott Swift (who used to be my landlord in Bartlett Park): “Nobody lost tonight,” he said. “The whole neighborhood is benefiting.”

I’m not sure what he meant, but I’m hoping he meant that now that this issue is behind the residents of Bartlett Park, both sides can find some sort of compromise and work toward making life better for all the residents of Bartlett Park. I think this is why CONA made their decision.

Neighborhoods are all about different types of people getting along to make things better. Lord knows it ain’t easy, but, hey, it’s like when we were all kids in the sandbox — you got to learn to get along or nobody gets to play with the toy truck. And, frankly, while you’re arguing about the toy truck, some other kid from the next sandbox over will steal it.

Bartlett Park, please don’t let that other kid steal your toy truck.

The City Council has approved a proposal of Saint Pete Preservation Inc. to preserve some of the Crislip Arcade, one of three arcades left in the city.

From my earlier story on the nine most endangered buildings in St. Pete:

Over the decades, St. Pete has lost many of its early commercial arcades, or open-air shopping corridors. The Crislip Arcade — one of only three left in the city — may be next. The 82-year-old arcade was built during St. Pete’s ’20s boom, and like other arcades, is regarded as a precursor to pedestrian malls and modern shopping malls.

In 2006, 601 Central LLC bought the entire north side of the block and moved out several small retailers in order to build condos. Soon after, the housing market tanked and the block has sat empty since. But on May 1, the developer requested a demolition permit from the city, which is pending.

But due to the efforts of SPP, the developer now must follow some strict rules on how they go about demolishing the building, including:

• No demolition permit will be issued until the developer has financing and has submitted their full development plans.
• The final development will include a ground level arcade that replicates the original.
• Preservation groups must be noticed before demolition so they can grab any historic tiles, blocks, etc.
• A historical marker will be posted on the site.
• An American Historic Building Survey must be completed that documents the history of the building, archives blueprints and photos.
• The Crislip Arcade logo will be remain on the new building.

In an e-mail to supporters, SPP president Will Michaels points out that the application they filed helped halt the demolition process of the Crislip Arcade. He writes:

Saint Petersburg Preservation originally filed an application to landmark the Crislip.  We were advised by City staff that this was the only way to stop the imminent demolition of the building. Although demolition procedures had been initiated, the owners and buyers did not have the permitting or financing in place to actually begin
construction.  Too often in the past historic buildings have been demolished, only to leave a vacant lot in place for years to come.  While SPP has agreed to withdraw the landmark application, were it not for filing it the demolition would have proceeded and none of the ten points in the agreement would have happened.

And though SPP wishes the whole building could be saved, they’re happy that some concessions were made. Plus, since a new demolition permit could take years to procure, perhaps there is hope that another investor will come in, buy the building and find a profitable re-use for it.

This good news comes after the owners of the First Baptist Church announced they would retain that downtown historical building’s facade instead of demolishing the whole structure.

Maybe we’re finally getting somewhere with preservation after all …

Now that the Rays have abandoned plans for a waterfront stadium at the Al Lang Field site (for now), preservationists and community leaders are once again petitioning the city to preserve the site as a park.

At tomorrow’s 8:30 a.m. St. Petersburg City Council meeting, councilmember Jeff Danner plans to introduce a resolution to designate the Al Lang Field site as “Downtown Center Park.” The resolution is supported by the city’s Council Of Neighborhood Associations and St. Pete Preservation Inc.

Will Michaels, a CONA board member and president of St. Pete Preservation Inc. sent out an e-mail to members today:

Designation of Al Lang as part of the park zoning will prevent condos and other large buildings from being built on the Al Lang site. It would still allow a Ray’s major league regular season stadium to be built on the site, although that would require a referendum to be approved. The current small spring-training Al Lang stadium may remain on the site. This could be used for high school, college, or Little Leagure baseball, or for cultural activities (plays and concerts), or a new permanent location for the popular Saturday Morning Market, etc. The small Al Land Stadium fits the site and still provides green space and views of the bay for the public. One of our most precious assets is our Downtown Waterfront Park. Placing Al Lang under the downtown park zoning will further help to preserve the Waterfront Park for future generations.

Last year, I reported on residents’ push for this waterfront protection. But the day after I filed my story, the Rays came out with their own plan for the site, completely changing the narrative.

CONA president Barbara Heck already wrote the City Council supporting the resolution, but Michaels says all concerned residents need to contact the City Council to show their support.

(Photo courtesy of Tim Baker)

Now, CNN finally gets to the bottom of this viral marketing hoax, including an interview with the CEO behind it all. Their video is here.