Florida is sinking and sea walls will not stop the inevitable erosion

With dismay, I read the perplexing editorial from the Tampa Bay Times’ Editorial Board about investing more in seawalls in the face of climate change.

In fact, I say perplexing because they are right — action is urgently needed to prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change — but an outsized focus on holding back a relentless sea with 20th century technology was naïve at best and negligent at worst.

There is much we must do to prepare — but an emphasis on this outdated technology is a dangerous distraction from the real work the Tampa Bay area and indeed Florida must undertake.

Sorry, but better sea walls are not the answer to rising seas in Florida.  In Maine Writer's opinion, Floridians are living on borrowed land. Their coast line is sinking fast!

This echo opinion was written by Julie Wraithmell and published in the Tampa Bay Times:

Julie Wraithmell has helped grow Audubon’s coastal conservation and policy programs in Florida for 14 years, and has been Executive Director since April 2018. In 2015, she was recognized with the Charles H. Callison Award, National Audubon Society’s highest staff honor, for her leadership of Audubon Florida’s Deepwater Horizon disaster response. Julie has a BS in Biology from Duke University and an MS from Florida State. Prior to Audubon, she worked as a biologist for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission where she created the Great Florida Birding Trail.

In the 1900s, Floridians employed seawalls because they didn’t know any better — only later did we learn that seawalls don’t dissipate wave energy and can, in fact, accelerate scouring and erosion on adjacent properties without seawalls, creating an “arms race” wherein everyone needs a wall to avoid erosion. The increased wave energy and elimination of shallow-water habitats negatively impacts everything from seagrass to fish nurseries, which has cascading effects on water quality, fisheries and the food web — not to mention our coastal economies.

Most importantly, seawalls have landed us in the very predicament we find ourselves in today: The illusion of safety they provided allowed irresponsible development in hazardous coastal locations. Defending these poor choices is the equivalent of throwing good money after bad — but the good money is that of taxpayers and our environment paying to defend ill-advised, private waterfront investments of the past.

True, where they exist now, seawalls need to be maintained in compliance with state permitting conditions — just as they always have. But assuming the answer to sea level rise is building higher, wider, longer is short-sighted and comes at the expense of Tampa Bay. We have 21st century solutions that work with nature to protect the built environment — green and gray infrastructure like wave attenuation reefs that create calm water shorelines to stop erosion, provide habitat for oysters and drive a vibrant food web.

Paired with mangroves, they can protect communities and environmental resources, rather than having to choose between them. Audubon has already used these solutions in our work to protect the Richard T. Paul Alafia Banks Sanctuary in Hillsborough Bay. These tools are not just the future, they are now.

Coastal engineering is not the only step we urgently need to take. Remember: Flooding from sea level rise doesn’t just happen at the waterfront. When storm sewers and drainage systems that ordinarily depend on gravity no longer have a gradient — because sea level is no longer lower than the area being drained — they stop working. Storm events with extreme rainfall cause community flooding with nowhere for water to go. And high tides can actually use these drainage routes to flood communities even on blue sky days.

To add insult to injury, the communities who often feel these impacts the most are historically excluded, low income and communities of color. Seawalls do nothing to solve this problem — they only protect coastal property owners. Coastal protections start with inland land conservation. Restoring and preserving green spaces and landscapes in inland communities slows down water rushing to the coasts after storm events. Historically, naturally occurring wetlands absorbed stormwater flooding on our landscape. Protecting our remaining wetlands and restoring those that are lost is not just an exercise in bunny hugging, it’s an investment in the resilience of our communities — all of them.

Finally, we have to take a hard look at our land use decisions. In the 1950s, we thought we could out-engineer the ocean, making risky locations safe for development. Today we recognize the arrogance of that strategy — as well as the very public cost to taxpayers and our environment for the benefit of waterfront property owners.

Florida’s environment is our economy — think only of the impacts to tourism and property values from 2010′s Deepwater Horizon disaster, or last summer’s Piney Point disaster and accompanying harmful algal blooms. Calling for such a heavy and continuing reliance on seawalls while we continue to allow building in vulnerable locations is truly sticking our heads in the sand, rather than the clear-eyed pragmatic leadership our coastal residents will need to survive and thrive in this changing Florida.

Julie Wraithmell is the executive director of Audubon Florida and the vice president of the National Audubon Society.

Support Representative Liz Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger and 0ppose The Big Lie

You can say, “The GOP base is calling the shots, and the elected are just following what the voters demand.” But, that’s nonsense! The GQP base doesn’t get ideas from nowhere. It gets them from Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the conservative media world. And it gets marching orders from elected officials. To paraphrase what Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn told the January  6th committee: "When elected officials give permission, there is no limit to the violence that may ensue".

Published in the Tampa Bay Times, an echo opinion written by Mona Charon:

The New York Times editorial, "Trump's Applause Lies," decry the shameful and stupid lies being peddled by the Nazi Republican Donald Trump.

On the January 6th, 2021, insurrection and more:

Representative Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) is one of two Republican Members of the House select committee investigating the deadly pro-Trump and anti democratic invasion of the U.S. Capitol.

The great tragedy of this moment is not that #FormerGuy Trump attempted what he did, to cause a violent coup!, but that so few Republicans tried to stop him when it would have made a difference.

Representative Cheney has conducted herself honorably for the past nine months. Her courage in telling the truth about the election and the insurrection of January 6th, 2021, has been punished by the Republican conference, which booted her from leadership and replaced her with the lying, scheming Trumpist, (i.e., IMO, Maine Writer- Lady Macbeth reenactor!) Representative Elise Stefanik. 

#FormerGuy Donald Trump is apparently working feverishly to unseat Cheney from Congress altogether, and his lickspittle lieutenant.

Representative Kevin McCarthy- OMG the dummy lives #CharlieMcCarthey

The invertebrate minority leader, #GQP Kevin McCarthy (OMG — the Dummy lives!) who, let’s recall, declared on Jan. 13 that “the president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters” — has long since scurried back under Trump’s skirts, from whence he issues barbs against the few remaining Republicans who still have some principles. McCarthy sniped that Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the other Republican appointed to the Jan. 6 committee over the objections of party leadership, are “Pelosi Republicans.”

The opening segments of the January 6th committee were another fine moment for Cheney. She began by thanking the police officers who testified about their experiences defending the Capitol that day:

“Thank you to each of the witnesses appearing before us today. ... You defended the Constitution and our Republic, and every American owes you our undying gratitude. Every American, I hope, will be able to hear your testimony today and will watch the videos. The videos show the unbelievable violence and the inexcusable and intolerable cruelty that you all faced, and people need to know the truth.”

She went on to outline the stakes:

“If those responsible are not held accountable, and if Congress does not act responsibly, this will remain a cancer on our Constitutional Republic, undermining the peaceful transfer of power at the heart of our democratic system.”

Those are good words, and as I said above, I respect Cheney’s willingness to pay a price. 

Moreover, Ms. Cheney understood that by taking on the “Big Lie” and the almost-as-consequential lie about what happened on Jan. 6th, she was risking her leadership position, her seat and possibly her own security. 

Every word of truth that she (and Kinzinger) utters are like balms of Gilead.

And yet, the voice in the back of my head keeps saying, “Is it too late?”

Both Cheney and Kinzinger, may they live to be 120, had many, many earlier opportunities to extinguish this forest fire before it became a raging inferno. 

Unfortunately, both supported Trump’s reelection in 2020. 

1. Kinzinger said he was “upset” by President Joe Biden’s victory.
2.  Cheney appeared on “Fox and Friends” in July 2020, and while she allowed that she disagreed with Trump on some issues, most notably withdrawal from Afghanistan, she emphasized how important it was that Trump be reelected: “Whether or not we have debates and discussions internally — as I’m sure we continue, we will continue to do — we are going to be absolutely united going forward on the big issues, and I’m not going any place.”
3. Both Rep. Cheney and Rep. Kinzinger voted against the first #FormerGuy Trump's impeachment. In fact, they even stuck with their support for his reelection, despite the first debate with Biden, despite the catastrophic handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite Trump’s green light to China’s Uyghur camps, despite QAnon, and despite the avalanche of lies and cruelty that corrupted America’s soul — and prepared the ground for the violent insurrection they are now investigating.

Is it welcome that they finally found a line they couldn’t cross? 

A thousand times, yes. But how might this story have unfolded differently if they, and thousands of other Republicans, had found their uncrossable lines sooner?

And where is here? We have seen the end of 160 years of the peaceful transfer of power. We’ve seen the majestic United States Capitol turned into a scene from a dystopian fantasy; an armed mob attempting to subvert an election. They smashed and tortured and caused deaths. They erected a gallows and hunted for the speaker of the House and for the vice president. And Republicans, almost to a man and woman, are excusing, downplaying or whitewashing what happened. An entire political party has abandoned commitment to the rule of law.

To speak up now, well, it’s better than nothing. But it’s a little like saying you’ll take away a drunk’s driver’s license after he crashed into and killed an 8-year-old. What about all of those times when you saw him get behind the wheel after five drinks and did nothing?

Trump attacked the basics of American democracy. The consequences were foreseeable. There were countless warnings. The great tragedy of this moment is not that Trump attempted what he did, but that so few Republicans tried to stop him when it would have made a difference.

Mona Charen is the policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the “Beg to Differ” podcast. 

Her most recent book is “Sex Matters: How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense.” To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Trump was the arsonist. Every time he dropped a match on the dry tinder of American polarization, Republican elected officials and others leaped to extinguish the small flames. Thank goodness!

More echo editorials support the justifiable impeachment of Donald Trump

Another case for impeachment | Editorial in Florida's Tampa Bay Times:  The House has enough reason to justify the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

With reluctance, we conclude the U.S. House of Representatives has enough reason to justify the impeachment of President Donald Trump. We harbor no illusions that the president’s impeachment by the House will lead to his removal from office by the Senate. 

Nevertheless, we hope the impeachment process and a trial in the Senate will give voters a more complete picture of Trump’s (bad) conduct, because they will deliver the ultimate judgment on his performance in November.

The House Judiciary Committee wisely limited the impeachment charges to abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They focus exclusively on Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine and his efforts to undermine the House’s impeachment inquiry. The fundamental facts presented by the House through witness testimony and documents are not in dispute by the president or his key supporters.

At Trump’s direction, this summer the administration bottled up $391 million that Congress had approved for military and security assistance to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Trump kept brushing aside efforts by the president of Ukraine to arrange a meeting at the White House. Ukraine, under the shadow and constant threat from Russia, was desperate for the financial assistance and the public display of support.

The rough transcript of the July 25, telephone call between Trump and Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky makes clear what Trump wanted as a “favor’’, (though!) He wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, a key Democratic opponent, and into work Biden’s son had performed for a Ukraine gas company. 

Moreover, Trump also continued to press for an investigation into the discredited claim that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 U.S. election, even though the nation’s intelligence community and Congress concluded Russia was behind the interference.

Trump contends the July telephone call was “perfect’’ and there was no quid pro quo. But documents and testimony by former and current Trump administration officials show a direct connection. The evidence is clear: The president withheld financial assistance and public support in an attempt to force Ukraine to announce investigations of a political rival and to advance a false narrative about interference in the 2016, election.

By itself, this attempt to extract personal political favors from a foreign country in return for American support merits impeachment. That effort undermined America’s national security, because it put Ukraine’s fragile democracy at greater risk. 

Trump put his own political interests ahead of America’s foreign policy.
Trump’s supporters essentially argue no harm, no foul. They point out that the financial assistance eventually was released to Ukraine and that the investigations Trump sought never were announced. But the financial aid was released in September only after the administration got wind of a whistleblower’s complaint and congressional committees had announced investigations. The persistent attacks on the anonymous whistleblower by the president and his supporters ring hollow. The House confirmed through documents and public testimony virtually all of the whistleblower’s initial concerns.

While the president insists he has done nothing wrong, he has obstructed the House’s efforts to get at the truth. The administration refuses to supply documents and instructed current and former officials not to testify before the House Intelligence Committee. Those who have testified drew criticism and were intimidated by the president and his supporters. This is a direct affront to the separation of powers and a co-equal branch of government established by the U.S. Constitution. Trump’s defiance left the House leadership with little choice but to pursue impeachment.

The timing and circumstances are not ideal. Less than a year from the election, one option would have been to leave Trump’s conduct to the judgment of the voters. Congress also could have waited for the courts to decide whether key witnesses, such as acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton, must comply with congressional subpoenas to testify -– or whether the White House can assert a broad claim of executive privilege. But those cases could take months or years to make it through the courts, and Congress has a constitutional obligation to hold a president’s corrupt actions in check.

It would be better if the impeachment had bipartisan support in Congress and among the voters. Unfortunately, the voters and Congress remain sharply divided along partisan lines. The House’s judgment also has been diminished by some Democrats who were eager to find any fault with Trump the moment he was elected. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi deserves credit for resisting earlier calls for impeachment and insisting on a narrow approach now.

Given the clear evidence about Trump’s actions and his obstruction of the House investigation, a reasonable case for impeachment has been made. A Senate trial conducted in a bipartisan fashion that includes cooperation from the president and key administration witnesses would provide further clarity. 

Ultimately, the voters will deliver the final verdict on this president in November, and they deserve the facts.

Editorials are the institutional voice of the Tampa Bay Times. The members of the Editorial Board are Times Chairman and CEO Paul Tash, Editor of Editorials Tim Nickens, and editorial writers Elizabeth Djinis, John Hill and Jim Verhulst. Follow @TBTimes_Opinion on Twitter for more opinion news

Echo opinion - Impeachment is a Donald Trump trial. Follow the evidence!

Editorial board opinion published in Tampa Bay Times, Florida.

Focus on the facts in impeachment hearings | Editorial
Donald Trump’s conduct is the issue as the Congressional House begins the public phase of the impeachment inquiry.

"The House must not allow these public hearings to become a political circus. The president’s apparent attempt to extort a foreign government for his own political gain is the issue, not who first brought it to public attention." 

Weeks of private testimony have unearthed credible evidence that Donald Trump withheld American military aid to pressure besieged Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden. 

As the Congressional House’s impeachment inquiry moves into a public phase with televised hearings beginning Wednesday, Democrats must focus on the central issue in any impeachment proceeding - the president’s conduct - and provide the clearest, most concise picture possible so Americans can reach their own conclusions about Trump’s conduct and whether he should be removed from office.

In fact, the House is leading off with three witnesses centrally involved in U.S. dealings with Ukraine who are expected to bolster the core complaint against the president - that he held back military aid Ukraine desperately needed to fight Russian-backed separatists in an attempt to pressure the country’s new president to publicly pledge to investigate the business dealings of Biden’s son in Ukraine and the discredited theory that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton.

A whistle-blower complaint about a July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine’s president resulted in House Democrats opening the impeachment inquiry and moving methodically to this point. According to a reconstructed transcript released by the White House, Trump asked Ukraine’s leader “to do us a favor” by opening the investigations. The president and congressional Republicans have tried to make the whistle-blower’s identity and motivations the issue. But Trump’s attempt to extort a foreign government speaks for itself. The whistle-blower’s initial complaint has been largely corroborated and expanded upon by multiple senior U.S. officials, including an Army colonel on the National Security Council who listened in on the call and reported his concerns to his superior.

The House Intelligence Committee will hear Wednesday from William Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, who in his private testimony described the leverage to be had from the grave consequences in holding up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine amid its proxy war with Russia. It will also hear Wednesday from George Kent, a senior State Department official who raised alarms over what he saw as a politically motivated prosecution and a hijacking of U.S.-Ukrainian policy by Trump’s personal attorney and fixer, Rudy Giuliani. On Friday, Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, is expected to discuss an Oval Office smear campaign that led her to being recalled earlier this year. These are credible witnesses whose integrity cannot be dismissed by Trump’s serial tweeting.

As the public impeachment hearings get under way, an even richer picture of this scandal may be forthcoming. A Giuliani associate indicted on campaign finance charges last month is preparing to meet with investigators to give his account of the Ukraine story. The president’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, who referred to Giuliani as a “hand grenade” and worked feverishly to cut him out of the loop, has hinted he has “relevant” conversations to share. And Gordon Sondland, a Trump campaign donor who became the White House’s key envoy to Ukraine, recently revised his earlier testimony to House investigators, acknowledging that he made clear to Ukrainian leaders “that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur” until that country committed publicly to investigating the Bidens. Facts are indeed stubborn things -- even in an era when the nation’s president has so little regard for them.

The House must not allow these public hearings to become a political circus. The president’s apparent attempt to extort a foreign government for his own political gain is the issue, not who first brought it to public attention. The House should follow the facts, present a coherent picture of what happened and establish a credible basis for Congress to decide whether to impeach.

Donald Trump broken campaign promise to Haitians

This opinion editorial was published in the Tampa Bay Times. It describes another example about how Donald Trump said and did anything to get elected in 2016, but now he is undermining the promise he made to Florida's Haitians.

"Flash-forward more than a year later: Trump ordered almost 60,000 Haitians — many of them from Florida — to leave the United States or adjust their immigration status by July 2019."

PolitiFact Florida: President Trump broke a promise to Florida’s Haitian population

(Donald Trump was anxious as election day 2016 approached - he made a promise to Florida's Haitian community to win their votes.)

With Election Day 2016 approaching, then-candidate Donald Trump traveled to Miami to earn the support of a group of Haitian-Americans.

"Whether you vote for me or you don’t vote for me, I really want to be your greatest champion, and I will be your champion," he said at the Little Haiti Cultural Center.

Flash-forward more than a year later: Trump ordered almost 60,000 Haitians — many of them from Florida — to leave the United States or adjust their immigration status by July 2019.

The Trump administration’s Nov. 20 decision came after a review of the Temporary Protected Status for Haitians who arrived after the 2010 earthquake. This announcement prompted outrage from Republicans and Democrats in Congress, including former U.S. Rep. Gwen Graham, a Democrat in Florida’s governor’s race.

"Donald Trump lied to Florida’s Haitian community on the campaign trail and stabbed them in the back," Graham said in a Nov. 29 news release.

We can’t say whether Trump "lied," as Graham asserted. But we wanted to take a closer look at what Trump said and let readers decide for themselves.

Trump never explicitly promised to extend the TPS designation for Haitians, but according to those in the community, Trump’s words that September day meant he would defend Haitians’ interests.

"He turned his back on the Haitian people," said Gepsie M. Metellus, the executive director at Sant La Haitian Neighborhood Center in Miami. "He made a promise, and a promise in Haitian culture is a debt, and he did not live up to his promise."

Trump’s meeting in Little Haiti lasted 26 minutes. In addition to telling the attendees that he wanted to be their "greatest champion," Trump criticized the Clintons’ past involvement in the country and noted that Haiti is still suffering "very badly."

"Clinton was responsible for doing things a lot of the Haitian people are not happy with," Trump said from prepared remarks. "Taxpayer dollars intended for Haiti and the earthquake victims went to a lot of the Clinton cronies."

The Clintons faced a lot of criticism for their involvement with recovery efforts in Haiti after the magnitude 7 earthquake in 2010. Former President Bill Clinton served as the United Nations special envoy and helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the country; Hillary Clinton traveled to the country multiple times as secretary of state; and the Clinton Foundation raised more than $30 million for recovery projects.

Trump reiterated his support for Haitians weeks later in Ocala.

"As Haiti’s death toll from Hurricane Matthew is on the rise, we should never forget how Bill and Hillary Clinton handled Haiti the last time," he said Oct. 12, 2016. "To all our friends in Little Haiti, they’re great people. .?.?. these are people that are incredible. They have the warmest feeling, the warmest heart. But to all of our friends in Little Haiti, your day of justice is coming, believe me. And it arrives on Nov. 8."

Advocates in Florida, which has the greatest concentration of Haitian immigrants in the United States, told us that many Haitians understood Trump’s assurances to mean they could stay in the United States.

Many had rebuilt their lives in the country since the earthquake.

"The idea was that Trump was supposed to help people find a path to stay here permanently, not force them out of the country," said Linda Tavernier-Almada, director of education for the Haitian Association Foundation of Tampa Bay. "They’ve been paying taxes. They’ve opened up mom-and-pop shops. They are our nurses, our interns. Many children have been born here."

Tavernier-Almada didn’t vote for Trump but said people in the Haitian community expected him to keep his word when he vowed to be their greatest champion.

The idea that Haitian-Americans want to return to the country, Metellus said, "defies all logic."

The Trump administration has defended its decision by pointing to the obvious feature of the status: it’s temporary.

The Department of Homeland Security can decide to award TPS to nationals from countries experiencing civil war, environmental disasters or epidemics — conditions that prevent their safe return. The department periodically reviews the designations and decides to extend or terminate it based on the country’s progress and conditions.

A bipartisan group of Florida lawmakers including both Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson had appealed to the Trump administration to extend TPS for Haiti months before this announcement, warning that Haiti wasn’t ready for an influx of residents. They said the nation hadn’t fully recovered from the 2010 earthquake and subsequent cholera outbreak, and had been further devastated by Hurricane Matthew in 2016.

South Florida representatives from both sides of the aisle have introduced legislation to help the populations affected by the administration’s recent actions.

The Extending Status Protection for Eligible Refugees Act, or ESPERER Act ("esperer" is French for "hope"), would grant permanent residence to TPS recipients from Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador or Honduras who haven’t been convicted of serious crimes.

The bill has a long way to go before it will be voted on, if at all. It was introduced in the House in late October and hasn’t been heard by any committees.

Read more at PolitiFact.com/florida.