My nickname is Greg "Tex" Bukowski which is how I'll appear on the ballot.
I grew up in California, got my MBA and went into business, lived in Texas for a bit (hence my nickname) and moved to Sarasota about 8 years ago. I absolutely love living here and think we need to protect this special place.
My qualifications for Charter Review Board include being involved in so many important aspects of our community. I'm raising a young family, I'm helping my aging parents, I'm running multiple small businesses, I'm out enjoying nature and the outdoors, I'm involved with my church and I'm involved with my local Republican clubs. All of these activities provide highly relevant experience to make wise decisions on the Charter Review Board.
My top priorities on the Charter Review Board will be:
1) Protecting/conserving our county from out-of-control development
2) Protecting/conserving our Charter from big changes
3) Protecting/conserving our Charter from the radical left
I'm a conservative and I like to conserve things -- especially good things. I think Sarasota County is a wonderful place and we need to keep it that way. My father used to have some sayings of wisdom that he passed on to me, and one of them was "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That's the approach I will take on the Charter Review Board. I think we need to be very, very careful with making changes. All decisions need to be gamed out 4 and 5 moves ahead. We're playing chess, not checkers.
I'm open to all good ideas. But we have to be very careful, look deeper into issues, and not just "read the headlines."
"More restrictive" sounds bad at first glance. Who wants "more restrictive?" Well, I remind you that I grew up in California and we didn't have many restrictions on citizen-initiated amendments and we got some real stinkers. So that's a good argument for "more restrictive."
I think it's OK to be open to all sources of good ideas, no matter where they come from - the Board, the voters, other counties - whatever. But the key is separating the good ideas from the bad. Sarasota County must be protected. The people are not going to get snookered with Tex on the Charter Review Board. You can take that to the bank.
Well, I don't love it because I think the smaller and more local the government, the better. But the reality is that Florida state law supersedes local county and city law in many cases, just like Federal law supersedes Florida state law in many cases. And there are some valid reasons that local laws should be superseded. But, in general, I'm in favor of smaller and more local government so that the people have a louder voice.
I’m a retired biology & environmental science teacher & lifelong community advocate. I’ve spoken at the Sarasota County Commission, School Board, & Sarasota Memorial Hospital. I’ve analyzed legislation & drafted resolutions on issues in the public interest. I’ve run meetings, put agendas together, served on boards, and am President of the Democratic Public Education Caucus of Manasota. I was on the NJPTA’s Legislative Committee. I helped spearhead an effort in NJ that stopped the construction of a Big Box store in an environmentally sensitive area. Sarasota’s water resources face challenges from overdevelopment, phosphate mining, Big Sugar & climate change. I stand for home rule and greater community input to protect our Suncoast.
Repeal Amendment 7.1A which makes any new Charter change virtually impossible & has difficult signature requirements.
Repeal Amendment 2.2A(1) which allows the County Commission to undermine the Comprehensive Plan by increasing “allowable land use or intensity” if 4 county commissioners approve it. Only changes that provide greater land use protections or a reduction in population density especially in environmentally sensitive areas should be permissible. 2.2A (1) permitted the recent Neal megadevelopment travesty.
The County needs to abide by 3.10 Preserve County-Owned Parks, Preserves, Beach and Water Access and Waterfront Vistas and not sell off parts of its parkland to finance improvements on the remaining part.
Making ballot initiatives and questions more attainable and comprehensible by:
Reducing the percentage of registered voters needed for placing an amendment on the ballot to no more than 5% countywide and increasing the time to collect signatures.
Requiring an outside well-respected objective entity to write any proposed changes that would appear on the ballot and requiring a plain English interpretative statement to appear alongside any proposed legal changes to the charter. If a financial impact statement is needed that too should be researched and written by a respected objective institution without a political agenda.
I am opposed to any preemption laws by Tallahassee that weaken local protections for residents. In the US a state can provide more protection than the federal government, not less. The point of home rule is to provide more protection than the state, not less. Recent state preemption laws took away child labor protections, minimum wage protections, prevented any rent stabilization, hurt the homeless, dismantled local civilian police review boards, hurt green energy initiatives and even prevented requiring water breaks for workers in extreme heat. Not requiring water breaks in extreme heat is dangerous and cruel.
