We Deserve Better Answers from Our City Commission Candidates

I’ve spent a lot of time looking at candidate responses in local elections, and one thing has become very clear: too many answers sound good but don’t actually tell us much.

In the age of AI, it’s easier than ever for candidates to produce polished, professional-sounding statements that avoid real
commitments. These responses often use broad language about
“transparency,” “residents first,” and “smart growth,” but they rarely get specific about what they would actually do when money is limited, when popular opinion conflicts with long-term needs, or when a decision touches their own interests or allies.

This matters in a small city like Fernandina Beach. We’re not just electing people to attend meetings. We’re electing people who will make real decisions about taxes, development, staffing,
infrastructure, and how public money gets spent. Vague answers make it nearly impossible for voters to know what they’re actually getting.

That’s why I’ve put together a set of direct questions that cut through the generalities. These aren’t designed to trick anyone. They’re designed to show how a candidate thinks and what they’re willing to stand behind when the choices get hard.

Here are some of the questions I believe voters should be asking every candidate for City Commission:

**On Paid Parking**
Would you have supported implementing paid parking without first putting it to a voter referendum? If voters approve removing the current program, would you respect and fully implement that decision, or would you work to continue or modify it anyway?

**On the Shrimp Festival and Major Events**
At what point does growth of a major event outgrow its location or original purpose? What specific metrics would lead you to support capping its size or restructuring it?
Do you believe the current scale and vendor changes still primarily benefit local residents and businesses, or has it shifted toward outside interests? How would you respond to residents who now leave the island during the event because it no longer feels like a local celebration?

**On Large Projects like RYAM**
If the litigation is resolved in a way that allows a modified version of the project to move forward, what three specific conditions would you require before offering any city support?

**On City Staffing**
Which specific positions or layers of management at the City appear unnecessary or top-heavy to you? What would you do about it?

**On City Hall**
Would you vote to build a new City Hall at significant taxpayer cost in a prime but difficult-to-use location, or would you oppose it in favor of leasing or renovating an existing building?

**On Conflicts of Interest**
How would you handle a situation where you or someone close to you stood to benefit financially from a decision before the commission? What steps would you take beyond the legal minimum to avoid even the appearance of self-dealing?

**On Restoring Trust**
What specific, measurable actions would you take in your first 100 days to restore public trust? I’m not looking for general statements about transparency. I want concrete steps.

These kinds of questions force candidates to move past talking points and show how they would actually govern. In a time when smooth, AI-assisted answers are easy to produce, specific answers have become more valuable than ever.

Voters deserve to know not just what candidates believe in principle, but what they’re willing to do when it counts.