It wasn’t too long ago that Floridians, including a large segment of the state’s Caribbean population, were hailing Governor Charlie Crist and the Florida Legislature for swiftly attempting to address high property taxes which affect almost the entire population.

However, since then, what has occurred is nothing short of frustration and confusion as state, county and city governments try to cope with implementation of the reduction in property taxes they passed.

Local municipalities were required by the Florida Legislature to cut their budgets, so that the reduction could be passed on to homeowners in lower taxes. But, city after city have experienced grief in attempting these cuts, as it has proven very difficult to satisfy any group, whether they be teachers, librarians, police officers, park attendants, city or county employees.

Then, the much anticipated referendum that was planned for January to decide on measures that would bring substantial decrease in the taxes paid by homeowners was railroaded by a Florida judge, and the required amendment was sent back to the Legislator to be rewritten, and now could be off the January 29 ballot. The Legislature has re-opened a massive controversy, as they have taken the opportunity to re-debate their recommendations for reducing property taxes, at a time when the Florida Senate is at great odds with the House of Representatives.

While the debate continues and different reports of new versions of recommendations emerge, they still have not arrived at workable solution. In the meantime, each month homeowners have to find money to pay the steep taxes, plus property insurance which has hardly been reduced.

Come to terms with disputes; even if you are right

Can we agree to disagree? This question has surfaced in many friendly discussions as opposing parties realize that they strongly hold different opinions on a topic being debated and none plans to change position. Despite the numerous points raised by each supporting their argument, they have come to the realization that the opposition is holding ground and so the best thing to do is agree that both parties disagree.

The discussion ends on this amicable note, a sort of truce, where both parties realize the futility of further debate and decide to move on. No one is disrespected, the relationship is preserved, and although the argument is not settled, harm is done to no one. This civil conclusion to disagreements is not always the case, as sometimes emotions, ego or other elements come into play and the argument gets out of hand.

Oftentimes a third, fourth or fifth party is brought in to support one’s argument and at times, despite glaring evidence that one is wrong, the person for whatever reason still holds on to their view. It is at this point that onlookers can find the situation very entertaining, especially in a roadside bar, where colorful adjectives and other creative descriptive terms come into play. It is usually the person with the weaker argument who resorts to these low-ball tactics in a desperate effort to bolster their argument.

This civil resolution works when not much is at stake, when the discussion is about sports, a movie, trivial topics that we argue about to past time. But there is the other end of the spectrum, when one feels wronged and emotions are high and the argument is about the betrayal of trust, honesty or some life-threatening situation. In cases like these one is accused of committing a terrible wrong and has to defend his stance not only with argument but at times physically.

Dear Editor:

It is very unfortunate that Caribbean National Weekly would use the power of its ink to air the laundry of a private matter between the paper and one of its freelance photographers. It is even more inappropriate and journalistically negligent for the paper to use my name to bring unwarranted attention to a civil lawsuit that will be judged on its own merit. For the record, I have the utmost respect, and for all intimate purposes, a positive relationship with the owners of the newspaper. Before making the rightful "cheap shot" on my name and our law firm, the paper should have paused to reflect on the options available to resolving the lawsuit before dragging me into the court of public flogging and opinion. The lawsuit and my name will stand their own merits.

Without disrespecting the intelligence of the CN Weekly reader, I will clarify some blatant inconsistencies and subjective journalistic representations in the published story. First, my law firm, delancyhill, P.A., does not represent [the plaintiff] and does not have any financial or substantive involvement in the case. [The plaintiff] is independently represented by [an of counsel attorney] at his own choice and volition. Though [his attorney] has an of counsel (affiliated) relationship with our law firm, she is free under her own law practice to pursue cases with clients of her own choice and that of the client, as long as the law firm does not have any ongoing lawsuits with CN Weekly. It is not our professional practice to bully or coerce any of our affiliated of counsel attorneys or persons as to their choice of counsel and representation. Any communication letterhead reflecting our law firm's name was an inadvertent error that does not establish the true nature of the attorney/client relationship. Second, as the co-MC of the recent Caribbean Bar Association Gala with Sharon Lawson of NBC6, it was not only appropriate to mention her TV station's partnership with CN Weekly, but also in keeping with educating the non-Caribbean attendees of the Gala abreast with a community partnership of important journalistic note.

With that in mind, it would be unwarranted to say the story was airing dirty laundry about any private matter, but instead, it was an attempt to enlighten our readers about the conduct of a public figure. Marlon Hill is the representative for the Jamaican Diaspora Southern United States, who like every other public figure must be held accountable for his actions by the constituents whom he serves. It is therefore imperative for us as a newspaper representing the very same constituents to inform them of his actions, both positive and negative.

People have a right to look at the integrity of their elected or selected officials and draw their own conclusions. Our brief mention of the current lawsuit was merely an illustration to bring clarity to the story and must not be seen as the basis of the article.