I'll give the author this much — the article does touch on some legitimate questions about how local elections work. But the way it's written does a real disservice to the people it's talking about.
Let's start with the language. "Foreign takeover." "Shadow group." "Coup." These are people on boats and RVs who are legally registered to vote. Dressing that up in thriller-novel language doesn't make it sinister — it just makes for a sensational story at the expense of folks who haven't done anything wrong.
And here's the kicker: the article itself admits there's no fraud. The elections supervisor is quoted saying "not here, not now, not ever." So why spend the entire piece implying the system is being gamed? You can't raise the alarm and then quietly defuse it in the same breath and expect readers not to notice.
The current setup also didn't come out of nowhere. It was the result of a formal legal settlement between the elections office and St. Brendan's Isle. The elections supervisor himself called the local voting eligibility an "unintended consequence" — and noted these voters probably aren't even paying attention to city council races. The whole "coup" scenario is a hypothetical that the author built from scratch with no evidence that anyone is actually organizing around it.
What frustrates me most, though, is that the article never once asks: okay, so where should these people vote? They're eligible citizens. They have to vote somewhere. If the author has a problem with the current arrangement, the least they could do is suggest a better one. Without that, this reads less like civic journalism and more like an attempt to make a group of people feel unwelcome — and that's not something any community publication should be proud of.
First of all, where in the article does it say we shouldn't vote here? And did you not notice the use of the word "theoretical" once or twice describing the potential consequences of having thousands of non-residents as voters?
I don't know, the framing of the article with this statement, for example, certainly gives the impression that voting in Green Cove is an issue:
"So, now there are 2,842 people residing at 1063 Bulkhead Road, a roadway without a single home on it.
So, you may be starting to see how these folks—35 percent of the electorate—could organize and easily tilt elections. But it’s even worse (or better, depending on your viewpoint), as you will learn reading below."
I must have missed the part where you stood up for the transient folks who certainly have every right to vote.
Boy, you sure love your straw-man argument. Again nowhere does the article suggest anyone shouldn't have the right to vote. But It does say the part of the reason this story is interesting is because of an "accident of commerce." That is, St. Brendan's happened to be located in Green Cove Springs. Had the location have been, say, Jacksonville, those 2,800 votes would probably be inconsequential vis a vis local governance. In Jax, that block would have been just too small to deliver, as it might in Green Cove, "the keys to the castle."
Let me ask you something: Do you think a group of non-resident voters with no real skin in the game should have the power to make decisions about the future of a small town?
A straw man requires misrepresenting someone's argument — I simply pointed out what your article omitted. You spent considerable effort detailing how these voters could theoretically "take over" a small town using words like "coup," "shadow group," and "foreign takeover," yet never once acknowledged that these are legal voters exercising a constitutional right. That omission speaks for itself, regardless of what you claim your intent was.
As for your question — it's a loaded one, and I think you know that. These people aren't "non-residents" in the legal sense; they are registered voters whose eligibility was upheld through a formal legal process. "Skin in the game" is also a moving target. A seasonal snowbird, a college student, a traveling nurse — they all vote somewhere they don't permanently reside. Are you prepared to apply that same standard to all of them?
The more honest question your article should have asked is: given that this is legal, what's the fairest way to handle it? Instead, you handed your readers a bogeyman. That's not a straw man — that's just reading what you actually wrote.
I'll give the author this much — the article does touch on some legitimate questions about how local elections work. But the way it's written does a real disservice to the people it's talking about.
Let's start with the language. "Foreign takeover." "Shadow group." "Coup." These are people on boats and RVs who are legally registered to vote. Dressing that up in thriller-novel language doesn't make it sinister — it just makes for a sensational story at the expense of folks who haven't done anything wrong.
And here's the kicker: the article itself admits there's no fraud. The elections supervisor is quoted saying "not here, not now, not ever." So why spend the entire piece implying the system is being gamed? You can't raise the alarm and then quietly defuse it in the same breath and expect readers not to notice.
The current setup also didn't come out of nowhere. It was the result of a formal legal settlement between the elections office and St. Brendan's Isle. The elections supervisor himself called the local voting eligibility an "unintended consequence" — and noted these voters probably aren't even paying attention to city council races. The whole "coup" scenario is a hypothetical that the author built from scratch with no evidence that anyone is actually organizing around it.
What frustrates me most, though, is that the article never once asks: okay, so where should these people vote? They're eligible citizens. They have to vote somewhere. If the author has a problem with the current arrangement, the least they could do is suggest a better one. Without that, this reads less like civic journalism and more like an attempt to make a group of people feel unwelcome — and that's not something any community publication should be proud of.
So you would probably be surprised to learn that the author is a St. Brendan’s customer, lives on a boat and votes from 1063 Bulkhead Road.
Going back to the original question then, where is it that you, and the rest of the people, should vote?
First of all, where in the article does it say we shouldn't vote here? And did you not notice the use of the word "theoretical" once or twice describing the potential consequences of having thousands of non-residents as voters?
I don't know, the framing of the article with this statement, for example, certainly gives the impression that voting in Green Cove is an issue:
"So, now there are 2,842 people residing at 1063 Bulkhead Road, a roadway without a single home on it.
So, you may be starting to see how these folks—35 percent of the electorate—could organize and easily tilt elections. But it’s even worse (or better, depending on your viewpoint), as you will learn reading below."
I must have missed the part where you stood up for the transient folks who certainly have every right to vote.
Boy, you sure love your straw-man argument. Again nowhere does the article suggest anyone shouldn't have the right to vote. But It does say the part of the reason this story is interesting is because of an "accident of commerce." That is, St. Brendan's happened to be located in Green Cove Springs. Had the location have been, say, Jacksonville, those 2,800 votes would probably be inconsequential vis a vis local governance. In Jax, that block would have been just too small to deliver, as it might in Green Cove, "the keys to the castle."
Let me ask you something: Do you think a group of non-resident voters with no real skin in the game should have the power to make decisions about the future of a small town?
A straw man requires misrepresenting someone's argument — I simply pointed out what your article omitted. You spent considerable effort detailing how these voters could theoretically "take over" a small town using words like "coup," "shadow group," and "foreign takeover," yet never once acknowledged that these are legal voters exercising a constitutional right. That omission speaks for itself, regardless of what you claim your intent was.
As for your question — it's a loaded one, and I think you know that. These people aren't "non-residents" in the legal sense; they are registered voters whose eligibility was upheld through a formal legal process. "Skin in the game" is also a moving target. A seasonal snowbird, a college student, a traveling nurse — they all vote somewhere they don't permanently reside. Are you prepared to apply that same standard to all of them?
The more honest question your article should have asked is: given that this is legal, what's the fairest way to handle it? Instead, you handed your readers a bogeyman. That's not a straw man — that's just reading what you actually wrote.