Lynn Haven Municipal Candidates forum
BAY COUNTY, Fla. (WMBB) – Topics like the city's current budget warranted some passionate responses from candidates at Monday's forum.
A hearty discussion between the candidates for city commission seat three kicked off the forum with the city's debt being frequently referenced by both Johnnie Beshearse and Jamie Warrick.
When asked about funding mismanagement after Hurricane Michael both candidates got a chance to explain how they would improve financial transparency. Warrick says the process could be improved by implementing more budgetary workshops and adding a new position.
'I want to change that process. As far as transparency I actually brought this up to the commission. I was voted down for it. I want to add a city clerk, right now our city clerk is the city manager, and it's important to have that balanced triangle like they do in the federal government. There's an executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch. The executive is like the city manager. The legislator is like the commission we set the policy. But we're missing a third piece over here,' Warrick said.
Both candidates agreed the budget could be more transparent, but Beshearse added that he felt Warrick's city clerk plan was disingenuous.
FWC denied entry to conduct dolphin wellness check at Gulf World Marine Park
'He called back saying that he wanted the city manager to do his bidding instead of what the city commission directed him to do. And then after that, he came back wanting a new city clerk position that would report to the commission instead of reporting to the city manager. So I think it may be a little disingenuous there, maybe not. But as far as transparency, I think you should as citizens, you should see everything we do,' Beshearse said.
With federal and state budget cuts weighing on local governments, priorities are forming.One of those priorities for Lynn Haven will be the wastewater treatment plant expansion.
Both candidates agreed the facility is in dire need of updates, regardless if it's state-mandated or not. Non-binding referendums regarding the rebuilding of the city library, a potential partnership with the Northwest Florida Regional Library System, and zoning maps also led back to the discussion of the availability of funds.
'When we first started the debt review committee when i first came in we were told it would project to be $5.2 million out of pocket. Now we're up to $18 million and I've asked the city manager time and time again. How do we go from 5.2 to 18 million? And I still don't have the answer to that,' Warrick said.
'Now I'm gonna go back to Commissioner Warricks thing about the debt difference, between the $5.2 million to the $18 million debt, you can believe if there was a $12 million difference in what I was being told one day to the next day. It wouldn't take me a year and a half to figure out what it was. I talked to the city manager about this and I can tell you where those funds were spent. It may be that the communication was poor or whatever but the information is there,' Beshearse said.
Candidates running for city commission seat four Judy Tinder, Jeff Snyder, and Jamie Marler were also asked questions about the city's budget in regard to upcoming funding reduction.
To watch their responses and the entire forum, click here. Mexico Beach's candidate forum for council member two will be next Monday at their public works building.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
Mishandling of the Pino deadly boat crash case is an insult to our family
Troubling revelations The Puig family is once again forced to confront the deeply troubling reality that continues to emerge from the handling of the George Pino deadly boat crash case — a reality marked by incompetence, negligence and/or what appears to be deliberate concealment of the truth by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and other officials involved. We are grateful to the Miami Herald for their unwavering commitment in continuing to bring the truth to light. From the very beginning, the investigation into this tragedy has defied logic, transparency and basic standards of professionalism. The disappearance or destruction of four FWC officers' body camera videos, contradictory statements from key personnel, the sudden surfacing of credible eyewitnesses who were never contacted and troubling communications between officials from the onset paint a disturbing picture. Add to that the recent revelation of a vehicle homicide detective's own observations at the scene, and it becomes painfully clear that something is deeply wrong. These are not mere oversights. At best, they reveal gross incompetence. At worst, they suggest an intentional effort to obstruct justice and shield individuals from accountability. The statement made just days after the crash — that no officer saw signs of alcohol use — continues to ring hollow in light of the officers' own depositions and evidence that was either ignored, lost or hidden. It is an insult to the memory of Lucy Fernandez, who died as a result of the crash, and a complete disregard for the injuries suffered by the victims on the vessel, especially Katy Puig. Katy's parents are still processing these painful recent revelations. While we are relieved and grateful that Pino was finally charged with vessel homicide, the path to that charge has been littered with incompetence, misconduct and missteps. We are grateful to Rep. Vicki Lopez for having the courage to call for an investigation. We call on our leaders in Tallahassee to fully investigate this disgraceful series of events and ensure that no family ever has to endure this kind of betrayal in the wake of such a devastating loss. Jose R. Puig Katy Puig's uncle Under scrutiny Re: the Miami Herald's June 11 editorial, 'After pardon, former Proud Boy tries to cash in.' Under no circumstances can the Trump administration defend any lawsuit by people who were arrested, charged, convicted or in anyway allegedly injured during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot, insurrection or attempted government takeover. There could never be a greater conflict of interest. Not only has President Trump described all those who were jailed as hostages and political prisoners, he incited their actions. In addition, unlike his unbelievably quick call to the National Guard and the U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, he did absolutely nothing, for hours, while the Jan. 6 D.C. rioters shoved, beat and squeezed Capitol police, screamed to hang then-Vice President Pence and smashed windows and doors of the Capitol Building. The actions taken by government personnel on Jan. 6, 2021 must be properly defended by — at a minimum — objective, unbiased defense attorneys, not beholden in any way to the man who caused this horrific attack on our democracy. American taxpayers deserve that much. No one in the Trump administration meets that criteria. No one in the administration can or will properly defend American taxpayers. There is an absolute conflict of interest. Leon Botkin, Miami Clear-cut answer Every complex problem has a simple answer and it is always wrong. Perhaps I am oversimplifying the immigration issue, but I separate my immediate world into two sets of people: those who are law abiding and those who are not. For the law abiding, who also are gainfully employed, contributing to our economy and are free of misdemeanors or felonies, but who entered the USA under a program enacted by a prior administration, there should be full and unequivocal amnesty and a path to citizenship for them However, those who entered the country illegally, did not bother to apply for proper visa status and who disregard our nation's laws, should not be here. Furthermore, those who are here illegally and were also convicted felons here or in their native country, should be swiftly deported. Willy A. Bermello, Coral Gables Pursue misconduct The recent Miami Herald report about the rejection of ethical complaints to the Florida Bar against U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi by 1,380 lawyers and professors, should not be a one-time-only story. Her poor record was well-documented by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, among others, even before she was confirmed. The American Bar Association has already complained about Bondi's warning that the U.S. Department of Justice will no longer heed the ABA's vetting of judicial nominees. A letter from a longtime Florida Bar counsel flunky asserts that the Bar cannot pursue ethical complaints against a federal employee, thereby protecting Bondi. The letter had no citations. I made a public records request to the Florida Bar seeking information about that letter. Complaining lawyers certainly should appeal the Bar's decision internally; that is the right of anyone who signed an ethics complaint against Bondi. Note that it took years to get Rudy Giuliani disbarred in New York and then in the District of Columbia. It may take as long or longer to bring Bondi to justice, but the necessary pursuit by ethical lawyers and the press must not stop. Gabe Kaimowitz, Gainesville Gutless GOP Elected Republicans representing Florida's extensive Latino population have quite a bit of power to help their constituents but, cowardly, opt not to. They can threaten control of the U.S. House simply by becoming Independents and caucusing with Democrats. Loss of the House would jeopardize all of President Trump's agenda. I expect no such courage from them at a time it is sorely needed. Charlie Franchino, Miami Beach Sham library As an educator, I have been proudly associated with local educational institutions for years. However, I was appalled when I read in the Herald recently that President Trump's representatives continue seeking a presidential library site among several south Florida colleges and universities. Why would Miami-Dade College, a champion for international students for decades, want to be associated with a man who attacks educational institutions, thinks immigrants are criminals and will drive off the best and brightest of our students and faculty? How can the Board of Trustees at our state universities ignore the objections of students, faculty and administrators of political 'selections' of college presidents with little or no relevant professional experience? These individuals are appointed because they support a president and a governor who ban books, disrespect science, abhor liberal education (if they even know what it is) and pretend diversity doesn't exist. Whose agenda will they set? A library reveres knowledge and multiple points of view. No authentic educational institution should want to celebrate Trump. Let him park his plane elsewhere. Susan Kah, Hollywood Dictatorial drama What U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said at her press conference in Los Angeles on June 12 should enrage every citizen as much as it did U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California. Noem's performance for President Trump — all appearances are performances, as they must include his name multiple times — stated that 'they' weren't going anywhere until 'they' liberated the city from the current mayor and governor. What! Trump will replace, by force, any duly elected officials if 'they' don't like the way they run their cities and states? The will of the people to freely elect their representatives must be stopped? Why isn't this called the dictatorship that it is? John Jarnagin, Key Largo
Forbes
3 days ago
- Forbes
Ukraine Wears Down Russian Artillery, But Drone Threat Is Growing
A destroyed Russian self-propelled gun Headlines early on in the invasion warned about the sheer power of Russian artillery, with advances following massive 'fire curtain' barrages. Russian artillery was estimated outgun Ukrainian by a factor of ten, and President Zelensky repeatedly appealed to allies for more shells. The situation has changed, but as 'Michael,' Commander of the Typhoon drone unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, told me, the artillery has not gone away -- and drones are a growing threat. Ukraine has been highly successful at countering Russian artillery. Any gun firing can be spotted by counter-artillery radar, like the U.S. -made AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder, which tracks shells in flight and calculates their source. New Ukrainian-made acoustic detectors which recently went into mass production are likely to figure increasingly. U.S. delivering two AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar units to Ukraine in 2015 'The radar is typically the first step. It can detect the approximate area of a firing position, but it's not precise,' says Michael. 'Depending on distance and terrain, it may narrow the location down to a 200-by-200-meter area, which is too broad for a direct strike.' Pinpointing the exact firing location is a job for the drones. 'Drones are essential for confirming the exact location of artillery,' says Michael. 'We use fixed-wing drones, some with real-time video, others capturing high-resolution photos, for wide-area reconnaissance. These platforms allow us to assess whether the artillery is still in position and provide up-to-date imagery.' Visual observation using the drone's powerful zoom cameras is usually the best way to find artillery. 'Artillery is easiest to spot when it's firing -- muzzle flashes, smoke, or movement of the crew make it visible,' says Michael. 'Also, we can identify the artillery by its silhouette, even if it's partially hidden somewhere in the trees or buildings. In covered areas, we look for signs like tracks, disturbed ground, or heat if thermal optics are available.' When a drone operator positively confirms the exact location of a Russian artillery piece, it needs to be struck rapidly before it can move. In the past this would have been a matter of counter battery fire, using artillery to destroy artillery. Now there are other options. Michael says that counter-battery fire is still used, with a drone operator giving the co-ordinates of the target to the gun crew and calling out adjustments needed to put shells on target. But much of the counter-battery work ss carried out by drones. 'FPV drones, both quadcopters and fixed-wing types, have become more effective than traditional artillery in terms of precision engagement,' says Michael. 'A high-quality FPV drone for now is the most effective way to destroy the artillery system.' Ukrainian volunteers with DARTS fixed-wing FPV Several different types are used depending on the range, with fixed-wing FPVs typically having longer reach. Surprisingly, drones are preferred because they are faster. It is highly counter-intuitive that 100 mph drone will reach a target quicker than a 700-mph artillery shell, but what counts is how long it takes to hit the target. 'With FPV drones, even though the flight time can be minutes depending on the distance, the first strike often hits,' Michael explains. 'With artillery it often takes several rounds to hit the target, especially in dynamic conditions.' Dynamic conditions may mean a situation where a self-propelled gun fires off a few rounds and speeds away down a track. An artillery shell arriving after thirty seconds will miss by hundreds of meters. A drone which arrives later can spot the vehicle, follow it, and carry out a precision strike. Towed guns are less likely to get away. But they are harder targets because they are not packed with fuel and ammunition like self-propelled guns. A follow-up FPV from Bords of Magyar inspects damage to a Russian howitzer, confirming the barrel ... More has been perforated making the weapon useless 'To effectively disable them, you have to hit specific parts—like the breech, recoil system, or the towing vehicle,' says Michael. The preferred technique has been previously seen in videos from the Birds of Magyar unit, with FPV drones hovering a few inches away from a gun barrel before detonating. Scoring a hit requires a high level of operator skill as well as a robust technical setup. 'Maintaining a reliable video signal is critical.' says Michael. 'Without a stable connection between the drone and ground operator, it's hard to carry out the kind of pinpoint strike needed for such a small target,' Fiber drones, which provide a high-resolution image and are not affected by interference or terrain, and which Ukraine is starting to deploy at scale, may help with this. Afterwards reconnaissance drones can confirm whether a kill has been scored or whether further action is required. But while Ukraine claims to have destroyed a large number of Russian artillery pieces, a claim supported by the rate at which the stockpiles in Russia are being depleted, the Russians are still able to maintain a significant artillery forced at the front. Some 2024 estimates suggested that Russia might start running low this year, it has not happened yet. Ukraine's Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi says Russia's long-range striking power has been halved, but on the front line there are still plenty of shells coming down. 'Their artillery remains a serious and ongoing threat,' says Michael. And while Ukrainian interceptors have brought down thousands of the Russian reconnaissance drones that find targets for their artillery, these are still also very much present. 'As for Russian recon drones, there's no sign of a shortage,' says Michael. 'Recon drones are constantly present in the air.' Meanwhile another sort of drone is giving more concern. The Russian group Sudoplatov produces large numbers of FPVs 'What has changed is the rise in the use of FPV drones,' says Michael. 'Currently, we're observing several hundred FPV strikes per day. These drones are increasingly taking over roles that would have traditionally involved artillery fire, especially for high-precision or time-sensitive targets.' [My emphasis] What is interesting here is that many commentators have argued that Ukraine only uses drones because it lacks artillery. Now it seems that Russia, which still seems to have abundant artillery, is also leaning increasingly into drones for long-range strikes. Like Ukraine, Russia has been ramping up FPV production at pace, and plans to build 2 million in 2025, compared to 3 million artillery shells. At this rate, both countries will soon be fielding more FPVs than artillery shells. Russia's artillery is rapidly being eroded as the thousands of guns in storage are put into service and destroyed. When it is gone, the days of massed firepower will have passed. But the era of massed precision drone strikes will just be beginning.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Israel's Bold, Risky Attack
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. At the end of the classic 1972 film The Godfather, the new don of the family, Michael Corleone, attends a baptism while his men wipe out the heads of the other New York mafia families—all of them Michael's enemies, and all intending one day to do him harm. Rather than wait for their eventual attacks, Michael dispatched them himself. 'Today, I settled all family business,' Michael says to his traitorous brother-in-law, before having him killed. Tonight, the Israelis launched a broad, sweeping attack on Iran that seems like an attempt to settle, so to speak, all family business. The Israeli government has characterized this offensive as a 'preemptive' strike on Iran: 'We are now in a strategic window of opportunity and close to a point of no return, and we had no choice but to take action,' an Israeli military official told reporters. Israeli spokespeople suggest that these attacks, named Operation Rising Lion, could go on for weeks. But calling this a 'preemptive' strike is questionable. The Israelis, from what we know so far, are engaged in a preventive war: They are removing the source of a threat by surprise, on their own timetable and on terms they find favorable. They may be justified in doing so, but such actions carry great moral and practical risks. Preemptive attacks, in both international law and the historical traditions of war, are spoiling attacks, meant to thwart an imminent attack. In both tradition and law, this form of self-defense is perfectly defensible, similar to the principle in domestic law that when a person cocks a fist or pulls a gun, the intended victim does not need to stand there and wait to get punched or shot. Preventive attacks, however, have long been viewed in the international community as both illegal and immoral. History is full of ill-advised preventive actions, including the Spartan invasion of Athens in the 5th century B.C., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the American war on Iraq in 2002. Sometimes, such wars are the product of hubris, miscalculation, or plain fear, but they all share the common trait that a choice was made to go to war based on a threat that was real, but not imminent. The Israelis, ironically, are in the case books as the clearest example of a legitimate preemptive attack. In 1967, Israel got the jump on an Arab coalition that had been so obvious in its march to war that it was literally broadcasting its intention to destroy Israel while its troops massed for an offensive. Indeed, international law experts have noted that the 1967 war is so clear that it is not much use as a precedent, because most enemies are not blockheaded enough to assemble an army and declare their intention to invade. (Of course, the Israelis could argue that they are already at war with Iran, a country that has launched many missiles at them and directed years of proxy attacks on their people and their military, which would be a far stronger case.) Most threats, instead, are a judgment call based on timing. What constitutes an imminent threat? The Israelis seem to have made the same judgment with respect to Iran that America made in Iraq: A regime that has expressed genocidal intent is trying to gain nuclear weapons; possession of nuclear weapons will mean, with absolute certainty, use of nuclear weapons; and therefore, waiting until the threat gels and becomes obvious is too dangerous. Such a calculation is not irrational, especially in the nuclear age, when armies no longer need to mobilize for nations to inflict ghastly damage on each other. To show infinite patience until a threat—especially a nuclear threat—becomes so obvious that the window for action shrinks to hours or minutes requires the coldest of cold blood. Few world leaders are willing to take such risks. 'We no longer live in a world,' President John F. Kennedy said presciently during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, 'where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril.' But if the Israelis are setting the terms of the debate by claiming that they are embarking on a preemptive war—and not a preventive one—then they will have to make the case to the international community that the threat from the Iranian nuclear program required action now, without any further delay. Jerusalem may well be able to make this argument; if the Iranians were, as the Israelis claim, just a few weeks from assembling a small nuclear arsenal, and the ability to strike that capacity was receding from Israeli reach, then the argument for preemption is strong—especially because Iranian leaders have so often expressed their wish to wipe Israel from the map. That rationale is complicated now by the sweep and breadth of the Israeli offensive. Several senior Iranian leaders, including from the Iranian General Staff, are reportedly dead, which suggests that Israel's goal might be decapitation of the Iranian regime, perhaps with the aim of regime change. If that is the case, then the Israelis should not box themselves in—as the Americans unwisely did in 2002—with shaky rationales about preemption. They should simply admit that they have reached a decision to end, once and for all, the existential threat to Israel from Iran. Iran's history and its unrelenting enmity to Israel could justify such a war. A decade ago, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that the 'barbaric, wolflike' and 'infanticidal' Israeli regime has 'no cure but to be annihilated.' The Iranians cannot now complain if the Israelis are taking them seriously; the United States has launched military actions over far weaker threats to American security. But such decisions are laden with immense danger, especially because—as the great student of armed conflict, Carl von Clausewitz, warned long ago—there is no such thing as utter finality in war. The Israeli campaign may be necessary, but so far, it seems less like a preemptive action and more like something that another philosopher of war, Michael Corleone, would easily have recognized. Article originally published at The Atlantic
