- October 5, 2026
Dear Editor:
As a long-term resident and property owner in Ormond-by-the-Sea, I have serious concerns about the ongoing S.R. A1A roadway project from north of S.R. 40 (Granada Boulevard) to north of Roberta Road.
Ormond-by-the-Sea has always had a unique, old-Florida character and charm. Unfortunately, I believe this project has fundamentally changed that character, while raising questions about whether the finished design will actually make A1A safer and more functional.
One incident particularly concerned me. A few weeks ago, I was traveling north on A1A near St. Brendan's Church when a sheriff's department SUV approached with its emergency lights and siren activated. Traffic could not move sufficiently to allow the vehicle to pass, and the sheriff's vehicle ultimately had to turn down a side street. The combination of center islands, narrower roadways, and raised sidewalks appeared to leave very little opportunity for traffic to safely move out of the way.
If emergency vehicles cannot easily navigate traffic on A1A, how has this design improved safety?
I am also concerned about the elimination or reduction of turn lanes, which can cause traffic to back up behind vehicles waiting to turn onto streets such as Palm Drive. Additional traffic on John Anderson Drive is another concern. At Granada Boulevard and A1A, the new configuration appears to funnel southbound traffic into a single lane alongside the right-turn lane, potentially creating additional backups.
The height of the curbs and the large size of certain sidewalks also raise questions about property access and whether the roadway space has been used effectively. Residents and businesses deserve to know what analysis was performed before these changes were approved.
Drainage is another issue. Some residents are reporting standing water and flooding following rainfall in areas where, to my knowledge, this was not previously a problem. Has FDOT evaluated these areas following significant rainfall?
I understand that roads must be improved and that safety and engineering standards evolve. However, these improvements should not come at the expense of community character or create new safety concerns.
I urge FDOT and our local officials to listen to residents, evaluate the completed project, and address legitimate concerns about safety, traffic flow, drainage, and property access.
Ormond-by-the-Sea deserves a roadway that is both safe and functional while respecting the unique community we call home.
Timothy Rock
Ormond-by-the-Sea
Dear Editor:
As voters prepare to head to the ballot box, it is crucial that we look past the appealing headline of Florida Amendment 3 and understand its true, long-term costs. While any measure framed as "property tax relief" sounds like an easy win for our wallets, this amendment is a short-sighted policy that will quietly degrade the foundational services that keep our communities safe, vibrant, and livable.
Amendment 3 proposes an additional homestead exemption for certain property owners. But money does not materialize out of thin air. Local governments rely heavily on property tax revenues to fund the essential public services that state funding doesn't cover. By permanently chipping away at that local tax base, Amendment 3 will force cities and counties into a corner: either raise tax rates on everyone else to make up the difference, or deeply cut local budgets.
If Amendment 3 passes, the consequences will be felt right in our neighborhoods. We will see reduced hours and fewer resources at our public libraries, which are vital community hubs for children, seniors, and remote workers. Maintenance on our public parks and playgrounds will be deferred, leading to neglected green spaces.
Perhaps most dangerously for Floridians, this revenue loss threatens our flood control and stormwater management infrastructure. As we face increasingly severe weather and rising sea levels, cutting funding for drainage systems, water treatment, and flood prevention is an extraordinary risk to public safety and property values.
We all want fair taxation, but defunding the very infrastructure that protects our homes and enriches our daily lives is a losing bargain. I urge my fellow residents to vote "No" on Amendment 3. Let's protect our libraries, our parks, and our safety. Sincerely,
Tom Ziegler
Ormond Beach
Dear Editor:
Democracy depends on the resilience of ordinary citizens — teachers, business owners, and retirees — who are willing to step into the arena of local government. Running for office requires a certain level of thick skin; candidates expect to be questioned, criticized, and scrutinized. But there is a darker, quieter pressure emerging in our local elections, including here in Ormond Beach, that goes far beyond political disagreement.
I know this pressure because I have experienced it myself.
I have faced the "gray zone" of indirect threats — those calculated communications that stop just short of a legal crime but leave the target with a reasonable fear for their safety. These threats rarely say, “I will hurt you.” Instead, they arrive as veiled warnings, coordinated rumors, or subtle signals that my family should "be careful." The ambiguity is the point. It allows the aggressor to deny any wrongdoing while ensuring the candidate feels the constant, humming anxiety of potential danger.
In a small community where public and private lives overlap, this tactic is devastatingly effective. When you shop at the same stores as your critics and send your children to nearby schools, a vague comment about your home or family feels immediate and visceral. Because these threats often avoid explicit language, they are difficult to prosecute, yet they achieve their goal: they pressure the candidate to self-censor, cancel public appearances, or withdraw entirely.
The damage, however, extends far beyond any one individual. When indirect threats become a campaign tool, they narrow the field of people willing to serve. We lose potential leaders before the ballots are even printed. The community is left with a distorted debate and a leadership pool curated by intimidation rather than merit.
We must stop treating this "quiet pressure" as a normal part of the political process. There is a fundamental difference between a critic who challenges a candidate's record and a bully who targets a candidate's peace of mind. One is a service to the voter; the other is an attack on the democratic process.
I am speaking out now because local democracy cannot function if the price of public service is personal fear. I urge my fellow citizens and community leaders to recognize these patterns and condemn them across party lines. Disagreement is the heartbeat of a healthy republic; intimidation is a poison. It is time we ensure that in Ormond Beach, the only thing at stake in an election is the vote.
Jennifer Bright
Ormond Beach
Editor's note: Jennifer Bright is a candidate for Ormond Beach City Commission Zone 2.
