Deering Park Dispute: Ethics Law, Hunt Clubs, and the Truth Behind Selective Reporting

The unfolding controversy surrounding Edgewater City Councilman Mike Thomas and the Deering Park development has become a lightning rod for accusations, speculation, and selective reporting. Yet when examined through the lens of Florida’s ethics statutes, Commission on Ethics precedents, and the actual timeline of events, the narrative that has been presented to the public begins to unravel. What emerges instead is a story not of impropriety, but of how incomplete reporting can distort the public’s understanding of law, duty, and transparency in government.

Deering Park itself is no ordinary project. It is a massive master-planned community, approved under the Farmton Local Plan in 2011, that will bring thousands of homes, millions of square feet of commercial space, and tens of thousands of acres of preserved land to Volusia and Brevard counties. Its scale ensures that every procedural vote, every council discussion, and every whisper of conflict draws scrutiny. For critics, the project represents unchecked growth and political entanglement. For supporters, it is a chance to balance development with conservation. But for Councilman Mike Thomas, it has become the stage for an ethics complaint that hinges less on law than on perception.

On November 3, 2025, Thomas joined the majority of Edgewater council members in approving two procedural agenda items related to Deering Park. Hours before the meeting, former resident Elizabeth Higbee, previously known as Libby Lavette, sent an email to Thomas and other city officials demanding that he recuse himself. Her argument was built on Thomas’s past operation of the Miami Tract Hunt Club, which leased land from the Miami Corporation, the same entity behind Deering Park. Higbee alleged that the hunt club generated more than $600,000 in a single year, funding Thomas’s personal assets and creating an appearance of impropriety. She further argued that Thomas’s past advocacy for Farmton demonstrated pre-judgment and eroded impartiality.

What Higbee’s complaint did not emphasize, and what some reporting failed to clarify, is the timeline and scale of Thomas’s involvement. Thomas ran the hunt club from 2001 to 2016, ending his lease with Miami Corporation nine years ago. His reported income from the club was approximately $6,000 per year, a far cry from the six-figure windfall alleged. Before voting, Thomas consulted with Edgewater City Attorney Aaron Wolfe, who advised him that he had no conflict of interest under Florida law. Thomas himself stated plainly: “I have nothing to gain or lose.” In legal terms, Wolfe’s advice aligns with the Florida Commission on Ethics, which has consistently ruled that terminated landlord-tenant relationships do not create present-day voting conflicts unless there is ongoing financial dependency.

Florida’s ethics framework is governed by Chapter 112, Part III of the Florida Statutes, known as the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Section 112.3143 requires abstention only when a vote would result in special private gain or loss for the officer, their relatives, or business associates. Section 112.313 prohibits officials from holding employment or contractual relationships that create a continuing or frequently recurring conflict with public duties. Case law and Commission opinions have reinforced that past relationships, once terminated, do not constitute conflicts unless they are ongoing. In Thomas’s case, the nine-year gap between his lease and the present vote places him firmly outside the statutory threshold for conflict.

This is not the first time Higbee has raised such a complaint. In 2021, she targeted former Volusia County Sheriff and Councilman Ben Johnson, who had operated the Farmton Hunt Club after retirement. Johnson initially recused himself from a vote in 2019 but was later cleared by County Attorney Michael Dyer, who cited Commission rulings that landlord-tenant relationships do not present voting conflicts. In January 2022, Johnson abstained from another vote and filed a disclosure acknowledging a potential conflict. Importantly, this abstention was a voluntary act of caution, not a legal requirement. Johnson had already been advised that he had no conflict, but chose transparency over optics. Selective reporting often omits this nuance, painting abstention as guilt rather than prudence.

The broader issue is how selective reporting distorts public perception. By emphasizing allegations while minimizing exonerating details, coverage risks misleading the public into believing impropriety where none exists under Florida law. The procedural nature of the votes, the modest scale of Thomas’s past income, the nine-year gap since his lease, and the legal opinions clearing both Thomas and Johnson are often buried beneath headlines that magnify suspicion. The result is a narrative that erodes trust in government not because of actual misconduct, but because of incomplete storytelling.

The legal bottom line is clear. Florida Statutes require abstention only when a vote would result in special private gain or loss. Thomas’s nine-year-old lease does not meet this threshold. The Florida Commission on Ethics has confirmed that terminated landlord-tenant relationships do not create conflicts. Johnson’s abstention in 2022 was a voluntary safeguard, not evidence of wrongdoing. Both cases demonstrate transparency and caution, not impropriety. The real scandal is not in the votes themselves, but in how selective reporting magnifies suspicion while minimizing the law.

As Deering Park moves forward, the stakes for Volusia County are immense. The project will reshape the region for decades, and public confidence in its governance is essential. But confidence must be built on facts, not distortions. Councilman Mike Thomas’s vote was legally sound. Former Councilman Ben Johnson’s abstention was a voluntary act of transparency. The Florida Commission on Ethics has been clear: past landlord-tenant relationships do not automatically disqualify elected officials from voting. The public deserves to know not just the accusations, but the law, the precedent, and the truth.