The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 136
Commission approves hunting camps; hunting practices discussed but not within its scope
The11-17-09 Commission meeting was a reprise of the 11-03-09 meeting at which the Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance changing zoning rules concerning hunting camps in A2 agricultural land. Some public speakers condemned the hunting practices at the J&R Outfitters hunting preserve on Fox Brown Road as cruel and “canned,” while others said it was high class and “fair chase.” Dueling comments reflected a clash of lifestyle philosophies. In the end, the often emotional comments about hunting practices were irrelevant because the Commission has no authority over hunting.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission licenses hunting preserves. Six such preserves are licensed in Martin County , one reportedly inactive, all in A2 zones. The issue before the Commission was whether to allow hunting camps that provide lodging in connection with the preserves.
By a vote of 4-to-1, Commissioner Heard dissenting, the Commission approved hunting camps with the following provisions:
1 – Only existing licensed preserves are allowed (grandfathered) to have camps in A2 zones. Camps are not allowed in the roughly 190,000 A2 acreage not currently licensed.
2 – Only one camp per preserve, at least 20 acres per camp.
3 – No shooting ranges in the camp.
4 – A lodge may have up to six guest rooms, as with a Bed & Breakfast Inn.
5 – Guests can not take up permanent residence.
6 – Meals may be served only to guests; no public restaurant allowed.
7 – Temporary tent camping allowed, but no permanent structures.
8 – Ancillary product sales not open to the public.
9 – Dog kennel distance from property line increased to 200 ft.
There is an odd zoning twist to this story. Since the ag zoning rules were put in place in 1967 with A2 zones, the AG-20 ag zone was introduced. However, the county has made no effort over the years to make it all consistent by converting A2 to AG-20. So when a landowner voluntarily asked to change from A2 to AG-20, the request would be approved. This would probably have applied to J&R. The stunner is that AG-20 allows the now prohibited hunting camps and shooting ranges!
Resident suggestions for FY2011 budget
In DEFENDER No. 133, we invited readers to submit “specific ideas on how the county can save money or increase revenue” to solve the anticipated budget shortfall for FY2011. To develop a concise list of proposals for the Commission and staff from the many suggestions received, we have edited and combined them.
- Parking fees at parks, beaches and docks. Get permit when paying taxes. Renters can show utility bill. Enforcement by assigned volunteers who ticket those without permits.
- Eliminate all paid time off. Eliminate all overtime.
- Reduce law enforcement and emergency services using attrition and layoffs.
- Use professional labor negotiators for union contract negotiations.
- Eliminate or merge county departments that are not vital.
- Enforce paper recycling in business offices.
- Close some or all four garages. Outsource garage work.
- Except for sworn officers, use a car pool instead of individual car assignments.
- Institute intense study of how other counties and private companies are reducing operating costs. Implement those best practices here.
- Do not hire outside consultants.
- Utilize the Martin County Extension Office and local garden clubs to plan and care for plantings in public areas. Use drip irrigation instead of sprinklers to save water.
- Cut back and publicize the cost of county employee benefits and pension entitlements, especially unfunded obligations.
- Reduce staff and commissioner travel.
- Increase rent on government owned property to full market value. Don’t provide free rent.
- Increase the taxes on jet aircraft operations at Witham Field.
- Do a forensic accounting going back five years to see where and how the costly fat got added. Cut that fat.
Some commissioners let the sunshine in
If someone sends an email to a commissioner, state statute decrees that email becomes a public record. As such, every citizen has a right to examine it. Rather than have many people asking commissioners for certain emails, the county provides each commissioner with the means to post the emails received on the internet. This is efficient for the county and a desirable service for constituents who wish to stay informed.
It’s important that those emails be posted in a timely way because the importance of the information contained is often time dependent. Some commissioners recognize that prompt posting matters in keeping residents informed. Some commissioners have a lackadaisical attitude toward posting, which we hope does not reflect a disdainful attitude toward residents.
So we kept a count of how many days late each commissioner was in posting emails. We chose four random weekdays (Nov. 2, 6, 10, 12), and averaged the days late. Then we assigned a Sunshine Rating to each. The results:
Sarah Heard – PERFECT (Average 0 days late)
Patrick Hayes – PERFECT (Average 0 days late)
Ed Ciampi – GOOD (Average 1.75 days late; maximum 3 days late)
Susan Valiere – POOR (Average 8.75 days late; maximum 12 days late)
Doug Smith – VERY POOR (Average 10.5 days late; maximum 17 days late)
The economic development game - straight from the (business) horse’s mouth
“Economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth.” - Wall Street Journal editorial, 11-11-09
Government Giveaway Agency, Treasure Coast/Palm Beach Division:
Some legislators are demanding an investigation and stoppage of the $20 million state payment (plus $10 million and 15 acres from Port St. Lucie) for Wyndcrest Digital to set up an animation company. In Indian River County , there’s the Piper Aircraft fiasco of paying tax dollars for adding jobs – when they’re laying off people. We wonder what the cost per actual local hire is at Torrey Pines; never mind fanciful projections.
The annual debt service cost for financing Scripps Research Institute in Palm Beach County is $25 million. No wonder they will raise property taxes about 15% and slash many JOBS – the very object of the costly legal bribe to lure Scripps here.
All that gullible politicians and bureaucrats need to hear is the uncertain promise of adding jobs, and they’re ready to give away the keys to the taxpayer vault. Since 1995, the state has shelled out almost $100 million for corporate incentives, plus about $25 million from counties and cities now struggling to maintain services. We still have a million unemployed.
That has not dampened the pour-more-into-the-sinkhole enthusiasm of corporate welfare advocates. It’s a good thing to make it easier for companies to expand or move to Martin County , but we should never be suckered into the government giveaway or change-the-rules game that is strangling other counties. As Wall Street Journal says – it’s not sustainable.
Senior healthcare at risk
“A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.
“The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.” – Washington Post, 11-15-09
FOR AN ARTICLE ON MEDICAL CARE RATIONING, GO TO:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.html
Quotable quote
“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” – Supreme Court Justice John Marshall
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 11/19/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 137
Commission expands censorship of what public speakers can display
INSTEAD OF A SIMPLE SOLUTION TO AVOID RARE OFFENSIVE MATERIAL, IT PLACES PRIOR RESTRAINT ON ALL FREE SPEECH
The Martin County Commission has a 24-page document called Rules of Procedure. It includes detailed instructions on such matters as how the commissioners conduct their deliberations and votes, how the agenda is prepared and modified, and the rules governing public comment. The Rules are generally reasonable and conducive to the orderly and civil conduct of meetings.
Those Rules for public speakers include a three minute speech limit; speaking at different times on either agenda or non-agenda items, but only once on a subject; completing a Request to Speak form; no partisan politicking; no interrogation of others; no offensive material. This is just the barest summary of two pages of public comment rules. Almost everyone understands and obeys these rules.
Very often, a public speaker wishing to show the basis for a point he or she is making will bring photos, maps or documents, which are placed on a table next to the lectern. An overhead document camera displays that picture on monitor screens that can be seen by commissioners, the public in attendance, and by viewers of MCTV.
Commission meetings are usually held on Tuesdays. It is not unusual for a resident who wants to provide public input not to learn about a particular agenda item until the day before, even though it was published earlier. Or he may not discover an important document until the last minute. Until 11-17-09, such conditions did not affect the presentation of material under the camera. However, on that date, the Commission imposed the following prior censorship rule by Consent Agenda vote (no public discussion):
Any visual material including but not limited to photographs, diagrams, DVD, CD, or other media to be shown to the general public must be submitted for review by the County Administrator or a designee no later than the Friday prior to the meeting at which the material is requested to be shown.
This is an outrageous imposition on the right to public comment!
It bars citizens from conveying visual information that they may not have had available at least four days prior. What brought this on? Well, at the 11-3-09 Commission meeting, some ninny displayed what was considered offensive photographs. Instead of exploring sensible ways to control such rare occurrences, the first thing that pops into the unimaginative minds of officials and staff is prior restraint – on everyone. Pique apparently trumped thoughtful governance. Maybe some commissioners would also like to expand their censorship by requiring an advance written manuscript of what a citizen is going to say.
The issue is less about restrictions on DVD/CDs that few citizens bring to the lectern, restrictions that were already in place, than use of more easily acquired documents, maps and photos displayed by many public speakers.
THERE IS A RELATIVELY EASY NON-CENSORSHIP SOLUTION
All that needs to be done is to install a switch at the Chairman’s or Administrator’s dais position that shuts off the overhead camera if offensive material is displayed. Beyond that cutoff action, anyone attempting to display offensive material can be sanctioned by having to get advance clearance for future displays. That’s reasonable. Applying the Draconian prior censorship filter to everyone is not.
We hope the Commission will have the good sense to modify its suppressive rule accordingly.
For a copy of the entire Rules of Procedure go to:
http://ap3server.martin.fl.us:7778/documents2010/county_policy/POL72.pdf
Commission previously socked it to Intervenors
In addition to public speakers, applicants involved in such quasi-judicial matters as zoning and Comp Plan changes are given both more time and freedom to present their case. Typically, developers and their lawyers have lots of discussion back and forth with commissioners. They can also question staff members.
There is a class of speaker, the Intervenor, who has a direct stake in the matter under consideration. Until last year, a citizen who believed that he would be directly affected by a Commission decision could be sworn in as an Intervenor. Then he would have the same speech and interrogation rights as the developer, and can question the developer applicant. This bothered some of the more pro-developer commissioners. So they changed the rules in 2008 to the following:
In order to be an Intervenor, a person must qualify to receive mailed notice of the subject application in accordance with Section 10.6.E, Land Development Regulations, Martin County Code (property owners within 300 feet of the project if it is inside the urban service boundary, and within 600 feet of the project if it is outside the urban service boundary.
So if you are a homeowner living 301 ft. from a proposed commercial development project looming over your house and blocking your view (for example, a giant boat warehouse next to Rocky Point residences), the Commission does not believe that you are an affected party who should have Intervenor speech rights.
From first hand experience, we can tell you that being an Intervenor is empowering – and that’s why pro-developer commissioners want the fewest ordinary citizens to qualify.
Combining this Intervenor restriction on quasi-judicial hearings with the new display material restriction on public comment reflects a growing repressive attitude on the Commission’s part.
Clunkers on the Treasure Coast (and in D.C.)
The Federal Cash for Clunkers program had two objectives: To save energy by replacing cars with low gas mileage with cars having higher mileage; and to boost car sales, especially the U.S, manufacturers which had sucked up billions of taxpayer bailout dollars.
ENERGY SAVING: The program actually required more energy than what was saved with higher mpg vehicles. It takes more energy to recycle a junker and to build a new car.
BOOST U.S. CAR SALES: Most of the extra car sales based on the incentive payments were actually “borrowed” from what would have been sales in later months. To the extent that the Treasure Coast may be a microcosm of the U.S. , it did not turn out well for domestic manufacturers. According to an informative article by Stuart News reporter Jim Turner, Cash for Clunkers primarily helped foreign car makers on the Treasure Coast .
Domestic Vehicles Destroyed (and purchased)
FORD: 260 (93)
CHEVROLET: 103 (100)
DODGE: 92 (1)
JEEP: 77 (34)
GMC: 65 (4)
MERCURY: 57 (5)
LINCOLN 46 (2)
CHRYSLER 15 (1)
Foreign Vehicles Destroyed (and purchased)
NISSAN 26 (92)
MAZDA 18 (35)
TOYOTA 14 (167)
KIA 12 (117)
HONDA 6 (62)
HYUNDAI 1 (79)
Amendment petition for fair voting districts
Back in DEFENDER No. 62, before the state rep vote for District 81, we described the geographic border as follows:
“State Representative District 81 is shaped like a Gerrymandersaurus. The neck starts in Indiantown, the head is in Port St. Lucie, the nose is at Jensen Beach and Sewall’s Point, and the open jaw is at I-95 west of Palm City .”
Such odd shapes result from two factors. After every ten-year census, both Congressional and state voting districts must be redrawn so roughly equal populations result in each. The party in power does the redistricting in a way that benefits its own candidates. A fairer way is to require that districts be compact and make use of existing city, county and geographic boundaries.
Since such fair district borders are not the standard in Florida , two Constitutional Amendment petitions are being circulated with the expectation of appearing on the 2010 ballot. One is for Congressional districts, the other for state legislature.
PETITION 1: Standards for drawing congressional district boundaries.
What will appear on the ballot:
Congressional districts may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
PETITION 2: Standards for drawing legislative district boundaries.
What will appear on the ballot:
Legislative districts may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
The petition campaign is run by FairDistrictsFlorida (www.FairDistrictsFlorida.org), which claims it has enough signatures to meet the 676,811 total needed. About two-thirds have been certified. All must be certified by 2-1-10 to appear on the ballot. NOTE: Some incumbents, who are rarely defeated, are not happy with the prospect of rational districts.
A thanksgiving
This holiday season prompts us to express how thankful we are that our community is facing hard times with grace and hope; thankful that our differences of opinion are a reflection of our freedom and vitality; thankful that we are spared the horrors visited on so much of humanity; and thankful that our unquenchable spirit and determination will see us through to better years ahead.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 11/24/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 138
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 139
Commission jams through Comp Plan amendments – no surprise there
On 12-8-10, the County Commission approved a raft of Comp Plan Amendments, including revisions to comply with many of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) 48 objections. The balance will be voted at the 12-15-10 meeting.
Though some items were benign Comp Plan housekeeping, many will have the effect of facilitating westward development. Most of the pro-developer votes were 4-to-1, with Commissioner Heard dissenting. Other votes were unanimous.
A bit of unsolicited advice: Commissioner Hayes – knock off the personal crotchety digs against Heard (“inappropriate … where she’s coming from”, etc.). They reflect badly on you and the entire Commission. Commissioner Ciampi – If you’re going to lecture opponents about political gamesmanship and misleading “hyperbole” (exaggeration as a figure of speech), learn to say the word correctly. It’s pronounced hypur’balee, not hy’perbowl.
There was poor public turnout, with only two speakers on many addressed items. This reflects a kind of citizen surrender of hope that the Commission would respond favorably to the public’s view.
Many special assessments to be levied
On 12-15-09, the Commission intends to authorize the collection of uniform (non-ad valorem) special assessments. Those property charges apply throughout unincorporated Martin County to cover Fire Rescue and Stormwater. Such taxes, called assessment fees, were shelved a few months ago after grassroots protests. The fees do correlate service costs with property use. However, these rejuvenated fees are set apart from ad valorem millage rates that are impacted by lower property values. Thus they can constitute a tax increase – but without the onerous tax label.
Many individual localities will be also be assessed for such services as Water, Wastewater, Sewer, Drainage and Navigational Dredging.
Those communities, neighborhoods and streets include:
Beau Rivage East, Clementsville, Cocoanut Park, Cove Point, Danforth Creek, Edwards Avenue SW, Gaines Avenue, Golden Gate, Hidden River, Hideaway Isles, Holiday CC, Indian River Plantation, James Villa, Jensen Beach CRA, Jensen Beach North, Locks Point, MacArthur Blvd, Manatee Pocket, Miles Grant, North River Forest, North River Shores, Oak Hammocks, Parris, Pine Grove, Pine Grove Street SE, Port Salerno CRA, Queens Park, Rio CRA, Rocky Point, Roebuck, Seminole Terrace SE, South Fork Estates, Stratford Court, Stratford Way SW, Sunset Estates, Sunshine Parkway Manor, Sylvan Shores, Tropical Estates, Virginia Avenue SW, Warner Creek, Westwood, Wild Turkey Lane SW
Voter rolls awash in ineligibles
There are 99,848 registered voters in Martin County , including 48,982 Republicans, 29,057 Democrats, and 21,809 Other. Many are ineligible to vote for a variety of reasons. They may have departed, either from this life or from this county. Or they may have a felony conviction, or been adjudged mentally incapacitated.
This is a serious concern because more people are voting by mail, so illegal ballots are more difficult to detect than when almost everyone showed up in person at a polling place. No one is more concerned about this than our attentive Supervisor of Elections Vicki Davis. She is doing everything possible to delete ineligibles, but to some extent her hands are tied by unnecessarily restrictive state law.
Recently Ms. Davis ran an ad, as required by law, listing the names and addresses of over 70 individuals who “have been identified as persons who are potentially ineligible to be registered to vote.” These are people who have been listed by the Florida Division of Elections as potentially ineligible, and have failed to respond to a certified letter. If the individuals listed in the ad do not show up within 30 days to show cause why they should remain on the voter rolls, they will be deleted.
Can the Supervisor of Elections delete a dead person; that is, someone who has been revealed in a published obituary? The answer is “no.” To remove a dead person from the voter rolls, the Supervisor must have a certified copy of a death certificate. That’s according to state law. This requirement needs to be modified to allow inquiry and removal based on funeral home reports.
The U.S. population death rate is 810 per 100,000 population, and the over-65 population is 12.6%. Martin County ’s 65-plus population is about double the national demographic. So we probably increase deceased registered voters on the voter rolls by about 1,500 cemetery residents per year - and do it year after year.
If citizens know of persons who are registered to vote in Martin County , but are not legally entitled to that right, they should provide that information to the Supervisor at:
The Supervisor of Elections Office will then research the matter and take appropriate action.
Glug Glug – Many Florida homes under water
A depressing 45% of Florida homes are under water, financially, that is. This description is used for homes whose market value is less than the mortgage balance. The 45% figure is about double the national average. Only California and Nevada , states that also went berserk with over-development, are in slightly worse shape.
Now Developers & Co. is flooding local governments with proposals that will allow more irresponsible over-development as soon as we recover from the current results of their past handiwork. To smooth the way to more speculative construction, their representatives in Tallahassee are working feverishly to per$uade state legislators to weaken the Growth Management Act. Surely it’s time to let ordinary citizens have a say in the matter.
A snappy salute to officials who attended the river pollution hearing in Washington, D.C.
In addition to some stalwart citizens, two local officials attended the federal court hearing in D.C. on the Rivers Coalition supported lawsuit to stop polluting discharges into the St. Lucie Estuary. They are County Commissioner Sarah Heard and Sewall’s Point Commissioner Jacqui Thurlow-Lippisch. The lawsuit is supported by all county commissioners except – for some mysterious reason - Doug Smith.
Unemployment checks on the slow track
The Orlando Sentinel reports that the first checks from an emergency unemployment extension have started going out, but about 80,000 Floridians may not see any money for another two to three weeks. Those people do not automatically qualify for the latest round of benefits, so they will have to apply online or by mail. Once they do — the application window opens this week — it's not clear how quickly payments ($300 weekly maximum) will be processed.
Officials with Florida 's Agency for Workforce Innovation, the office that administers unemployment, have said checks could arrive in as little as a few days or as long as two to three weeks. Computer limitations are being blamed. About 250,000 people are expected to be eligible for up to 20 additional weeks of payments. Unemployed workers who exhausted all other benefits before Nov. 1 need to reapply to qualify for the extension. Those who lost or will lose benefits between Nov. 1 and Dec. 26 will automatically qualify.
Job creation numbers under the stimulus is a fiction; note how poorly Martin County fared
The Obama Administration has a website, www.recovery.gov, that purports to tell us where that $787 billion in stimulus money is going, and how many jobs it has created/saved. The job numbers are a fiction. The government does not verify the job claims under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. So the website informs us that some $159 billion has been distributed creating/saving 640,329 jobs nationally as of 10-30-09. That’s roughly $248,000 per job.
In Florida , some $400 million of the $6.8 billion awarded has been distributed, creating or saving (a nicely vague catchall word; giving raises has supposedly “saved” jobs) 29,321 jobs. The cost per job of about $232,000 in Florida is better than the national average – although in a work of fiction, does it really matter? One reported Florida allocation of $3 million in phantom Congressional District 86 resulted in claimed saving of five jobs. Note: Florida has only 25 Congressional Districts, not 86.
Here in Martin County , the job numbers are bewildering. Hopefully, the job numbers will improve over the coming years. This is what has been spent so far from the stimulus in grants for five towns:
Stuart: $89,892,303 – 19.6 jobs created/saved
Palm City: $7,027,896 – zero jobs created/saved
Indiantown: $208,899 – zero jobs created/saved
Hobe Sound: $72,011 – zero jobs created saved
Jernsen Beach: $0 – zero jobs created/saved
GRAND TOTAL: $97,201,109 for 19.6 jobs, or $4,959,240 per job.
This, plus whatever googolplex of healthcare taxes are worked up behind Senator Reid’s closed doors, are what our children and grandchildren will be paying off in years to come.
Quotable quotes
"A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." - Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen
“Trillion is the new billion.” – Origin unknown
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 12/9/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
Commission to vote on Comp Plan amendments at Dec. 8 meeting
Over the past year, the County Commission has held hearings and workshops concerning the state-mandated Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) with the objective of updating and clarifying the Comprehensive Plan. Some changes previously approved were minor, but others were major, even radical in the view of many slow growth advocates. The most controversial proposals were those made by business interests to make future development easier.
On 12-8-09, the Commission will take a final vote on a long list of Comp Plan Amendments (CPA). If all the agenda items are not covered, it will be continued to 12-16-09. Ordinarily, it would have been continued to the following Tuesday, 12-15-09, but for half of that day, Commission chambers will be used by the Martin County Legislative Delegation.
One of the challenges will be integrating changes to the Amendments to satisfy objections made by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). [See following article below.]
DCA lists 48 objections to EAR-based Comp Plan Amendments; staff has work cut out
DCA sent its Objections, Recommendations and Comments report (ORC) to Martin County on 11-17-09. The county has 120 days to respond. ORC is 29 pages long, and includes 48 objections and recommendations for correction, plus two comments. A number of the objections echo the objections made by residents during the earlier approval process.
It is obviously beyond the scope of this DEFENDER issue to list them all. [See link below.] However, to provide readers with a sense of the ORC document, we present an abbreviated version of some of the more important objections that needs to be made right, or the amendment dropped.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP OBJECTIONS
CPA 08-3, 08-4,08-5: 134.6 acres along the Cove Road Corridor. “The Greater Salerno Area has been developing through a ‘piecemeal amendment process’ … These three amendments continue this process and promote low density urban sprawl.”
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
SCHOOLS , OBJECTION: “Revised Policy to limit plan amendment and development application review comments by the Martin County School District …is inconsistent with the approved Interlocal Agreement for school planning.”
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
NEEDS ANALYSIS, OBJECTION: “The County has projected peak population through 2025 … The methodology utilized has not been demonstrated to be professionally acceptable because it is based on unsubstantiated assumptions … The County has not explained why the peak vacant percentage is calculated and then multiplied by the permanent population to derive a peak value.”
ESSENTIAL SERVICE NODES, OBJECTIONS: “The EAR-based amendments include new Policy regarding essential service nodes, which will permit commercial uses at the intersections of arterial highways west of I-95 in western Martin County … Amending the comprehensive plan through a Planned Unit Development zoning approval is inconsistent with the procedures of amending the comprehensive plan … and could promote urban sprawl.”
NONRESIDENTIAL USES IN RESIDENDIAL PUDS, OBJECTIONS: “The objective does not include predictable standards for when nonresidential uses will be allowed in residential PUDs …The result is that the policy would allow a new land use without going through the land use change amendment process.”
PUD PUBLIC BENEFITS, OBJECTION: “EAR recommended that the County include policies that require Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to show public benefit in their applications. The County did not address this recommendation.”
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ROAD STANDARDS, OBJECTION: “Does not include data and analysis to evaluate short term and long term impacts on the adopted LOS standards on the County’s road network … and does not satisfy the data and analysis requirements,”
RECREATION ELEMENT
LEVEL OF SERVICE, PARKS, OBJECTION: “The County has not included data and analysis to evaluate if the level of service standard is not being met nor has the County evaluated what its need for parks will be.”
CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS, OBJECTION: “Include a tracking report every three years to assess progress in maintaining and achieving further sustainable practices these indicators should be part of a set of quality of life indicators that measure public safety, health, education, economy, social capital, transportation and the environment. No policies were added to prepare this report.”
To read the entire DCA document, with all of its objections, comments and recommendations, go to:
http://ap3server.martin.fl.us:7778/portal/page?_pageid=355,1537011&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Then click on “2009 2nd Set ORC”.
Junk journalism at Palm Beach Post
PAPER PROMOTES LIES AND DISTORTIONS ABOUT HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY AMENDMENT 4 -- AGAIN
On 11-22-09, the Palm Beach Post published an anti-Amendment 4 editorial that could have been written by lobbyists or publicity flacks for the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries, or their front, Floridians for Smarter Growth. They represent the views of developers. They are scared. They see the handwriting on the wall: A poll by Orange County realtors found that 71% of respondents favor Hometown Democracy Amendment 4. People want a voice in how their communities grow.
The town that debunked nothing
THE LIE: The title of the Post’s fear mongering editorial was, “The town that saved Florida – St. Pete Beach debunked Hometown Democracy.” The Post’s scribblers went on to declare falsely that the “town has been a test case for what Florida Hometown democracy would inflict on the entire state.” They called it “St. Pete’s version of Hometown Democracy.”
THE TRUTH: A developer-backed Political Action Committee wrote up misleading petitions to change the St. Pete Comp Plan. It passed. Unlike Hometown Democracy Amendment 4, it did not provide that a referendum on a plan change shall occur only at the end of the state-mandated review and public hearing process – after commissioners had approved a land use change. State law has long held that no land use change can occur without two public hearings. A4 has safeguards and public examination not found in St. Pete Beach. So it is not surprising that the town amendment was challenged.
The “everything” lie that should be beneath a reputable paper
THE LIE: The Post’s editorial fiction states: “Local voters would have to vote on every change to a city or county comprehensive plan … The proposed Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment would require referendums on even the most inconsequential changes.”
THE TRUTH: Even the Post recognizes that A4 does not cover many changes, such as zoning and variances that are made regularly without Comp plan Amendments. The pernicious factor is their unsupportable claim that it applies to “every” Comp Plan change. A Comp Plan has many elements, but the only one mentioned in A4 is “land use,” referring to the Future Land Use Map, the key element that affects the over-development that has ruined Florida . Read for yourself the A4 ballot summary that will appear on the 2010 ballot:
BALLOT SUMMARY: Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice.
Believe your own eyes and your understanding of clear English, as approved by the State Supreme Court, instead of deliberate misinterpretation by developer puppets. Note that “land use” is the only element mentioned. The full amendment states it seven times. Nowhere is there any mention of any other elements found in Comp Plans. That includes Intergovernmental Coordination, Schools, Economics, Capital Improvements, Drainage, Waste, Transportation, Recreation or numerous other Comp Plan elements that can be changed without voter approval. Only land use is covered.
What is the Post motive in misleading readers?
One thing is clear. They are not motivated to produce an honest journalistic report. If they were, they would have invited the president of Hometown Democracy to visit with their editorial board to answer their questions. They never did. They would have asked people in St. Pete Beach professional reporter style questions, instead of being confrontational to force answers they wanted. So we can only speculate about their motives from the evidence.
First, the Post’s political orientation has long been leftist. Such folks like government control under elitist influence. Ordinary folk are either too dumb or not to be trusted – they think. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has faith in voters. In 2003, the Court ruled that voters are presumed to be competent about matters of local government. The Court said if voters so choose, they can demand to vote on local land use issues, that power is delegated by the voters to local government, and voters can take that power back if they so choose.
.
Second, Post advertising is way down, so they suck up to developers by worrying about landowners who want more development rights, and developers who “would be penalized.” It is well to remember that real estate ads account for about one quarter of newspaper ads.
Some newspapers understand that A4 empowers residents to decide how much growth burden they are willing to bear. The Naples News said the following on 11-24-09:
“Hometown Democracy, Amendment #4 to the state Constitution, provides that voters control growth. It is beginning to look attractive, if not blatantly seductive, at least to the taxpayers of Florida .
Don’t let developers or their newspaper mouthpiece tell you that it’s good to put all of your trust about growth in officials whom they control. Trust your own judgment. Protect your home value. Keep your taxes in check. Vote for Amendment 4 in 2010.
Stuart News exposes excessive salaries paid to county employees, especially Fire/Rescue
In an excellent 11-29-09 article, Stuart News reporter George Andreassi exposed the scandalous excessive salaries paid to Martin County employees. Highlights include the following facts: In the 2008-09 fiscal year, 109 Commission employees earned over $100,000. That’s 12.5% of the 869 total. Worse yet, 91 of the 109 high flyers were Fire/Rescue employees.
Taxpayers have been treated to the alibi that since we must stay competitive with other counties, the high pay is needed. In fact, St. Lucie County, with 1,106 full time employees, pays over $100,000 to only 6.6% of employees.
The blame rests squarely on the county commissioners who have authorized such payments year after year. One commissioner quoted in the article, Sarah Heard, has a long history of defying the fire union to keep costs down, while others sucked up to the election-active union. She said: “It’s really out of control … Taxpayers are going to be boiling mad about it, and I understand. I am too.” Commission Chairman Doug Smith said that taxpayers get a good deal on fire rescue service. He’s voted regularly in favor of the fire union contracts.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 12/1/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 140
Commission votes NO on stormwater and fire/rescue fees
PUBLIC SPEAKERS RAIL AGAINST FIRE SALARIES
On 12-15-09, the Martin County C ommission voted to remove the imposition of assessment fees for stormwater and fire/rescue from a Notice of Intent Resolution. Ad valorem property taxes for these services will remain in force. The action was unanimous, with Commissioner Hayes absent.
The action followed a torrent of anti-fee emails, and a parade of public speakers stating their opposition. Staff had preserved the fee proposal in order to retain flexibility next year “if needed.” That rationale carried little weight with the public. The universal attitude seemed to be: If you can tax us, you will. It reflects distrust that government will cut back sufficiently on expenses to hold the line on taxes, notwithstanding good intentions to provide quality services.
The harshest public condemnation focused on the much publicized inflated fire/rescue salaries and pensions. It was particularly noted that the former fire chief retired recently at age 47 with a $12,000/month pension for life. The cry was: “Take pay cuts or get layoffs.”
A personal viewpoint
A reporter asked us what we thought about county budg ets. This was our reply:
Fiscal sanity starts with family practice that governments should emulate, but rarely do. When economic conditions are bad, and less money is coming in, you learn to do without until things get better.
Families eat out less, keep the old car longer, skip doctor and dentist visits, and take local vacations. We could – and would - learn to live with the displeasure of shorter library hours, less frequent road repairs, and even – holy of holies – longer fire/rescue response times. It’s called living within our means – a fine concept never learned by Congress, but hopefully to be learned by the Commission.
So in this time of high unemployment, failing businesses, and many homes under water mortgage-wise, it is no time to raise ad valorem taxes, or to do so indirectly by replacing the tax label with assessment fee labels.
AROUND THE STATE
Some newspapers carry articles that reveal the truth about why we need Amendment 4
An article in the Panama City News Herald had this to say: “Citizens originally had the power to begin with, but was slowly and shrewdly usurped by our local elected officials and misused for their and the developers’ gains. They accomplished this by using the guise of enlarging the tax base (a false assumption) by pursuing an unbridled growth program that has, in part, brought our economy down and aided in the demise of our historical communities….Like the Tea Parties, Amendment 4 is a stab to get the attention of the misguided and try to return some sense to governing for the people and by the people.”
Correction
In DEFENDER No. 139, we reported that 45% of Florida homes were under water financially. We should have said 45% of mortgaged homes, about 35% of all homes.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 12/16/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website: