Martin County Defender

The Martin County

Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 156

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Attached to this issue

Graphs of Survey Ranking Data

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

SURVEY RESULTS: Residents rank which County services are their top priorities

County officials are struggling to decide which public services should be cut more or less because reduced tax revenue is not enough to continue funding at previous levels. It’s a grim reality that a dollar spent on Service A is a dollar not available to Service B. All expenditures come out of the same property tax money pool.

We wish that the County would reach out to the public at large to find out which services are most and least important to residents – but they have not done so. Instead, they hear from various advocates and special interests.

So DEFENDER has conducted a “Survey of Your Priorities” among 1,000 randomly selected subscribers out of the list of about 5,000 subscribers. Though our readers differ from many residents in terms of being better informed, they constitute an excellent representation of the population. Subscribers include old and young; workers, businessmen and retirees; Republicans, Democrats and Independents; located North, South, East and West.

Our questionnaire listed six major public services, excluding schools because their tax and budgets are beyond the scope of the Commission. We asked recipients to prioritize by marking which services are most important to them. Respondents ranked the six services from 1 to 6, with 1 most important, and 6 least important, no tie rankings.

WEIGHTED RANKING: The final ranking is a weighted value that determines level of priority. This takes into account the whole range of respondent rankings for each service. For example, suppose Service A holds a small lead over Service B in No. 1 ranking votes. However, suppose Service A has a much larger vote for Rank Position 6. By combining the two – weighting them – Service A might come up in second place behind Service B.

Here’s another simplified example: If a service received 50% of votes ranking it as 2, and 50% as 4, the weighted ranking would be 3. A weighted numerical ranking based on overall preferences allows readers to see how far ahead of another service the leader is.

The Priorities Rankings

We compiled the first 100 completed questionnaires to bring the results to you promptly. The combined overall weighted rankings of how important each service is to Martin citizens are shown below. [NOTE: Like golf scores, the lower the number, the higher the ranking.]

1st PLACE: Law Enforcement / Sheriff – Weighted Ranking - 2.6

2nd PLACE: Fire/Rescue – Weighted Ranking - 3.1

3rd PLACE: Road/Drainage Repair – Weighted Ranking - 3.4

4th PLACE: Parks & Recreation – Weighted Ranking - 3.6

5th PLACE: Libraries – Weighted Ranking – 3.8

6th PLACE: Business Development – Weighted Ranking - 5.0

A closer looks at the statistics

We have attached to this issue a detailed breakdown of all the priority votes, presented in graph format to facilitate examination. The voting pattern displayed much individuality. For example, someone voting Rank No. 1 for Law Enforcement might vote Libraries as No. 6. Someone else voting Law Enforcement No. 1, might vote Libraries No. 2. Nevertheless, there are interesting patterns that may be recognized by examining the attached graphs.

For example, though Law Enforcement was the strong leader for No. 1 with 39% of the vote compared to Fire/Rescue’s 16%, the totals of first and second combined are closer: 57% for Law Enforcement, 46% for Fire/Rescue.

Another interesting pattern displays for Business Development. Those who feel strongly in favor (14% for Rank 1) are not inclined to accept Rank 2 (only 2%). However, the largest single group (49%) place Business Development in the lowest No. 6 category. Similarly, other patterns may be discerned.

THE MOST IMPORTANT POLL RESULT IS THAT RESIDENTS PLACE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE/RESCUE AS THEIR TOP PRIORITIES.

County officials: We urge you to follow the priorities that the majority of residents want, not the inside influentials with their private agendas. Do not be satisfied with this DEFENDER survey. Conduct a more comprehensive survey of your own. Too much is at stake to decide on the next budget by your own guesses and personal preferences.

Tallahassee political hacks want to use your tax money to campaign against the laws you want

Florida’s Sierra Club Chapter has called upon Governor Crist to veto HB 1207 because it would allow local governments to spend taxpayer dollars on campaigns that could adversely affect the environment as well as remove certain campaign contributions “from the sunshine.”

“HB 1207 will permit taxpayer dollars to pay for propaganda to oppose public initiatives to protect environmentally sensitive areas,” according to Robert Weintraub, chairman of the Florida Sierra Club’s Growth Management Committee. “The St. Petersburg airport project and the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment are examples of issues that would be open to taxpayer-financed campaigns. “It will also remove from visibility special interest contributions to legislative leaders, and enable local governments to use taxpayer money to persuade voters to accept higher taxes or bond issues,” he said. “This is a bad change to existing law that the governor should veto. We are happy to join the League of Women Voters to urge a veto.”

HB 1207 is controversial because it would reverse the law that prohibits Leadership Funds, which are unregulated and unreported contributions to legislative leaders used to influence campaigns. “At a time when we are working for more sunshine on government issues, this goes in the opposite direction,” Weintraub said.

The bill also threatens existing law that prohibits local governments from using taxpayer dollars to tell voters how to vote on ballot issues, he pointed out. “Without that law, a county or city government can conduct a costly campaign, at the taxpayers' expense, to get voters to vote for higher taxes, or a bond issue, or to oppose a voter initiative.”

Current law now prohibits a local government from using public funds for a "political advertisement" or "electioneering communication" on a state or local referendum issue. A "political advertisement" specifically urges voters to "Vote Yes" or “Vote No," while an "electioneering communication" can fall just short of that. HB 1207 redefines the term "electioneering communication" to exclude referenda. A city or county commission would consider itself free to conduct a campaign, at taxpayer expense, to get taxpayers to vote on issues it supports or opposes.

REMINDER! REMINDER! REMINDER! REMINDER!

In DEFENDER No. 155, our lead headline was

Commission may approve 20 Comp Plan Changes that will Browardize Martin County

PROPOSALS AT APRIL 13 MEETING INCLUDE INCREASED DENSITIES AND AG LAND CONVERSIONS TO INDUSTRIAL

THESE AMENDMENTS ARE THE TIPPING POINT.

IF YOU HAVE NOT YET INFORMED COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU DO NOT WANT SUCH DESTRUCTIVE CHANGES, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

The worst of this batch of terrible amendments is CPA 10-4, which creates a new land use category, AgTEC, by converting agricultural land to industrial in western county. It is so bad that even the Local Planning Agency, frequently too accommodating to developers, rejected it (over the supporting votes of LPA’s loudest developer mouthpieces, Barbara Essenwine and John Leighton).

THERE WILL BE A RALLY AT THE COUNTY BUILDING ON MONTEREY ROAD (NEXT TO BLAKE LIBRARY) 8:40 AM ON TUESDAY, APRIL 13 TO INFORM COMMISSIONERS AND PUBLIC ABOUT THE PERILS OF THESE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS – AND THE NEED FOR HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY. COME SHARE THIS EVENT WITH NEIGHBORS WHO CARE ABOUT MARTIN’S FUTURE!

(They’ll be wearing white shirts as a sign of unity. You can, too.))

Foreclosures – the price exacted by over-development

The year was 2005. The mindset was pre-1929. Real estate values would soar forever. So build, build, build. Martin County had 127 foreclosures. Then reality started to set in. A couple of years after buying a house in 2005, the selling price fell below the purchase price. But the fast growth mentality kept drinking the optimism cocktail. Now it’s 2009. Foreclosures are up to 2,082 for the year, a screaming increase of 1,539% over 2005.

Have County Commissioners learned anything from this over-development induced foreclosure avalanche? We’ll find out on April 13, 2010, when they vote on increasing density, intensity and use on thousands of acres.

Wondering our loud

One frequent public speaker at Commission meetings often stands at the lectern and lectures, accuses or excoriates Commission Chairman Doug Smith. When the allowed three minutes of nasty rant is finished, Commissioner Smith usually says to the departing speaker: “THANK YOU, MR. SUMMERS.” Some folks wonder if Smith is really thinking the word THANK.

+++++

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 Forman, Editor 4/9/10

The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2010 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All 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: All 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:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County

Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 157

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

ATTACHED TO THIS ISSUE

The Martin County Follies

In Memorian

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Hard (illegal) corruption and soft (legal) unsavory money-vote connections in state and county

Call it corruption, or bribery, or undue influence, or pay to play, or impropriety – these are all variations on the wide spectrum of activities that use money to influence public officials to vote in a way that benefits the contributor.

At the low end is the clear violation of law when someone pays an official for a vote to pass a law, award a contract, or change a Comprehensive Plan. It’s illegal, so the most egregious violators on occasion go to prison, as a few commissioners in Palm Beach County have done.

Senate Bill 1076 was recently offered by Sen. Dan Gelber (D – Miami Beach). It was unanimously approved by a senate committee, and would provide tools for state attorneys to prosecute hard corruption by officials. Note that that those Palm Beach crooks had to be prosecuted under federal, not state, law. Whether the bill will become law is open to question. Sen. John Thrasher (R – St. Augustine), head of the Florida Republican Party, questions whether the law is too broad, do we need it, blah, blah, blah.

No current or proposed law deals with unsavory, but legal, campaign contribution practices.

The money contributed to political campaigns is not considered bribery. Just ask any elected officials and they will tell you that those contributions have no effect on their decisions. If you believe that, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn that we have for sale … at a bargain price.

Judges are sometimes held to a higher standard. If the party before them was a major campaign promoter or contributor, an ethical judge would recuse himself from the case. Not so with members of state legislatures and county and city commissions. If the money went into a PAC or campaign account, legally it’s not bribery.

We’ve been looking at the voting patterns of Martin County commissioners. Thanks to research by reader Martha Bennett on contribution records, we’ve been able to match up votes by specific commissioners on specific Comp Plan amendments with the financial contributions by specific landowner applicants and their affiliated companies. It’s an outrageous scandal. Here is a sampling from the April 13-14, 2010 Commission meeting.

CPA 10-4 – CONSOLIDATED CITRUS AG TO INDUSTRIAL

New AgTec land use category converts 1,717 agricultural acres, 50 to 60% to industrial and commercial, balance to agriculture and open space. Millions of sq ft of industrial, plus offices and a 500 room hotel. Located on Martin Highway west of I-95. Plan rejected by Local Planning Agency and County Growth Management staff. Martin County would not provide utility services four miles away from the Urban Services Boundary. Nearby Port St. Lucie has refused to provide utility service. It would conflict with our Comp Plan by being a free standing urban district with package plants. The Consolidated / King Ranch representative said he would save agriculture by taking land out of ag use. Huh?

This plan is the most audacious, most radical effort to undo the protections of our Comp Plan - and three commissioners approved it. This is how south Florida began its descent into a barely livable environment. It is the tipping point for Martin, and we have Commissioners Smith, Hayes and Ciampi to thank for it.

In the previous election cycle, Consolidated paid $25,000 into a PAC that spent it on campaign advertising, mostly benefiting Commissioner Ciampi. Was this vote his payback?

CPA 10-01 ST. LUCIE PARTNERS - BARNEY FAMILY – FALL CREEK

Quadruple density of 3,902 acres at Kanner and Bridge Road by changing Land Use Map from Agricultural to Agricultural Ranchette. Staff recommends application denial, but it gets approved by Commissioners Smith, Ciampi and Hayes.

In the previous election cycle, Smith received $3,500 from applicants; Ciampi received $3,000; Hayes received $2,000. In addition, the Barney Family and Fall Creek contributed $2,000 to a PAC, which paid for ads against opponents of Smith, Ciampi and Hayes.

CPA 10-10 – VIA CLAUDIO INVESTMENTS – JOHN MAIUCCI

The request is to quadruple density of 93.6 acres near Cove and Willoughby from Rural Density to Residential Estate Density. Development of the property would wait up to 15 years later. Despite County staff recommendation to deny the application, the three commissioners who approved it are Doug Smith, Ed Ciampi and Patrick Hayes. Previously, Hayes had frequently said that he follows the expertise of staff – but not this day.

In the previous election cycle, Smith received $2,000 from Maiucci; Ciampi received $1,500; Hayes received, mostly as PAC-paid ads, $1,000.

CPA 10-21 – BECKER HOLDINGS

Allow a Rural Service Node on 5 agricultural acres at Martin Highway and Allapatah Road, same as nodes rejected by Department of Community Affairs. 50,000 sq ft of commercial space to serve about 200 people. Since there is little current need, argument is supposedly for future planning. Commissioner Valliere argued that it would save 17 mi round trip driving for a quart of milk, but never showed anyone had ever done so. Opponents say it is development camel’s nose under the tent; big camel to follow. Approved by Smith, Ciampi, Hayes and Valliere.

In the previous election cycle, Smith received $1,000 from Becker; Ciampi received $2,000; Valliere received $1,000.

FROM DEVELOPERS INTO COMMISSIONER CAMPAIGNS – SOME TOTALS

There is not enough space here to cover a breakdown of all the political contributions to commissioners by developer interests with current projects pending. However, we can sum up at least some of the totals:

Smith got $13,200

Ciampi got $13,450

Hayes got $3,750

Valliere got $1,250

PACS supporting them got $28,750

PUTTING IT ALL IN PERSPECTIVE

The following compressed quote by Commissioner Heard clarifies the meaning of this avalanche of Comp Plan changes, including many not discussed here, which vastly increases density and industrial/commercial use for some distant post-Amendment 4 era:

“The people who are rushing this drive to create an over-supply of industrial land are the same ones who pushed the over-supply of residential development – and we know how that turned out.”

Stripping away some of the gloss and phony rationalizations, the majority of commissioners are in the bag for the special interests who are enriched by the votes of commissioners to whom they contributed campaign funds. They have sold out the great majority of residents who strongly oppose the over-development changes wrought by the Commission. What we have seen in this Commission meeting is a grand display of soft corruption.

Commissioners turn deaf ear to citizen rally against massive Comp Plan changes

Before the Commission started its April 13, 2010 meeting, a large crowd of white shirt Martin residents gathered to rally in favor of Hometown Democracy’s Amendment 4, in support of Commission candidate Ed Fielding, and against the long agenda list of Comp Plan amendments that would convert agricultural land to industrial, and quadruple residential density. Supporters of developer interests tried to put together a red shirt counter rally, but it fizzled, almost no one showing up. Inside in Commission chambers, the majority of commissioners turned a deaf ear to those at the rally, as well as those at the lectern trying to preserve our quality of life.

For example, CPA 10-19 focuses on converting 150 of 492 acres to Commercial Waterfront – though there is only 400 ft of waterfront. Much of the rest would convert the parcel for 3.2 million sq ft of industrial. Indiantown representatives explained that this project would kill commercial waterfront business in that needy town.

Worst of all, it would establish a new Primary Urban Services Boundary, undermining the PUSB that has been the bulwark against Browardized sprawl. The planner, Michael Houston, droned on for hours, until on the fly, most commissioners decided the project would be OK if cut in half. But how? More hours of confusion. Houston, who had contributed $1,250 to Commissioner Smith at the last election, droned on. Lucido and Associates had contributed $1,000 to Commissioner Smith, $500 each to Ciampi and Hayes. Their planner, Morris Crady, spoke on behalf of development applicants.

The basis of converting certain agricultural land to industrial is called “7th Edition FLUM,” which is based on an old discredited Urbanomics consultant proposal that no commissioner accepted. Neighbor after neighbor spoke against this Comp Plan change, but the Commission majority was listening only to the developer boosters. Only Commissioner Heard asked probing questions and argued against the change.

At the Commission lectern, Ed Fielding summed up the feeling any thoughtful person would have after watching the Commission circus of trying to make the amendment palatable. He told the Commission: You are an insult to the citizens!” True, too true.

Oh how badly Martin County needs Amendment 4!

One of the most disgusting sights was to see representatives of business organizations, as well as most commissioners, blab on and on about jobs as a justification for converting agricultural land to industrial – and not have one specific commitment, or even a detailed plan, for gaining a single job. Again and again, they spoke of more pie-in-the-sky jobs in 15 years. Pure snake oil. “Never waste a crisis.”

Stuart News columnist offers (unintended) reason to vote FOR Amendment 4

Rich Campbell, one of the scribblers at the Stuart News, wrote a column that headlined “reasons to vote against Amendment 4.” Let’s deconstruct it. First, he presents a setup paragraph so readers think he is taking a sensible stance:

“Amendment 4 is all about empowering average citizens, not developers and elected officials, to control growth and development.” So far, so good.

Then he follows it with what is more deeply in his mind – and in the minds of so many with a financial stake in unrestrained development – an elitist mini-rant about all you ignorant dopes, er, citizens, out there:

“Do we really want to give a generally uninformed, uneducated and unmotivated electorate – at least with respect to comprehensive plan amendments - final say over such issues?”

We didn’t make this up. This disdainful attitude is in print for all to see in Campbell’s April 11 column. It is a representative insulting example of what numerous anti-Amendment 4 advocates think of you and your mental capacity. It’s just one more reason to vote for Amendment 4.

Then to compound his elitist foolishness, Campbell concludes:

“When it comes to comprehensive plan amendments, I say let the voters decide … when they elect candidates to represent their interests in local government.”

In other words, he expects you to use your crystal ball to know exactly how a candidate will vote on a specific quality-of-life issue four years later. We have at least two sitting commissioners who seemed to understand that the over-development bubble was not a good thing for residents. Later, with developer campaign contributions tucked in their pockets, they changed their tune, becoming developer cheerleaders. We hope that Martin residents will be wise enough to reject Campbell’s implied blind faith in those brilliant and virtuous politicians.

Personally, Rich Campbell is a nice guy. But we sure would not want him deciding the kind of Browardized community he would – perhaps unintentionally - have us live in.

How to improve education – Florida Republican style

SB6, a bill by some Tallahassee SoB Republicans, expects to improve education by shafting teachers and usurping the authority of local school boards. Those hacks may have been infected by the same Idiot Virus that has infected Congressional Democrats. Let’s hope Charlie Crist vetoes SB6.

+++++

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 Forman, Editor 4/16/10

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County

Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 158

Taxpayers Association pushes same “dumb citizen view” as anti-Amendment 4 promoters

In DEFENDER No. 157, we reported that on April 11 Stuart News columnist Rich Campbell wrote this about people who support Amendment 4:

“Do we really want to give a generally uninformed, uneducated and unmotivated electorate – at least with respect to comprehensive plan amendments - final say over such issues?”

We commented that the Campbell statement is a representative insulting example of what numerous anti-Amendment 4 advocates think of you and your mental capacity. One reader doubted that any anti-Amendment 4 advocates really thought that.

Well, on April 17, a column in the paper by Martin County Taxpayers Association President Richard Geisinger Jr. took a gratuitous swipe at a “dangerous” Amendment 4, which was not even the subject of his article against Save Our Homes. He wrote:

“The proposed Amendment 4 … could easily be misunderstood by voters.”

Are we to believe that Geisinger and his sort are the smart ones who do not misunderstand Amendment 4? Please note that Geisinger has been a real estate broker for about 30 years – a class of people who, before their bubble burst, profited immensely from the rampant over-development that has so badly damaged our economy. Amendment 4 gives voters the power to cure that malady.

The Taxpayers Association has long been an effective tax watchdog. However, if it is going to re-orient its mission to promote developer political interests, then it will end up with less credibility and fewer supporters.

Commissioner Hayes unable to connect the dots

At the 4/20/10 Commission meeting, Commissioner Patrick Hayes proclaimed that “I am proud of my votes last week,” referring to his votes on 4/13/10 that allowed increased residential density and conversion of agricultural land to industrial. Hayes then went on to praise Earth Day. Unfortunately, he was not able to connect the dots. Namely, that his votes undermined the very objectives of Earth Day – to preserve what we have and prevent over-development. Perhaps those developer contributions to his political campaign clouded his vision.

Hired hands vs. concerned citizens

At the Commission’s 4/13/10 meeting, where several self-enriching developer / landowner requests for Comp Plan changes were approved, various speakers were heard. One group supporting the developer applicants included lawyers, land planners, consultants, public relations, business organization employees, etc. All of these are hired hands, paid to speak for their masters. In contrast, another group of speakers opposing developer applicants were unpaid citizens concerned about the harmful effects of the applications, concerned about adverse impact on our quality of life.

Which group do you think has the greater moral and objective weight?

LOL: Desperation in seeking anti-Amendment 4 arguments leads to sublime nonsense

Meet Ryan Houck. He is the spokesman for the state business organizations spending millions of dollars trying to convince citizens that Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 will cause more problems than the disastrous over-development binge has done. It’s a tough sell. Most thoughtful people (at least those who do not benefit financially from unrestrained growth) are thinking that they’d like to have a vote on how communities grow – as provided by Amendment 4.

So Houck and Company are trying to find “reasons” for people to oppose Amendment 4. Their latest concoction is worth a belly laugh. They claim that Amendment 4 is bad because it will prevent REDUCING the number of approved building lots. Supposedly developers are clamoring to have fewer lots to develop, but that nasty Amendment 4 prevents them from doing so. Here is a verbatim quote from a gibberish-filled document Houck released:

“THEY SAY: "The crux of the matter is that there is already enough land approved for development in Florida's local comprehensive plans to accommodate 80 to 100 million residents - about five times more people than we have living here now.

“IN REALITY: That's a great reason to oppose Amendment 4. Without changes to local comprehensive plans, the existing pattern of development remains one of sprawl. Amendment 4 makes it so difficult to change a comprehensive plan that many planning groups fear it may lock in place the bad decisions of the past.”

Does Mr. Houck think no one noticed all the recent Martin County Comp Plan changes were for increasing density and converting agriculture to industrial?

When you stop laughing at Houck’s pathetic claim, do something that trusts yourself to protect home values, rather than trusting developers and politicians. Send a needed contribution to:

Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc.
P.O. Box 636
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170

THIS GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION IS FIGHTING THE BATTLE FOR ALL OF US.

Elect or appoint school superintendent?

There is an ongoing lively debate as to whether Martin County should continue to elect its school superintendent, or to have the School Board appoint one. The choice will be presented to voters as a ballot item this year.

Some scribblers and advocates for appointment have presented seemingly convincing arguments to appoint – convincing until one looks at the realities and experience with our two local elected boards

Pro-appointment argument: AN APPOINTING BOARD CAN REACH OUT TO DISTANT PLACES FOR THE BEST CANDIDATES.

The County Commission, which appoints its county administrator, has a long history of “reaching out,” then being dissatisfied after a few years and firing their appointee. After firing the last county administrator, the Commission chose a senior staff official who had been on the job for many years. Such experience provides insights not available to distant appointees. Result: She’s doing an excellent job in tough times.

Pro-appointment argument: A SUPERINTENDENT WHO IS NOT VULNERABLE TO ELECTION LOSS PROVIDES CONTINUITY.

Ha! The previous superintendent was elected and served for 14 years before personal issues prompted her resignation. Compare that to the turnover of appointed county administrators.

Pro-appointment argument: BOARD MEMBERS HAVE THE QUALITIES THAT INSURE AN APPOINTMENT BASED ON OBJECTIVE FACTS.

Ha again! Martin’s two primary boards are riven with personal pique by members, politicians who kow-tow to campaign contributors, giving them Comp Plan changes or generous contracts. The personal background of some of the sterling characters on the School Board and Commission are questionable – pulling a gun on children, DUI, giving County money to an organization he heads, being sued to pay debts, violating election laws, etc. We would not clean up the mess by giving them increased power of appointment.

Pro-appointment argument: BOARD MEMBERS KNOW MORE THAN ORDINARY CITIZENS, SO THEY ARE BETTER QUALIFIED TO MAKE BETTER DECISIONS.

That argument resonates if you have blind faith in elites. The collective wisdom of voters is good enough to choose a president, a governor and a senator. That should be good enough to choose a superintendent – and it has been for many years.

Dumbest published pro-appointment argument: “I was absolutely appalled to find that 2,000 Martin County High students were taken out of class to film a video to send to President Barack Obama … it’s just another cause to vote for an appointed superintendent.” Duh.

Martin has a top school district with an elected superintendent. Three times, voters have wisely rejected the effort to take power from the people and give it to contractors, school board politicians and power brokers like the Realtor® Association of Martin County, which find it easier to influence a few members than a whole population. Let’s not try to fix what isn’t broken.

SEPARATELY, the non-partisan election of School Board members is warming up. Members Lorie Shekailo, Laurie Gaylord and Maura Barry-Sorenson are up for election on Aug. 24. It’s worth remembering that only Barry-Sorenson was not involved in the contractor / campaign contributors scandal. She has had the courage to stand up against the machinations of those who may have been sitting on the Board for too long.

Florida’s compliant legislature considers tax shift from landowners to individuals and businesses

Big landowners who have or buy land for development like to play farmer with a small number of cattle or trees because the tax on farmland is almost insignificant. This results in a disproportionately larger share of the tax burden being carried by individuals and businesses.

Current law presumes that when agricultural land is sold for more than three times its appraised value, it is destined for commercial development or other non-farming use, thereby losing the ag tax exemption. A North Florida judge upheld this rule when Rayonier, a timber company, sold land for twelve times its value to a real estate subsidiary. An appellate court upheld the decision against Rayonier, costing the company $5 million that the community would have had to pay in taxes.

Enter influential State Senator J. D. Alexander (R - Lake Wales) with a proposal to change the law so that a land sale would not remove the ag exemption. Alexander runs companies that own about 200,000 acres in sugar cane, citrus and land development. That’s one more politician that needs to be mucked out of government.

Lessons not learned

Former two-term Commissioner Mike DiTerlizzi is the predecessor, political mentor, landlord and lunch buddy of Commissioner Ed Ciampi. Two things that DiTerlizzi knows well, but has apparently neglected to teach Ciampi are:

1 – Do not expand or create a new Urban Service Boundary – especially when most of your constituents you are supposed to represent plead with you not to do so.

2 – Do not throw in the face of your audience that “I won the election” (not you peons) over five opponents (who unfortunately split the vote). Some folks might think that is, um, small minded and arrogant.

+++++

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 Forman, Editor 4/22/10

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County

Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 159

Why Business Development Board’s grab for $1 million-plus of tax revenue must be rejected

Martin County benefits from the Business Development Board (BDB), a public-private enterprise tasked to “meet the County’s strategic goal of increasing high paying jobs and broadening the tax base in selected economic sectors.” However, BDB has apparently developed an inflated sense of self importance. In a grandiose display of hubris, it is requesting that the Commission give it an additional $1 million-plus, over and above the doubled budget approved for this year.

Considering the County’s seriously reduced tax revenue, and the cutbacks in public services that requires, it would be irresponsible for the Commission to approve the $1 million-plus request.

BACKGROUND

The contract between the County and BDB for 2009 provided for the County to pay $340,000 to cover BDB operations. In Sept. 2009, a new contract for 2010 was signed whereby the County would pay $625,000 plus 3%/yr or CPI. (Never waste a crisis?) The DEFENDER supported this huge increase because it was hoped that the extra funding would result in more jobs and successful business operations. We do not know if this improvement has occurred so far. (More on that in a moment.)

However, there are some aspects of the new contract that smack of a sweetheart deal. For example, the contract is for 10 years, rather than a more typical three years. As to termination, it would take the County 2.5 years of jumping through hoops to terminate, but the BDB can terminate on 90 days notice, with or without cause. The understanding between the parties is that BDB would not be subject to Sunshine/Public Records requirements – thereby reducing transparency - though this has not been court tested. Though a commissioner and County Administrator may sit on the 29-member BDB board, they may not sit in on 7-member executive committee meetings – where the most meaningful decisions are made.

THE MILLION DOLLAR REQUEST

A BDB document describing the cleverly named Job Creation Toolkit “recommends setting aside 50%, or at least $1M, of the new tax revenue generated by the FPL Solar facility when it comes on line later this year and investing it in the Economic Development Fund. (Tax revenue to the County is estimated at $2M annually.) In addition, a percentage of new revenue from future economic development projects would be invested in this fund. The fund will be allowed to grow rather than reverting to the general fund.”

SERIOUS PROBLEM #1

There is no mechanism or detailed procedure for monitoring where the $1 million – or even the expanded budget of $625,000 – goes and whether or not it is paying for itself. The contract does “require annual performance reporting to the County,” but it does not specify what must be in that report. Mostly what we get every year are tales of success, a testimonial from a business manager, or some other anecdotal report.

What we do not get is a Congressional Budget Office type of analysis that tells us if the returns justify the expense. For example, with half of the fiscal 2010 year gone, did the doubled BDB budget return double the successes of the same period last year?

Furthermore, BDB is free to spend as it wants without meaningful oversight. Currently, BDB is spending thousands of our tax dollars on self-serving staff time to convince officials and the public that it should give BDB that extra megabuck for their Toolkit. Would we like it if the County were to spend tax money to persuade us to raise taxes? Of course not.

Other County operations report hard facts and statistics to show where our tax dollars go. The sheriff reports arrests and patrols. Fire Rescue reports the number of fire and medical calls. Road repair can show the number of potholes and length of surfacing. Parks has statistics for visitors and teams. Library tells us the number of patrons and books borrowed. We get data from them to track progress. Only BDB relies on speculative extrapolations, not hard numbers. There is no provision for determining if the BDB claims of successes would have happened without BDB. We want BDB to succeed, but we want it to come with hard evidence of results, not public relations talk. The Commission should insist on it.

Such absence of data from BDB makes the $1 million Tool Kit a risky investment.

SERIOUS PROBLEM #2

Spending on business development is the lowest priority of residents.

DEFENDER recently conducted a survey [Issue No. 156] in which we asked residents to rank which County services are their top priorities. We listed six such services. 49% of respondents ranked business development last.

Here are the results for ranking each service either first or second in importance:

Law Enforcement / Sheriff – 57%

Fire/Rescue – 46%

Road/Drainage Repair – 32%

Parks & Recreation – 25%

Libraries – 23%

Business Development – 16%

Residents understand that the amount of tax revenue available is limited. If we siphon off some of it for one service, it means that less will be available for another service. Until there is an objective means to evaluate BDB performance, let’s stick with the $625,000 budget. Thumbs down on an extra $1 million.

COMMISSION TO DECIDE ON MAY 4

On May 4, 2010, the Commission will decide (Agenda Item D7a) whether or not to give BDB that extra $1 million. We wonder which services they will starve if they decide to do it.

IF COMMISSIONERS WANT TO REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENTS, THEY WILL FUNNEL MONEY TO THOSE SERVICES CITIZENS CONSIDER PRIORITIES.

If you want to weigh in on this issue, contact the five commissioners:

Commissioner Doug Smith: 221-2359 / dsmith@martin.fl.us

Commissioner Susan Valliere: 288-5421 / svallier@martin.fl.us

Commission Patrick Hayes: 221-2357 / phayes@martin.fl.us

Commissioner Sarah Heard: 221-2358 / sheard@martin.fl.us

Commissioner Ed Ciampi: 221-1357 / eciampi@martin.fl.us

Broadband – a better alternative for attracting new business, serving schools and public

Broadband is a term that loosely describes the wireless and fiber-optic cable means of transmitting data. For a forward looking nation – or county – the infrastructure to transmit an enormous number of terabytes is a must. Public services, schools, businesses and individuals will depend on it.

Recently, the Commission made a wise decision (it happens sometimes). Faced with a huge rise in broadband costs by Comcast, the County will explore public-private partnerships to invest millions of dollars in building its own broadband infrastructure. This must-have approach to spending big money is a far better investment for attracting new business and helping existing businesses to expand than tossing a million bucks into a Toolkit fund to (maybe) lure or bribe companies to come here.

Budget desperation – commissioners fail to specify cuts that will balance budget

Cutting valued public services is the third rail of local politics. It may be the toughest part of a Commissioner’s job, especially if he or she votes to cut a pet service of one group or another. At the 4-27-10 Commission budget workshop, commissioners talked and talked and talked, but they did not come up with any consensus about which specific services to cut. Senior staff needs the direction of a majority Commission decision in order to balance the budget.

We needed a 12.5% expense reduction to balance the budget, and we are half way there. Presumably it was mostly the fat that was eliminated. Now the challenge is to eliminate about $9 million more. Many of the suggestions made by commissioners were vague or pointless, a symptom of their frustration at their inability to come up with good solutions.

Valliere says to cut consultants. Which? What are the consequences? Heard says to cut salaries, but union members cannot be cut. Ciampi is reasonably worried about park vandalism, but that will not balance the budget. Hayes makes the useless comment that an employee who has to do more work because of staff reductions is the equivalent of a salary cut. We sympathize with all the commissioners. These are tough decisions. Budget discussions for the Constitutionals are still to come. It is unlikely the sheriff will come up with a 12.5% cut. Public hearings will come in September.

There were plenty of fee proposals from department heads. Probably the worst one was Fire/Rescue proposing that the ambulance charge be increased from about $550 to $1,000, the ride’s cost. Insurance may cover only $400. Of course, the patient’s taxes fund Fire/Rescue. Only Ciampi expressed opposition to this fee doubling.

Our suggestion is to close buildings on Fridays from April to October, when snowbirds are gone. Or at least May to September. This would save millions in both union and non-union salaries, while preventing layoffs. Also, the utility savings would be substantial. It seems preferable to closed fire stations, parks and libraries.

After all that, does anyone with even a microgram of responsibility in his being want to add $1 million/yr to County expenses by giving it to Business Development Board?

From Miami Herald – A dirty trick ready to backfire

The fate of the Department of Community Affairs, the state's final arbiter of growth management laws that ensure new development doesn't hopscotch outside designated urban areas. Every 10 years the Legislature reviews whether agencies are still warranted. This year, the DCA's review passed in the Senate, and after initial blocks in the House two committees gave the nod. Then came the roadblock.

With barely a week left in the session, the full House has yet to vote on the DCA's fate. Why? Because incoming House Speaker Dean Cannon has made no secret that he loathes growth management laws and the agency that stands between sprawl and sustainable growth so that schools, roads and sewer systems aren't overwhelmed. If nothing happens, DCA will be in limbo for another year.

Delaying DCA's reenactment likely will strengthen the case for those who back Hometown Democracy, Amendment 4, to the state Constitution. It would require local voters to decide on every new project [actually only land use changes] outside their community's designated urban areas.

Builders don't want this; neither does Mr. Cannon. Yet House stalling tactics can backfire. Call their intransigence a textbook case in the law of unintended consequences.

Future Group anti-Amendment 4 forum is a sham

The business/civic group Future Group is sponsoring a forum on April 29 to discuss Amendment 4. Most, if not all, of their members have already made up their minds to oppose this amendment. Four of the group’s six officers and directors have already expressed opposition, and the other two probably are also against. The meeting is more a rally than a forum. One of Future Group’s most active members, Toby Overdorf, has been appointed local head of the state business/developer group spending millions to oppose Amendment 4. So it is understandable why, faced with a strongly biased environment, supporters of Hometown Democracy’s Amendment 4 are staying away in droves from the Future Group forum. Their time is better spent with open minded people.

Weberman can’t resist violating Commission rules

At the start of every County Commission meeting, public speakers are advised that electioneering comments are not allowed. So what does Commission candidate Lee Weberman do when he steps up to the lectern? He deliberately electioneers - again – against Commissioner Heard, and had to be admonished by the chair. Do we want such a smart-a__ on the Commission – again?

Commisioner’s claim does not match facts

At the April 20 Commission meeting, Commissioner Ed Ciampi piously proclaimed from the dais that he takes the concerns of nearby neighbors very seriously, and listens to them, before he votes for Comp Plan land use changes. He then proceeded to vote for the new AgTec classification that converted 1,717 acres of agricultural land to industrial.

Ciampi neglected to mention that the Board of Directors of Stuart West, which is next door to that 1,717 acre parcel, formally pleaded with him, their supposed representative, as well as with Commissioners Smith and Hayes, not to support the change. Apparently the voices of about 1,000 residents were drowned out by the sound of campaign contribution money.

Historical quiz

Who said: This project will provide over 18,000 square feet of office space. This will provide jobs for our community. Congratulations to the NAC for bringing this project forward.

Answer -- LPA Member George Hine at the March 17, 2005, Local Planning Agency meeting in voting to approve the site plan for … RENAR RIVERPLACE.

[Thanks to Dave Bulk and Ginny Sherlock for the historical reminder.]

See an astounding YouTube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

+++++

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 Forman, Editor 4/29/10

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Martin County

Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 160

“Gang of 4” commissioners give away $1 million. Inevitable result will be higher property taxes and more severely reduced public services

The “Gang of 4” – Slicker Smith, Vinegar Hayes, Cluster Valliere and Gabber Ciampi – blew into town, looted the Piggy Bank of a million bucks for their BDB (Budget Destroyer Bosses), and holed up at their Monterey Road hideout. A Voter Posse is being formed.

Less fancifully ….

At the 5-4-10 meeting of the County Commission, Commissioners Doug Smith, Patrick Hayes, Susan Valliere and Ed Ciampi voted to siphon off $1 million of tax revenue for the Business Development Board (BDB) Toolkit to (maybe) attract new companies years hence. Since the County is desperately short of money, this well intentioned but foolish act will harm residents and small businesses. This is the final straw that breaks the budget’s back.

Only Commissioner Sarah Heard asked pointed, intelligent questions. Why $1 million instead of another figure? You say you cannot provide a financial analysis because all will be on a case by case basis, so why not hold off the allocation until the cases come up? Is the Toolkit more important than the services to be cut to pay for it? And so on. There were no clear answers. “We need real numbers,” Heard said.

Everybody wants more jobs, including us and the many people BDB organized to speak for the Toolkit. But to use that as a rallying cry, and to ignore the resulting service cuts and likely tax increase, as speakers and commissioners did, is irresponsible. First let’s see what BDB has accomplished with the $625,000 given to them this year, then maybe spend more.

Some commissioners did not seem to realize that their arguments in favor were actually reasons not to support the Toolkit. For example, Ciampi read a letter from a Palm City company that had grown from three employees to over 100. But that company did it without receiving Toolkit funds. Further, being here instead of being newly lured here will not get them any of that money.

Residents inevitably will face an extra $1 million worth of reductions in fire/rescue services, less road and drainage maintenance, fewer lifeguards, closed park facilities, and reduced library hours – all depreciating quality of life. For residents struggling to keep their homes out of foreclosure, the likely increase in property taxes, in addition to service reductions, will be a terrible burden.

Small businesses – repair shops, salons, restaurants and a host of retail stores – will suffer the same fate. The BDB funds would go to a few targeted industries, not local retail businesses.

Local business leaders support the $1million giveaway, which will lead to higher taxes. Yet they think this is pro-growth. Grow through more spending and taxes??? With this muddled mentality, there’s a place for them in the U.S. Congress majority.

Note this opinion by a leading local attorney:

“There is no legal authority for diverting general fund revenues to the Economic Development Fund.”

In addition, the “Gang of 4” also approved a referendum that would allow them to give away their tax exemption powers to the BDB, which can then exempt newly selected favorite companies from taxes for ten years. Existing businesses get short shrift.

A PARABLE: When your lifeboat is leaking, you bail faster and stuff the holes. That’s not the time to focus on planning new lifeboat designs.

Saddle up, pardner. It’s a long ride to the Polls, but we’ll remember what the Gang of 4 did to us. We’ll git ‘em before they spend us to death.

Stuart News support of $1M giveaway to BDB driven by pure motives (just kidding)

Sunday’s Stuart News editorial supported the Commission’s intent to give away $1 million of our property tax money to the Business Development Board (BDB). The editorial also criticized the DEFENDER and its editor for opposing the proposal. What it did not include were the solid reasons for our opposition to this big boost in government spending, or a believable response to them:

- It is unlikely that BDB will get results worth the money. What have we got to show for the millions poured into BDB in prior years? There is no independent, analytical audit of results, only anecdotes and esoteric formulas. (Note: In Brevard County, the BDB equivalent there claimed that it helped created 831 jobs since Oct. 2007. Actually, only 256 jobs have been expensively created.)

- There are only two ways to make up for the added $1 million expense: Raise property taxes and/or cut public services worse than they’ve been cut.

MOTIVATION FOR THE IRRESPONSIBLE EDITORIAL

One possibility is the simplistic philosophy that whatever is good for business is good for everybody. Were that true, there would be no need for laws regulating zoning, licensing, honest advertising, minimum wage, collusive price fixing, insurance, and worker safety, to name a few of the many things needed to protect the public.

The second possibility is that the newspaper stands to gain more advertising by appeasing business leaders seeking subsidies for corporations. The Stuart News fails to confront the consequences of taking $1million-plus/yr out of public services that will be severely cut even without siphoning off that tax money.

There is supposed to be a wall between the business side and the editorial side of newspapers, but that wall may be more penetrable than the one between Mexico and Arizona. After all, the top guy who can fire people is on the business side of the wall, apprehensive editors and writers on the other side.

The disclaimer at the end of the editorial states: “President and Publisher Bob Brunjes is a member of the Business Development Board and editorial board of this newspaper. He had no involvement in the editorial deliberations on this issue.”

Before commenting on the validity of that statement, it should be noted that though we read of the Brunjes appointment to the BDB board months ago, the BDB website still does not include him among its 29 directors. A stealth director? Or a disorganized BDB? Strange.

Like many newspapers that have suffered huge losses in advertising and subscribers, the Stuart News is struggling to survive. A key part of the survival effort has been layoffs of personnel. So even if Brunjes was not physically present at editorial board deliberations, his preferences – and power to fire – were present.

We want the Stuart News not only to survive, but to prosper. We’d pay double for a subscription. However, in order to prosper the paper must place the greater public good as its top priority, rather than just a favored portion of the business community. We also want to thank the paper for mentioning us. It gained us some more subscribers who’d rather not have fewer services and more taxes.

Political shenanigans at the School Board

The more we look into what has gone on behind the scenes at the School Board, the more convinced we become of the need to clean house.

We’ve all been told, time and again, what a fine superintendent Sara Wilcox was for 14 years before Nancy Kline brought her supposedly uncooperative attitude to the job. What we were not told was the political work Wilcox did for School Board members to endear herself. Nor were we told that when Kline was on the Board, she alone questioned some of those excessive school construction costs..

The DEFENDER has acquired a copy of an email, dated March 3, 2008, from Wilcox to her secretary. The letter was written as a promotion and financial solicitation for Board member David Anderson, who was running for election that year. The letter’s close states:

“I need your vote in August, 2008! I, also, need your active support and participation in my campaign. Please help me to continue to serve the students and taxpayers of Martin County by making a financial contribution to my campaign.”

In another email from Wilcox to her secretary, also dated March 3, 2008, Wilcox explained that she had spoken with David Anderson, who may call to request information that could be used in the letter. “We can always reproduce the stats.” In other words, Wilcox instructed her secretary to help Anderson in his political campaign while she was at work in school facilities.

INVITATION TO A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PARTY

DEFENDER has also acquired a recording, dated Dec. 2008, of a message left by School Board member Lorie Shekailo on Wilcox’s cell phone. The phone, with its undeleted message, was now in the hands of the new superintendent. [Note: Superintendent Kline had no knowledge of our acquisition of this recording.]

The recorded message invites Wilcox to a dinner party hosted by Morganti, a construction company that has dominated Martin’s school construction. Between 2002 and 2009, Morganti accounted for about 42% of the $265 million spent on school construction. The message also states: “Nancy [Kline] is not coming.” Shekailo is up for re-election this year.

Remember: You read it first in the DEFENDER!

County needs to fix its email system

Many residents are upset over the sprawl-inducing Comp Plan changes passed by the Commission majority to accommodate their developer campaign contributors. However, too few know the technical legal designations of these planning atrocities. Nor do they know the addresses of state officials to whom their objections should be directed.

When we provided this information to part of the DEFENDER list, dozens upon dozens of civic minded residents immediately emailed their views to state officials and also to County commissioners. Since such emails become public records, they are posted online. Most of the resident emails were posted without a problem. However, some senders received a disturbing, and seemingly arbitrary rejection response:

“Your mail to 'Commissioners' with the subject Petition to Intervene is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.

“The reason it is being held: Too many recipients to the message. Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision.”

Just a modest 17 recipients were included, only two of them in Martin. Other senders were given a different reason for essentially the same email: “Message has implicit destination,” whatever the heck that means. Martin’s Information Technology (IT) is very good usually. So clear up this botch promptly IT if you want to restore your reputation.

Listening to nuances at the Commission

How’s your ear for social subtleties? If you listen to commissioners on the dais addressing County department heads, they often do so by first name. It’s usually Steve, Nicki, David, Kevin and Don when addressing the County Attorney, Growth Management Director, Director of Administration, Community Redevelopment Director, County Engineer, and so on. But when the commissioners address the Acting County Administrator, it’s usually Miz Kryzda. Good going, Taryn. We take it as a sign of recognition that they’re lucky to have someone who knows what she’s doing - especially when commissioners may not have a clue.

Weberman mi$$e$ public debate

One of the first kick-off Commission candidate debates for 2010 was held at the Lost Lake Clubhouse. District 4 incumbent Sarah Heard faced off against challenger Don Pickard. Candidate Lee Weberman missed the debate because he preferred to attend a dinner sponsored by the Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce. Lots of business/developer contributors to Doug Smith’s campaign would be there for Weberman to sidle up to. To citizens attending the debate, his absence seemed like a statement of his priorities.

Note to a high school student

Dear RJ Schaffer:

Stuart News columnist Eve Samples wrote an excellent piece about you, what a fine student you are, and the hard time Martin County High School officials are giving you. They want to bar you from running for class president for two reasons: (1) You did a clean, funny little dance to show student voters you’re an OK guy. (2) You initiated your campaign online a little before the rules allowed.

RJ, a go-getter like you deserves to be elected. It would be unfortunate for the school to disqualify you, but don’t let that discourage you. One day, when you grow up, you can become a County Commissioner. Then you can do all kinds of foolish things. You can be found guilty of violating the election laws and still not be disqualified. You can even run for re-election. School rules are much tougher than adult political rules.

Al Forman

+++++

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 Forman, Editor 5/6/10