The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 171
Valliere to sue Forman – an attempt to suppress free speech for political purpose
On Jan. 25, 2010, I received a certified letter from Commissioner Susan Valliere that started with the following:
Dear Mr. Forman:
This letter is to put you on legal notice that I regard statements made by you in your e-mail newsletter, The Martin County Defender, to be libelous and defamatory and made with malicious intent, and that I intend at an appropriate future date to initiate legal action against you.
This paragraph is followed by two pages of claims. Here is my reply:
Dear Mrs. Valliere:
Your letter dated June 23, 2010 states your intent to sue me for defamation. The letter with its hysterical rant then proceeds to include two pages of false allegations, non-sequiturs, thin-skinned reaction to legitimate criticism, and a bald-faced lie for good measure. I never defamed you. I simply told the truth about your disgraceful voting record.
Your threat is clearly a pathetic attempt to intimidate me into not exercising my First Amendment rights of free speech and free press. Like others with phony claims before you in my long experience as an editor, you will fail. Despite what you want, the public has a right to be informed about the “coincidence” of your votes that are consistent with the wishes of any of your campaign contributors.
The reason for your legal threat is obvious. In my opinion, your campaign for re-election is suffering from the revelations in the DEFENDER of how your votes have harmed Martin County and its people. Your lawsuit will not save you. On the contrary, more residents will recognize that your abuse of legal process is just one more reason to consider you unfit for office – in addition to your conviction for violating election laws. Your baseless action poisons Martin’s political process.
I do admit that if you proceed with your lawsuit, it may serve one constructive purpose. It will allow me to depose under oath you and contributors to your campaign and to your husband’s PAC. Such testimony about your conversations with those supporters, and any understandings arrived at, will be illuminating for all. You are hereby placed on notice not to destroy any related documents or communications under your control as you will be requested to produce them.
For now, the best course of action for residents is to vote for Ed Fielding in the August 24 Republican primary. Not only is he far better qualified than you, but he would never sue anyone as a political tactic.
Yours truly,
Al Forman, Editor
The Martin County DEFENDER
ATTENTION DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS!
Have you preserved your vote?
As explained in DEFENDER No. 170, because of a stupid Florida election law, the filing of a lone No Party Affiliation (NPA) and a lone Write-In candidate in Districts 2 and 4 disallows Democrats and Independents from voting for commissioners. [NOTE: A simple rule, that one party’s primary would become closed only if a primary were filed by a second party which previously garnered a minimum of votes, would prevent disenfranchising half of Martin voters.]
Residents are not as ignorant as political manipulators may like to think. More Democrats and Independents are temporarily changing affiliation to Republican so they can vote. Preserving our quality of life is not a matter of party principles. All they need to do is get a Voter Registration Application from the library, or make a phone request from the Supervisor of Elections (772-288-5637) to mail them a copy.
IMPORTANT: Deadline for party switching is July 26, 2010.
Some Democrats foolishly say they can’t bring themselves to become a Republican, even for two months. This is childish emotional nonsense. A political party is not a religion for God’s sake! Preserve your vote …. and do what’s best for our community.
READERS ARE MAKING THE PARTY SWITCH
Here is a sampling of some typical reader comments by those who have switched - for now – to the Republican Party.
“"I made the switch from NPA to Republican. I will vote against any present commissioner except Sarah Heard.” Reader B.W.
“Closing the primaries put me on the sidelines. I switched (begrudgingly) from unaffiliated to Republican.” Reader Z.C.
“Thank you for the reminder. My party change went in the mail today.” – Reader E.A.
REMINDER: Though commissioners nominally represent a district, all County voters voter for all commissioners (as long as you’re registered Republican).
Do you support Amendment 4?
PUBLISHED AS HALF OF A “DEBATE IN PRINT” IN THE JUNE 27, 2010 Stuart News
Yes, ignore falsehoods; this proposal empowers average residents
By Al Forman
Guest columnist
Constitutional Amendment 4 allows residents to have a voice on how our community grows. 700,000 grassroots petitions put it on the November ballot. Residents acted to protect our environment and quality of life.
Land speculators and developer/business lobbyists are desperate to prevent Floridians from having a veto over the kind of unrestrained development that has slashed home values, increased taxes, and devastated the economy. Ripping us off has become their way of life for so long.
Before examining how Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 benefits you, and how the smart money operators with politicians in their pockets are trying to oppose needed reform, let’s look at the official summary:
“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 misinterpretations by developer puppets and dupes. Note “land use” is the only element mentioned. The full amendment states it seven times.
“Land use” refers to the rules embedded in our Comprehensive Plan concerning the kind of use for different parcels. The Plan guides us to rational utilization of land so a chemical factory does not newly adjoin a residential neighborhood. The only thing that stands between the two uses is the decision of County Commissioners, plus easy review by the state. Most commissioners are indebted to the developer interests that contribute to their political campaigns.
Only after the Commission has approved a Comprehensive Plan land use change will it go to referendum at the next election. Residents will have the chance to ask questions and study the changes. If it sounds good, vote yes. If it will harm the environment, ruin the neighborhood, overcrowd, or require too much costly infrastructure, then let the developers build on the thousands of lots where such use is already allowed.
The vote will be close. A poll showed a little over 60% of voters favor Amendment 4 (60% required to pass). Developer/ business interests are raising $15 million to try to defeat it. In desperation, they are concocting blatant lies to scare people. Some examples:
FALSEHOOD: Amendment 4 will cost jobs. FACT: It will provide stability that promotes steady job growth.
FALSEHOOD: People will have to vote on everything. FACT: Only land use changes are covered, not routine rezoning and variances.
FALSEHOOD: A law like this failed in St. Pete Beach. FACT: That law, promoted by developers wanting high rise apartments, was completely different.
FALSEHOOD: Comp Plan changes are too complicated for voters. FACT: Condescending! Most Martin residents are smarter than most commissioners.
FALSEHOOD: Referenda undermine republican government. FACT: Thomas Jefferson’s words: “The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government the ingredient of republicanism.” Listen to Ronald Reagan: “I congratulate you on your effort to attain the right to initiative and referendum.”
As a responsible citizen and taxpayer, you need and deserve a seat at the decision making table. Amendment 4 will make that happen. Vote YES.
An interesting school budget proposal
The wrangling about the School District budget is frustrating. The superintendent wants to include a small millage increase. The Board majority says NO (some members are running for re-election), but they have no plan on what can be cut to make up the shortfall. Then Chair Shekailo pulls a constructive budget presentation by Superintendent Kline off the agenda.
So we’re pleased to see a series of proposals by School Board member Maura Barry-Sorenson. The most interesting proposal focuses on the Construction Budget. This is what she has to say in part:
As a result of the District’s ambitious facilities construction plan, our facilities
expenditures have increased by 130% in four short years or roughly 32% per year since
2006 – a time when student enrolled was higher. The District’s construction costs must be trimmed to the 2006 level by cutting unnecessary construction contracts by $10 million by Fiscal Year 2012.
To ensure our 2011 budget meets the District’s financial and educational needs, we must reduce the Capital Improvement Tax by 33% from 1.5 mills to 1 mill. This will allow the School District to authorize a one‐time .25 mill operational tax increase and provide the taxpayers of
Martin County with a net tax rate reduction of 5%. There is adequate unreserved fund
balance in our capital fund to meet all immediate capital obligations.
BUT HOW WILL THE BUILDERS WHO CONTRIBUTE SO GENEROUSLY TO CAMPAIGNS FEEL ABOUT THAT?
A County complex on East Ocean – consider traffic
A government building center on East Ocean Boulevard is incessantly pushed by Commissioner Smith and Stuart Mayor Mortel. They are not inclined to focus on the high cost to taxpayers and the serious disruption to the operations of the Supervisor of Elections and the Tax Collector, who have good reasons to stay where they are.
Another point overlooked in the discussions is traffic. On a few occasions, we have been near the courthouse around lunchtime. The traffic is horrendous. Neither drivers or pedestrians are spared. Crossing the street is like playing Russian Roulette. Imagine if we added a huge government complex to the immediate area.
Of Blackner, Overdorf, SpongeBob and Krabs
In her June 21 speech at the Blake, Hometown Democracy President Lesley Blackner used a famous quote by the money-grubbing Mr. Krabs character on SpongeBob. She was referring in an entertaining way to how developers buy their way to influence over commissioners. This apparently upset business advocate Toby Overdorf, who tweeted his followers: “So I was at a speech by Lesley Blackner last night and she is now using quotes from SPONGE BOB SQUAREPANTS to promote Amendment 4 – REALLY.”
Lighten up, Toby. And next time include the actual Mr. Krabs quote that so discombobulated you – even if it touches a tender spot with some of your buddies: “The money is always right.”
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: editor@martincountydefender.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 6/29/10
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:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 172
NOTE TO READERS
The following item was written prior to Valliere’s June 23, 2010 letter, wherein she told Forman she was going to sue him for defamation. We do not know if she gained prior knowledge about this report from third parties, or if it triggered her letter in an attempt to silence Forman.
This report was scheduled for publication in the prior DEFENDER, but was bumped to make room for our response to Valliere’s lawsuit threat. It is unchanged, except for the addition of the asterisk (*) update footnote re “Gang of 4.”
District 2 Commission race
The August 24, 2010 Republican Primary election is going to determine who will be the next commissioner from District 2. The election pits incumbent Susan Valliere against challenger Ed Fielding.
The contrast between the two is stark in terms of background, campaign contributions, and attitudes toward, growth, contracts, spending transparency, tax shifting, citizen control, and other issues.
The following comparison will make clear why we strongly support Ed Fielding.
BACKGROUND
Valliere: Has served for eight years as County Commissioner from District 2. Was involved in 1990s with husband James in various companies, now inactive; ran small retail business.
Fielding: BS Univ. of Florida; MS Mass. Institute of Technology; served on Local; Planning Agency for four years; Senior Vice‐President, Flagship Bank (Sun Trust); Agricultural Loan Officer, Exchange National Bank Tampa (Bank of America); Broker, General Realty & Finance Corp; market research for Concept Group; general manager of 12,000 acre Belle Glade farm, 50 full time & 400 seasonal workers.
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Valliere: She has stated: “I will accept contributions from everyone”; last election heavily financed by developer-related interests; expected to have much larger campaign treasury than opponent.
Fielding: He has stated: “I’m the financial underdog”; will not accept contributions from developers.
ACCOMMODATING DEVELOPER GROWTH REQUESTS
Valliere: Though not as completely submissive to developer land use changes as other “Gang of 4” * members Smith, Hayes and Ciampi, Valliere has voted in favor of most requests to increase development by changing Comp Plan; authored Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment to facilitate western development.
Fielding: As a member of LPA, voted against all land use Comp Plan changes that could cause sprawl, conversion to industrial or higher residential density.
FIRE/RESCUE AND BDB CONTRACTS
Valliere: Two contracts issued by the County, Valliere voting in favor, have put Martin in financial harm’s way. While other jobs have been cut or salaries reduced by furlough, the fire union got everything it wanted. (NOTE: Union members worked for Valliere’s 2006 election.) The Business Development Board (BDB) contract she approved is so clearly a sweetheart deal, that it is a scandal. (BDB supporters contributed heavily to Valliere’s campaign.)
Fielding: Using his extensive management experience, Fielding would never approve such contracts.
SPENDING TRANSPARENCY
Valliere: BDB exec Ron Bunch refuses to reveal how he is spending $625,000 of tax money. Valliere supports this illegal secrecy by refusing to second a motion to audit BDB books. BDB contract includes fiction that BDB finances are not public records.
Fielding: He strongly supports total transparency on County activities, especially the spending of tax revenue such as BDB.
TAX SHIFTING
Valliere: She has repeatedly voted to exempt developer/business allies from paying fees and taxes. Examples include Impact Fee cuts and BDB-inspired targeted property tax exemptions. The resulting tax deficit means higher taxes for residents and small businesses. Worse yet, her approving a $1 million diversion of property taxes to BDB makes it inevitable that vital public services will be more deeply cut, and the tax rate increased.
Fielding: Will not give away tax benefits to campaign contributors. Rather he wants the lowest possible property taxes, consistent with good public services.
CITIZEN CONTROL
Valliere: She refused to second a motion to put the $1 million BDB giveaway to referendum.
Fielding: He opposes the $1 million BDB giveaway, but would support a referendum to learn if residents want it. Further, he supports Amendment 4, which allows voters to decide on land use changes to the Comp Plan. That would give residents a voice on how the community grows.
DISOBEYING THE LAW
Valliere: The record does not show highest respect for the election law. She was found guilty of election law violations and fined. Her protestations that it was just a paperwork error is belied by the decision of Judge Robert E. Meale: “Petitioners [Florida Elections Commission] established an intentional wrongful act in each of the three proved violations … The evidence in these cases is sufficient to prove an intentional act of wrongdoing under the more straightforward meaning of willfull …The fines for the two counts that Petitioner has proved against Ms. Valliere and one count against Mr. Valliere should be the maximum allowed by law, given the seriousness of three of the violations and the lack of good faith.”
Fielding He has been called a “Boy Scout” in part because he is known not to skirt or bend the law. The Commission could benefit with more of that attitude.
* Gang of 4” is an expression, widely known in Martin County and across the world. It originated in 20th Century China. Four high officials acting on parallel courses were attempting to rule the country. Valliere erroneously accused Forman of using the word “gang” to connote “illegal, immoral or illicit” activity. Apparently she was ignorant of the historic origin of the expression.
Clearly, Fielding would serve the people of Martin County – rather than special interests - far better than Valliere.
Readers comment on Valliere letter
[EDITOR’S NOTE: A sampling of unsolicited emails received. Though we have many hundreds of readers who oppose our political views, not a single one supported Valliere’s intention to sue. Our sincere thanks to all who wrote.]
“Good stuff Al. Thanks for standing up to Valliere. She tried the same thing with one of my letters to the editor.” Reader C.D.
“Keep up the good work! “ Reader J.P.
“It is all but impossible for someone running for office to claim libel. I sat through a fair portion of her hearing on election law violations, and it was a result of sloppy paperwork that she got off as light as she did.” - Reader V.J.
“Keep up the good work. Without your light shining on the political games being played by the M.C. commissioners for financial gain, God knows where we would end up.” – Reader J.H.
“Is she nuts?” – Reader L.A.
“Thanks for your stand on the Truth. If you accept contributions for a defense fund, tell me how.” – Reader P.C.
“I am very sorry that she is giving you a hard time and hope that she does not go ahead. You have the support of a large group of citizens.” - Reader J.
“Bravo! These attempts to subvert your freedom of speech and your newsletter which is so informative, is demonstrative of the character and duplicity of commissioner Valliere. Thanks for all your effort on our part. Keep up the truth!” – Reader D.D.
“Mrs. Valliere has proved to be worse than first I thought.” – Reader A.F.
“Good for you. Don't cave. We are behind your efforts. I hope she and a few others get a rude awaking come Aug.” – Reader S.M.
“Bullies feel a sense of entitlement. You are handling Valliere appropriately.” – Reader R.S.
“Excellent response to Valliere. I am in awe of your publication of misdeeds and unwanted actions harming our town. Keep up the pressure.” - Reader R.M.
“Stuff that arrogant b - - - - !” – Reader S.R.
“By all means, let us vote into office a person who does not even understand the meaning of the First Amendment. I guess you are really hitting a nerve, Al. Keep up the good work.” – Reader J.T.
“Wow, that shows her true colors. She wants to suppress free speech. Typical of a dirty politician.” - Reader W.J.
“I was sorry to read about the attempted lawsuit against you by Com Valliere. Your response letter to her was excellent.” – Reader M.F.
“HaHa. That just means you are being very effective. Keep pounding these people and maybe the scum will stop rising to the top. If you need a foot soldier sign me up!” – Reader S.
“Your reply to Susan Valliere made my day!” – Reader S.B.
“I think Valliere has gone too far. I see her "notice" as being an attempt to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I received a similar threat of a SLAPP suit in the past and felt my rights were violated too, so I am sensitive to this tactic of abusing the law to silence opposition.” – Reader L.C.
FORMER DEMOCRAT COMMISSION CANDIDATE SWITCHES TO REPUBLICAN SO SHE CAN VOTE IN AUG. 24 PRIMARY
“I take this opportunity to inform the Martin County Democratic Executive Committee of my intent to temporarily register as a republican in order to vote for my choice of Martin County Commission candidates in the upcoming primary election.” – Martha Bennett
DEMOCRATS & INDEPENDENTS: Have you saved your right to vote by switching party affiliation temporarily to Republican? Forms at the library or Elections office (288-5637). Deadline July 26.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Attached to this issue
Summaries of DCA Objections to
Commission Comp Plan Changes
(See discussion immediately below)
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Commission and staff did a terrible job on Comp Plan changes – objectors were right
In April 2010, the Commission majority wrapped up its multi-million dollar gift to bubble building developers by approving the land use Comp Plan changes that campaign contributors had applied for. (Some changes can increase values for landowners five or ten times.) The Amendments were sent off for approval to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) over the objections of environmentalists, anti-sprawl advocates, and the DEFENDER. The Growth Management staff, ever mindful that it was prudent not to ruffle commissioner feathers in this day of layoffs and unemployment, provided the script.
Now DCA has returned a 23-page ORC report (Objections, Recommendations and Comments), dated June 25, that savages those Amendments to the Comp Plan with 14 objections that parallel those made by speakers at Commission meetings. The St. Lucie Partners and Canopus Sound proposals? “Do not adopt the amendments. Alternatively, revise the amendments,” says the DCA ORC. Urban sprawl, water quality, Everglades restoration, and transportation shortcomings are among the objectionable provisions cited.
Most important, DCA says the Commission has not shown the need for these changes that expand development capacity. Similar DCA responses apply to
Sunrise Groves AgTec conversion of ag land to industrial, and Service Nodes in our rural west. These projects were also were rejected.
The full ORC is ponderous reading, so we have snipped out four pages of excerpts and put them in the attachment to this issue. They kind of summarize the highlights. Read ‘em and weep for what the Commission majority has been doing to our beloved county. Only commissioner Sarah Heard had the principled insight to oppose developer demands.
On August 10, Gang of 4 commissioners will put on their “Developers First” hats and try to work out ways to get around the DCA objections – which are much the same as the objections of concerned citizens who addressed commissioners. Yuk!
BDB spending thousands of tax dollars for lawyers to prevent taxpayers from seeing how any tax money is being spent
This wasteful and irresponsible action meets with the approval of Gang of 4 Commissioners Smith, Ciampi, Hayes and Valliere. Time to muck out the Commission stable!
+++++
THOUGHTS FOR INDEPENDENCE DAY
America is the greatest force for good in the world.
We should be thankful that we live here.
We must preserve our liberty and environment.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: editor@martincountydefender.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 7/3/10
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:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 173
Stuart News is a mish-mash of excellent and poor journalism
The editorial department at the Stuart News has a structure common to many daily newspapers. There is one editor (Mark Tomasik) for the news gathering operation, and a different editor (Larry Reisman) for the opinion operation that includes the editorial, letters and op-ed pages. Both editors are smart and able professionals. But that does not mean that all of their policies and attitudes do them credit.
THE NEWS OPERATION
On the plus side of the news operation is a staff of highly competent field reporters who carefully dig out the detailed facts about important matters at the County Commission, School District Board, Property Appraiser, Sheriff, Fire/Rescue, Stuart City Government, sport activities, and major businesses, to name just a few sources. We would be a poorly informed citizenry without that news flow.
That the editor elevates some inconsequential tidbits to front page status, we can chalk up to style or personal preference. Less benign are some policies on what the paper will not cover. One we recently encountered is the story of Commissioner Valliere stating that she would sue DEFENDER editor Al Forman for defamation. It’s obvious to most people with a brain that she does not have a legal leg to stand on, but that’s not the story. The story that could seriously impact Martin County is the use of Litigation Harassment Politics as an election tactic designed to intimidate critics into silence. Thousands of DEFENDER readers now know of this political intrigue, and many are incensed about her assault on free speech.
However, you will not find a word about it in the Stuart News. Their readers have been kept in the dark. It’s not that this wouldn’t make an interesting story. A tale of a legal threat used to influence an election can be gripping. It’s not that the subject is unimportant, because if the legal intimidation tactic succeeds – it has been tried by Valliere before - it would be used more often. No, the reason you will never see such an article in print – until she actually files suit – is because that is the editor’s rigid policy.
What if the threat of a lawsuit causes harm? Sorry the policy is not a word in the paper until the suit is filed. To us, depriving readers of news they should have is not good journalism.
THE OPINION OPERATION
Every time we see a well-conceived editorial or a Letter to the Editor strongly critical of the paper, our thought is that’s good journalism. Ditto when we see a “debate in print” on a controversial subject, or the liberal-conservative national column balance. The editorial pages are functioning as a public forum.
When we see a tell-it-like-it-is editorial on the disenfranchising of over half of the voter population by a slick closing of the Republican primary:
“OUR VIEW – Election tactic oozes sleaze – Filing candidacy merely to close primary is legal but reeks of underhanded politics” [Stuart News, July 2, 2010],
we cheer Right On! That’s bold, quality journalism.
But then along comes staff columnist Rich Campbell’s ridiculously foolish comments in an opinion piece claiming that Virginia Sherlock’s lawsuit to require BDB to comply with the Public Records law causes disruption “which may be the ulterior motive of those lobbying against the board.” Not a shred of evidence is offered to support that unjustifiable claim.
Or more recently in his blog, Campbell spouts some drivel about the closing of the primary to Democrats and Independents: “What do some (many?) Democratic Party members in Martin County value more than Democratic Party principles? Quashing growth and preserving the status quo in Martin County.” That is definitely not quality journalism … or intelligent thought.
PARTING SHOT
In an age of decline for all traditional newspapers, the precept put forth a century ago by journalist Finley Peter Dunne could go a long way to making newspaper contributions to society more meaningful:
“The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
Sucking up to contributor-hungry politicians and business leaders wearing “Developers First” hats does not make the cut.
First look at likely 2011 budget - 6% tax increase, onerous cuts in services
The 2010 budget will be finalized in September, but on July 19-21, Commission workshops will consider staff proposals that will set the pattern for a balanced budget. With property tax collections down, staff is proposing both a tax increase and substantial cuts in services:
→ Proposed tax increase – 6%
→ Proposed spending cuts – almost $8 million
Of course, more spending cuts would mean a smaller tax increase, and vice-versa. Among the service cuts proposed are: over $372,000 from the library budget (library branches open only three days per week) and about $242,000 taken out of the parks and recreation budget (park closings, less cleaning of toilets).
These tax increases and/or service cuts would be less severe were it not for the $1 million giveaway to the Business Development Board. Supporters of this diversion of tax revenue include Gang of 4 Commissioners Smith, Ciampi, Hayes and Valliere, and Commission candidates Weberman and Pickard. That’s worth remembering at the August 24 Republican primary.
Welcome land speculators. Commission’s land use changes will make you rich!
The following are verbatim excerpts from a current real estate listing:
“Land For Sale … Beach Rd. & Bridge Road, Hobe Sound … Price $7,900,000 … 58.50 AC … Last Verified 6/21/2010 Listing ID 16731048 … First Exit North of Palm Beach County. Possible Future Florida Turnpike Exit … A-1 Permitting 1 Unit Per 2 Acres, but Land Use is Agricultural 1 Unit per 20 Acres. Possible Change to Ranchettes of 1 Unit Per 5 Acres. Land Use and Zoning Permits about 18 Acres to be Expressway Oriented Transient Commercial Service Centers … Great Development Site. Ideally Located Between I-95 and the Florida Turnpike. Level Pastureland with a 1 Acre Lake and 7.1 Acres of Beautiful Cypress Trees. Ideal for Industrial or Ranchettes.(Scripps not far away) Martin County Approval of Zoning and Land Use change (September date) Required and Controversial. Transient Commercial Zoning Available. Sellers are Selling "As-Is", 90 day closing with no contingencies.”
And there may be enough profit to contribute generously to the campaigns of accommodating commissioners.
In the minds of political party hacks – an exercise in imaginative thinking
Hack R
We’ll game the system by putting up shill candidates to close the primary to half of all voters. Heh, heh, heh.
What’s that? They’re counter-gaming us by switching parties? No fair.
Party before community.
Adopt non-partisan commission primaries like they do with school board and judges? It’s a commie-Taliban plot to undermine America.
Hack D
Huh? Switch party affiliation? That’s like changing my religion.
Me become a Republican for a month? My friends won’t speak to me.
Party before community.
Adopt non-partisan commission primaries like they do with school board and judges? It’s a fascist-Taliban plot to undermine America.
DEMOCRATS & INDEPENDENTS: Have you saved your right to vote by switching party affiliation temporarily to Republican? Forms at the library or by mail from the Elections office (288-5637). Deadline July 26.
DO-NOTHING INERTIA HELPS VALLIERE, HURTS HEARD!
A “Hail Mary” defense in the Valliere appeal
On June 30, oral argument was heard by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in the Florida Elections Commission (FEC) cases against Susan Valliere and Jim Valliere. The two had previously been found guilty of election law violations. Susan Valliere’s attorney, Mark Herron, argued among other things that the FEC does not have jurisdiction over this case because of a new statute that went into effect after the complaint was filed by Donna Melzer. That law limits the FEC to investigating complaints which are made on the basis of "personal knowledge" or "personal information" which is not hearsay.
According to Mr. Herron, unless a complainant personally witnesses a violation, the law does not permit the FEC to investigate it. The appeals judges may possibly have thought that this goes beyond the intent of the statute. Here is how some Q&A went:
Judge Robert Gross asked this question: “If a citizen overhears a candidate telling another person, ‘I drained all the money from my campaign account and went out and bought a new Porsche,’ would the citizen be able to file a complaint that the FEC could investigate?”
Attorney Herron said: “No, since the citizen would have no personal knowledge of the misuse of campaign funds. The FEC couldn't even look into the matter.”
Judge Martha Warner asked: “So you're saying the FEC can't investigate unless the citizen actually saw the candidate write out a check, take it to the Porsche dealer, and drive away in the new car?”
Attorney Herron responded: “Yes.”
A court decision on the appeal may come next month. It will be interesting to see if Herron’s position is as unreasonable to the judges as it is to us.
Mardi Gras for the Indian Riverkeeper
On Saturday, July 17, 2010, from 7:00 to 10:00 pm, a Mardi Gras style celebration in support of Indian Riverkeeper George Jones will be held at River Palms Cottages, 2325 NE Indian River Drive, Jensen Beach. It will feature Cajun cuisine from Crawdaddy’s, music and drinks. Donation $70 will enable Jones to continue his vital work. Tickets at Snook Nook. Contact: Jay Honan – 285-5884 or email iamkayakboy@comcast.net.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: editor@martincountydefender.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 7/9/10
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:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 174
CONNECTING THE PAY-TO-PLAY DOTS …..
. . . . . from BDB directors’ campaign contributions to your tax payments going to BDB subsidies for favored companies
How did $1 million of property tax revenue get siphoned off for Business Development Board (BDB) “ToolKit” to subsidize a few favored companies?
How did a tax abatement stimulus for a few favored companies get placed on the August 24 ballot as a referendum item?
Those giveaways, which unfairly burden taxpaying residents and small businesses, got there by buying influence with officials – legally, through campaign contributions and lobbying. It’s the American way, from unions and Wall Street bankers getting President Obama to do their bidding, to developer-business promoters getting Martin County commissioners to do their bidding.
It’s rare that a politician explicitly promises on tape to vote a certain way in exchange for money. That would be illegal, as various commissioners from Palm Beach and other counties can attest as they sit in prison. However, there is no need for any written or oral promises. Unspoken understandings, or a wink and nod, can seal the bargain.
Again, it’s perfectly legal. That’s how special interests get what they want – and taxpayers foot the bill. By putting campaign contributions in the sunshine, voters can decide if the matchup between an elected official’s vote and the desires of campaign contributors is an uninfluenced concurrence, or financially bought influence.
BDB DIRECTORS LOBBY AND CONTRIBUTE
When the Commission was considering the ToolKit $1 million and the Aug. 24 tax abatement referendum, some BDB directors appeared before them, lobbying their support for these measures. It could not be lost on the commissioners that this group collectively represented a sizable amount of contribution money. Here are the “dots” taxpayers need to connect.
Dot #1 . BDB directors – the great majority of them developer-business boosters - contributed over $27,000 to the campaign funds of the four commissioners that do BDB’s bidding. That is the minimum easily traceable amount, since it is extremely difficult to trace contributions that circumvent legal limits by donating through friends, relatives, and business associates.
Dot #2 . . BDB directors and staff submit proposals to the Commission to divert tax revenue to subsidies for select corporations, and to give them tax exemptions.
Dot #3 . . . Key BDB directors and executive director appear before the Commission - a visual and aural reminder of where campaign money came from. Some company employees are “encouraged” to write letters of support.
Dot #4 . . . . Gang of 4 Commissioners Smith, Ciampi, Hayes and Valliere approve $1 million BDB giveaway over citizen objections. The law says they can’t do the same with the Tax Exemption. It must go to Referendum, and they vote to do so.
Dot #5 . . . . . Resident and small business taxpayers are stuck with the bill.
A HOPEFUL BEAM OF LIGHT: Voters can still vote NO on the August 24 Tax Exemption Referendum.
NOTE: A similar pay-to-play scenario has accompanied many of the Commission approvals of Comp Plan amendments that harm the County, but benefit influential developers and large landowners.
We asked a few readers this question:
Do you think political campaign contributions made by Business Development Board (BDB) directors to County Commissioners had any influence in their approving the $1 million diversion of tax revenue to the BDB “ToolKit”?
Replies:
“Yes. BDB should be paid by the businesses in Martin County. Taxpayer money should not be spent.” – Walter Bell
"I think we have had a cabal of pro development commissioners for some time and they have traded favors with those development interests - witness the extra $1 million given in hard budget times." - George C. Kaiser
“It seems pay-to-play is what political leaders favor. Integrity is out of the question. They do what is good for their position, not what is good for the community.” – Henry Caimotto
“Of course, contributions by BDB members to county commissioners influence them! Most of us have limited resources for political contributions and careful thought goes into each contribution. Candidates don't have a large pool of prospective contributors, and appeal to people with a vested interest at this level!” - Jim Tonra
NOTE: Above respondents include a local retail business owner, a retired businessman, and two residents of unknown to us occupation. A realtor declined to answer.
False accusations and false job promises
Some supporters of siphoning off tax revenue, and giving it to a few select corporations, are upset with those of us who do not want to burden residents with higher taxes and further reductions in service. They have made the false accusation that we are anti-business. This is a contemptible lie. We want business to prosper.
DEFENDER has supported the doubling of the BDB budget to $625,000 (though not for paying BDB’s executive director almost double the national average for the job). We also support LSTAR, the innovative effort to bring life sciences technology to Martin. We continue to support business – but not at the cost of higher taxes, waste and fewer public services.
The spend-spend-spend advocates for business subsidies promise that their proposals will bring jobs. Everyone wants more jobs, so some well-intentioned residents are misled into supporting the diversion of tax revenues. Politicians make promises they cannot keep.
Obama promised that $780 billion in stimulus funds would slash unemployment, but that has not happened. Commissioners promised that dropping almost all Impact Fees would bring construction jobs, but that was a mirage. Doubling the BDB budget was supposed to bring many jobs, but we now know that was hot air talk. And how many of the paltry number of jobs created with Martin tax money went to residents outside of Martin County … or would have come without all that expense because of Martin’s attractive quality of life, fine schools, etc.?
The Chambers of Commerce are soliciting funds for a C-PAC to con people into thinking that the Tax Exemption Referendum for select corporations on the August 24 ballot will bring jobs. Don’t believe them! And don’t contribute!
HERE’S WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY ABOUT TAX ABATEMENTS
The Encyclopedia of Taxation and Tax Policy (Urban Institute Press, Second Edition, 2005) concludes:
→ "In general, the empirical analyses of tax abatement programs for economic development purposes show negative results."
Likewise, from the Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy (vol. 37, No. 1, 2007):
→ "Economists are overwhelmingly against tax abatements as incentives for investment."
Observation of William Fox, Professor of Economics at the University of Tennessee, who specializes in state tax policies:
→ “Few tax credits have any real bearing on where companies locate or how they spend and hire. Taxes matter, but not very much.”
The Economic Development Quarterly reports that the majority of tax abatement programs offered by local governments to stimulate economic growth generate costs that outweigh their benefits to communities.
IF YOU VOTE YES FOR THE TAX EXEMPTIONS, YOU WILL NOT GET JOBS. YOU WILL GET HIGHER TAXES AND FEWER PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE NO!
Drop in home value varies by area
Home values have fallen in Martin County, as well as the entire nation. A current report by Zillow, the national real estate data service, details the drop in different sections of Martin County between May 2009 and May 2010. Values are median market estimates.
MARTIN COUNTY - $165,300 – down 5.5%
HOBE SOUND - $167,000 – no change
JENSEN BEACH - $127.800 – down 6.3%
JUPITER ISLAND - $2,559,800 – down 19.3%
PALM CITY - $216,200 – no change
PORT SALERNO - $121,500 – down 8.9%
SEWALLS POINT - $446,200 – down 10.3%
STUART - $99,700 – down 18.1%
Misunderstanding Aquatic Complex finances
We supported building an aquatic facility, though the grandiose scope of the $8.8 million Aquatic Complex, approved by the Commission majority, seems like an excessive and costly expansion beyond our needs. What really concerned us were the unrealistic claims that it would be self-supporting. To achieve that would require unreasonably high customer usage. Sadly, we can look forward to the Aquatic Complex sapping a considerable amount of County tax revenue for many years to come. Palm Beach is closing and reducing openings of some aquatic centers because they cost too much to operate.
One would think that the Martin County Taxpayers Association would understand the financing of the project. Alas, not so. MCTA President Richard Geisinger Jr. wrote this bit of wrong information:
“The new aquatics center: We supported that because the voters approved it by referendum, the county collected our taxes specifically for that purpose, and the money cannot legally be transferred to another use.” Well, NO, NO, and YES for a different reason.
NO - The Aquatics Center was never put to referendum. NO - The increased sales taxes collected, as approved by popular vote, was broadly for conservation and recreation, not specifically for the Aquatics Complex. The only reason the money cannot now be transferred is that the County approved construction contracts, ignoring likely operating losses. Learn the facts first, Mr. Geisinger, then speak out.
FINAL REMINDER
DEMOCRATS & INDEPENDENTS: Have you saved your right to vote by switching party affiliation temporarily to Republican? Forms at the library or by mail from the Elections office (288-5637). Deadline July 26.
DO-NOTHING INERTIA HELPS VALLIERE, HURTS HEARD!
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: editor@martincountydefender.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 7/15/10
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:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 175
Deceptive phone “survey” turns into campaign pitch for Valliere
Reader G.L. reports that he received a phone call purporting to be a survey, but after a few innocuous questions it turned into an election pitch. Here are his own words:
“When she began to ask such questions as ‘Does the fact that Susan Valliere sponsored an amendment that is going to save the County money, that Ed Fielding was said to have fallen asleep at meetings of the LPA and was fired’ etc., that I became annoyed.
“It became clear to me that the call was primarily directed toward Valliere and Fielding, and that Ed was being smeared and Susan surreptitiously praised. Other questions on economics, i.e., " How many jobs would have to be created,1 to 100, would it take for me to look favorably on the Commissioners ballot proposal’ made me feel that the survey was being skewed in favor of certain candidates and issues.”
Well, after being threatened by Valliere with a defamation lawsuit, as an intimidating tactic, for exercising our free speech and free press rights to criticize political candidates, we don’t expect anything better than these sleazy, deceptive election campaign tactics.
Reader G.L. is apparently a polite, patient and proper gentleman. We would have been tempted to tell the snake oil pitch lady on the phone to FO.
Fielding responds to “push poll” charges
Here is Ed Fielding’s response to the allegations in the phony survey noted above:
“It seems desperate people will do desperate things. I received commendations from the BOCC for my work on the LPA; even the long time chairman with whom I often disagreed was complimentary of my work. It's ridiculous of her to say that I fell asleep on the LPA Board. I was deeply involved in the process and discussions.
“I believe I was discontinued on the LPA because she struck a deal with atty Jack Carmody. I think she terminated me in exchange for campaign contributions. Those being the contributions that magically went to her PAC, were tardily reported and are part of the 111 ethic code/election regulations complaint that the State filed against her and her husband.”
What kind of person do we want sitting on our Commission?
7-19-10 candidate forum clarifies some issues
The July 19 Commission candidate forum at the Blake, sponsored by the Conservation Alliance, helped clarify various candidate positions. In attendance: District 2 candidates Ed Fielding and Susan Valliere; District 4 candidates Sarah heard and Don Pickard. Lee Weberman was absent. Some highlight questions included:
Do you support Hometown Democracy Amendment 4?
(YES – Fielding & Heard) (NO – Pickard & Valliere)
Will the Aquatic Complex be self-supporting?
(YES – Valliere) (NO – Fielding & Heard) (PASS – Pickard)
Do you support commercial development on agricultural land?
(YES – Pickard & Valliere) (NO – Fielding & Heard)
Do you support the Tax Abatement referendum?
(YES – Pickard & Valliere) (NO – Fielding & Heard)
Should the County accept the Department of Community Affairs rejection of seven recent Comp Plan changes, or try again to get them approved?
(ACCEPT REJECTION – Fielding & Heard) (TRY AGAIN ON TWO – Valliere) (PASS – Pickard)
An Amendment 4 type of law in Yankeetown wins DCA “Citizen Planning Initiative” award
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) recognized Yankeetown, in Levy County, with a “Citizen Planning Initiative” award for its initiative law to protect the community’s unique character. In Yankeetown, taxpayers now have a right to vote on whether certain developments are worthwhile and affordable for their community. Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 will give all of Florida that same opportunity.
Yankeetown is a localized example of what Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 would help accomplish on a statewide scale if the measure passes on the statewide ballot in November. In Yankeetown, when certain proposed changes to the comprehensive land use plan are made, voters get the final say to approve or veto the plan.
It is interesting to note that all of the proposed changes have been approved by voters since the Yankeetown Charter Amendment passed. This refutes the anti-Amendment 4 contention that Amendment 4 would stop development. All it would stop is ruinously bad development that residents do not want.
“Hometown Democracy Amendment 4 will help put an end to the corruption and misuse of government authority that has taken over in Florida,” said Hometown Democracy president Lesley Blackner. “Yankeetown is an exceptional example of how it works when voters have a seat at the table to help make decisions that affect their communities.”
This achievement confounds the lies spread by Amendment 4 opponents, who used difficulties with a law in St. Pete Beach, a law that is different from Amendment 4, as a reason for their opposition.
Harry Metz, Former St. Pete Beach City Commissioner, has this to say:
”The developer and developer-allied opponents of Amendment 4 (Florida Hometown Democracy) have been misrepresenting what actually happened in St. Pete Beach. Their primary misrepresentation is that the litigation in St. Pete Beach has something to do with Florida Hometown Democracy’s Amendment 4. Actually, if we had had Amendment 4 in place, none of the conflict would have taken place.
“The St. Pete Beach litigation is all about developers who wanted to build 15-story hotels on our waterfront and triple the population density of our small island community. The developer-controlled city commission ignored state law. The court ruled that Florida’s Growth Management Act procedures must be followed, and that the commission could not use the ordinance-initiative provision to change the land-use plan. But the city and the developers ignored the court’s order.”
Why can’t developer-business lobbyists and their commissioner lackeys understand that residents have a right to a seat at the table where irreversible decisions affecting quality of life are made?
District 4 Commission election:
Heard versus Weberman and Pickard
THINKING INDEPENDENTLY
It has been wisely observed that if two people think exactly alike about everything, then only one of them is doing the thinking. So it is a sign of independent thinking when you agree with almost everything some candidate says, but disagree with one or two things.
These thoughts came to mind while reflecting on the positions of Commission candidates in District 4. I agree with almost all of Sarah Heard’s views, but not with regard to the Indian Street Bridge, for example. On the other hand, I agree with Lee Weberman and Don Pickard about the bridge, but strongly disagree with their many views that I believe are demonstrably harmful to the people of Martin County. Here are some specifics that help explain why Heard is by far the best choice.
WASTEFUL SPENDING
Every politician is supposedly against wasteful spending, but their actions often belie the claim. No commissioner has been as consistent in opposing waste and excessive spending as Heard. Her research and detailed analysis of proposed spending are touchstones for all to follow.
Both Weberman and Pickard have no qualms about taking $1 million out of our tax revenue during these hard times and setting it aside for the benefit of the Business Development Board on a speculative hope that it will attract companies. Similarly with Tax Abatements for a few favored companies. One difference between them is that, unlike Weberman, Pickard is a gentleman who would not insult public speakers or a fellow commissioner.
As to lifting Impact Fees for builders (which did no good, and had to be reversed), they are like TweedleWeb and TweedlePick in having supported this benefit for developers.
PROTECTING OUR ANTI-SPRAWL COMP PLAN
Weberman was a yes-man for many developer requests to change the Comp Plan to allow prohibited (and profitable) development when he sat on the Commission. Pickard, or course, has no voting record, but he never uttered a word against such damaging land use changes.
Heard would not go along with the Gang of 4 commissioners when it came to Comp Plan changes jammed through without concern for consequences. She has been tireless in voting to preserve the environment; to prevent sprawl and the tax burden it places on residents. She has been proven right by the Department of Community Affairs rejecting those changes because there is no need for them.
Many other issues follow a similar pattern. Would Weberman and Pickard think independently of the Economic Council and Chambers of Commerce if they won? We’ve never heard a critical word from them about anything proposed by those groups.
One can’t help but admire Sarah Heard’s courage and determination, sticking with her admirable principles despite nastiness from some other commissioners. Furthermore, she remains unbowed by the unfair discrimination by the entire Gang of 4 in preventing her from rotating to chairman, which has been the standard practice.
It makes good sense to vote for Heard as the sole independent and responsible Republican voice on the Commission that always votes to protect residents.
Closed skate parks and community centers – blame Commission, not Parks & Rec
If you or your kids want to go to skate parks at Jock Leighton Park in Palm City, or Post Family Park in Indiantown, or Mary Brogan Park in Stuart; or to community centers in Tequesta and Hobe sound, you may find them closed. The County’s Parks & Recreation Department will have to do that to save the proposed $240,000 cut from their budget.
Most or all of that cut could have been avoided if Gang of 4 Commissioners Smith, Ciampi, Hayes and Valliere had not diverted $1 million for the questionable BDB ToolKit. Candidates Weberman and Pickard applauded that wasteful siphoning of property tax revenue.
Homesteaders face 2.7% tax increase
As homeowners with homestead-limited 3% increases in assessed value during years when property values were climbing rapidly, we benefited. Now it’s catch-up time. Current below market assessments are why taxes can go up when market values go down.
Next year, assessments and taxes are expected to increase an average 2.7%, equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), depending on when the house purchase was made. Recent buyers could be less impacted. This is a separate issue from a possible tax millage increase to balance the budget.
Impending operating losses for unbuilt Aquatic Complex starts to sink in
We have repeatedly criticized the promoters of the Aquatic Complex, and the Commission majority that approved it, for saying that the facility would be self-supporting. A more modest design that we could afford would have sufficed.
Apparently the prospect of continuing losses, obvious to all willing to see, is starting to sink in with some County officials. Before the first shovel of dirt is turned, they are considering such ideas as leasing it to a management company for a percent of maybe profit. Or tying in with some hotel chain to build next to the facility. Moral for the Commission majority: Analyze first, approve second.
Stuart News School Board endorsements
Do you have trouble remembering which School Board candidates the Stuart News has endorsed? It’s easy. All you have to do is remember which Board members were repeatedly picking fights with the Superintendent (Shekailo and Gaylord apparently never forgave former Board member Kline for not joining them at the contractor trough) – those candidates got a favorable endorsement.
A candidate/Board member like Barry-Sorenson, or a well qualified challenger like Michael Busha, who did not pick a fight with Kline, did not get the paper’s endorsement. Admittedly, it could all be a coincidence ….. if you believe in such things at election time.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: editor@martincountydefender.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 7/22/10
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: