The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 176
What really happened at the Commission’s budget workshop last week
► RATIONAL COMPROMISE SLASHES SPENDING, RAISES TAX MILLAGE 5% TO BALANCE BUDGET
► VALLIERE’S IRRESPONSIBLE NO VOTE
► A BUDGET IMPASSE WOULD HAVE RAISED TAXES
► FIRE UNION’S 5% RAISE AND SOME PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS STILL UNRESOLVED
On July 19-21, the County Commission held a Budget Workshop to develop a tentative 2011 balanced budget for the period Oct. 2010-Sept. 2011. This was accomplished. The budget can still be modified at final hearings in September.
A major part of the workshop time was taken up by department head presentations that explained in detail how our taxes were being spent to provide public services. PowerPoint slideshows were enlightening. It could have been called County Government Operations 101. So much data may have swamped some observers in cognitive overload, but it was interesting.
The rest of the time was often a contentious display that could have been staged by Barnum & Bailey. Here were five commissioners with seven different ideas on how to arrive at a good balanced budget. Acting County Administrator Taryn Kryzda showed a solid grasp of the intricate details. Finally, through negotiation, the Commission arrived at a reasonable compromise, and passed the budget 4-to-1.
Spending cuts and taxes
The budget, which covers only Commission operations (not schools or other taxing authorities), was set at $333.9 million. This is $10.7 million – over 3% - below the 2010 budget. Nevertheless, with property tax collections down at least 7%, the Commission majority of Smith, Ciampi, Hayes and Heard thought that the sensible limit of reducing public services had been reached. We agree with them.
We hate tax increases, as almost all of our fellow residents do. What we hate even more is closing fire stations, closing libraries, slashing deputy road patrols, starving agencies that serve poor children and seniors, letting injured animals suffer, and stopping the drainage work that prevents floods. In order to prevent such disastrous erosion of our quality of life, a roughly 5% increase in the tax millage rate had to be imposed to compensate for lower assessed values.
For the average homeowner in the unincorporated areas, this means an added monthly property tax of $4.55 if assessed value remains unchanged. Even with a higher tax rate, if your assessed value went down, there may be no tax increase. If you are fortunate enough to own a home worth twice the average, can you honestly say that you can’t afford nine bucks more a month?
In an understandably anti-tax environment, we appreciate and respect the display of responsibility by three commissioners with whom we often differ – Doug Smith, Ed Ciampi and Patrick Hayes. They did the right thing with the tax rate instead of pandering. We especially admire the courage of Sarah Heard, who is running for re-election. We challenge anyone who has the unswerving attitude of “no millage increase under any circumstances” to show exactly what services they would cut.
Valliere’s election-driven opposition to the budget
No one can gain the certainty of reading a politician’s mind, but when the totality of circumstances is recognized, it’s easy to make a reasonable guess. In our opinion, Valliere, and only Valliere, voted against the budget because she thinks it will help her election campaign. The basis of her NO vote is the tax rate increase, which she opposes. No tax rate increase is the core of her political campaign. An unthinking NO is her one tax idea, with no recognition of the consequences, and no alternative ideas for savings. We believe that Martin citizens are smart enough to understand that.
We think Valliere’s inflexibly obstinate NO vote is irresponsible because she has not shown what specific expenses she would cut to avoid the increased tax millage. She has said she would not vote to close any fire stations or libraries. What would she close? She doesn’t say.
If no budget agreed upon, tax rate would go even higher!
Just suppose that Valliere succeeded in convincing other commissioners to vote NO, thereby preventing budget adoption. With such an impasse, the County does not close down. State law directs that tax collections “rollback” to the previous year. So the $10.7 million in spending cuts in the newly proposed budget would be lost. To make up for that loss, the tax rate would go up an additional 3% over the proposed increase. The other four commissioners understand this, which probably helped push everyone to a compromise. For Valliere, the idée fixe of NO, irrespective of consequences, replaces thoughtful consideration.
Two loose ends: social services and fire/rescue raises
The Commission majority recognized that stripping out grants for social services that help our most vulnerable citizens was simply inhumane. And closing libraries more days was just unacceptable. The total involved for both was $365,000. Rather than boost the tax rate up another notch, it was wisely decided to find the money by further unspecified personnel cuts.
The more problematic concern was a contracted 5% pay increase for fire union members, a $1.4 million cost that had been approved by Susan Valliere, Lee Weberman and others. Hope was expressed that the union would forgo the raise, as they did in 2010, and as Sheriff’s personnel have done for a few years. So the $1.4 million has not been funded in the budget.
What if the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) does not go along with this shared sacrifice, but rather insists on the raise? At a time when no one is getting a raise, and many are getting cuts, it would be a travesty for this to happen. The answer is not, as the Stuart News unwisely suggests, lowering the raise from 5% to 2%.
Rather, if the raise is thrust upon us, it should be totally absorbed in the Fire/Rescue department budget. Then let the layoffs there begin. Everyone would know whom to blame. We hope that IAFF will be sensible enough to see that for both self-interest and community interest, passing up the raise is the right decision.
Cuts for School Board members rejected
School Board member Maura Barry-Sorenson made the following two proposals to the District Board. Both were rejected.
“I said this elected Board, representing our community, must set an example of austerity by voluntarily reducing our annual salary by 5%; and the salary of the School Board employees by a like 5% …. I also recommended that we reduce our capital expenditures by 15%, but once again met resistance from the other Board members. The capital reductions would not impact our schools but may limit the potential profits of some large school construction contractors, who are connected with several of the School Board members.”
Economic multipliers are a false concept promoted to justify wasteful spending
Commission candidates at forums may display their ignorance of economics. For example, we’ve listened to both Susan Valliere and Don Pickard talk about the economic multiplier effect of County spending public funds, as promoted by developer-business interests. The concept is that for every dollar of tax revenue spent on such things as a grandiose Aquatic Complex (a more modest one would have sufficed), or a targeted subsidy or tax abatement for business expansion, four or five times that amount of economic activity is generated.
Down-to-earth economists call this the Keynesian Mirage. Were the tax-based multiplier effect true, Greece and California would be icons of prosperity. And the $800 billion Federal stimulus would have slashed unemployment by creating an abundance of jobs. Instead, this intervention created overwhelming debt and few jobs.
When the private sector grows on its own initiative, then there is a multiplier effect. However, when supposed growth is primarily government spending, the tax money extracted from the productive businesses and individuals reduces investment in meaningful growth. Except in the minds of John Maynard Keynes disciples, government expansion is not real growth.
For true prosperity, government should provide only those vital services that are beyond the scope of the private sector. “We’re here from the government to help your business” is an old joke that with a painful twist. Information and less regulation, yes; participation and influence, no.
It’s ironic. Many of the folks who recognized that Federal boondoggles like “Cash for Clunkers” and other subsidies are a waste, except for an unsustainable momentary uptick, are the same ones who inconsistently favor such Martin subsidies as the $1 million BDB ToolKit giveaway and tax exemptions for favorites. Go figure.
Quotable quote
“Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have.” -Emile Chartier, philosopher (1868-1951)
+++++
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 7/27/10
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. 177
Stuart News endorses Valliere and Heard
ALMOST EVERYONE THINKS THEY GOT IT HALF RIGHT
For Susan Valliere: The July 28 editorial endorsement bashes Fielding, while all but canonizing Valliere. The endorsement analysis fails to mention background and experience. Fielding has a Master’s Degree from MIT, and experience as a bank senior vp, and as general manager operating a large company hands on. Neither Valliere or any other commissioner has such capabilities, which are sorely needed on the Commission.
One of the ways all editors try to influence readers is by leaving out key information. The endorsement editorial left out any mention of Valliere’s troubling conviction for election law violations. And they omitted any mention of Valliere trying to intimidate us, to squelch our free speech and press rights to criticize, by threatening a defamation lawsuit. Fielding’s record is clean. Remember the Martin County motto: Character Counts.
For Sarah Heard: The July 29 editorial endorsement of Heard over Don Pickard and Lee Weberman notes that she “demonstrated extensive leadership ability” and that Heard “is a staunch defender of the county’s comprehensive plan and a strong supporter of environmental issues ….. Heard raises issues that other commissioners will not touch, but which need to be discussed and considered.”
Issues change over time, but character is a vital constant. In this regard, the endorsement’s closing paragraph is telling: “Voters know what they’ll get when they elect Heard to the commission. In this day of political expediency, it’s refreshing to find an elected official who doesn’t change her spots for political gain.” Amen.
Lawsuit filed to remove Tax Abatement Referendum from Ausust 24 ballot
Attorney Ginny Sherlock reports that suit was filed in Martin County Circuit Court against Martin County and Vicki Davis, Supervisor of Elections, challenging the so-called Tax Abatement Referendum on the August 24, 2010, primary election ballot.
The Plaintiff, Sally O'Connell, seeks to have the issue removed from the ballot because the title and summary as set out on the ballot fail to comply with Florida statutory requirements.
The Complaint asserts that the ballot title "Economic Development Incentive Ad Valorem Tax Exemption" is not the name by which the measure is commonly known and referred to, which is the "Tax Abatement Referendum," as required by law. This may confuse some voters, who will not have seen or read about the "Economic Development Incentive Ad Valorem Tax Exemption" ordinance as opposed to the "Tax Abatement Referendum."
The ballot summary fails to correctly set out the true purpose and effect of the measure. The ballot states that the purpose of the measure is to "allow Martin County to encourage job creation". The actual ordinance that voters are being asked to approve, however, does not even mention the word "jobs" let alone provide for "job creation" anywhere in the page-long "Purpose and Intent" spelled out in the ordinance.
The ballot summary is a case of "flying under false colors" or "political bravado" designed to get voters to approve an ordinance which does not serve the purpose or have the actual effect set out in the summary. The summary does not make it clear, for instance, that tax exemptions will be available only to those businesses chosen on a case-by-case basis by County Commissioners, without any specific criteria or requirements that must be met to get an exemption. This system does not promise fair and equal treatment of all businesses, but offers rewards only to businesses favored by the Commission majority. Furthermore, the Commission relies on the recommendations of the Business Development Board, a private corporation, as to which companies to favor.
The ballot summary says the authority for the BOCC to adopt the ordinance is based upon Section 3, Article VIII of the State Constitution. Section 3, Article VIII of the State Constitution authorizes consolidation of City and County government. The citation to Section 3, Article VIII is misleading, confusing, and contrary to the requirements of the law that ballot summaries clearly and unambiguously set out the purpose and effect of a referendum issue.
Why Valliere should not be believed
I was sitting in the front row of a candidate debate, and heard Commission candidate Susan Valliere say that a widely distributed newsletter (meaning the DEFENDER) stated that she voted for the AgTec conversion of 1,717 acres from agricultural to industrial.
Then I read her Stuart News letter that Fielding’s “main supporter sent out massive e-mails stating I voted to convert agricultural land to industrial on 1,717 acres. This also is untrue. I voted against that project.” Indeed she did vote against – and I never said otherwise.
We’ve gone back through the 176 DEFENDER issues published. We found that the AgTec 1,717-acre project had been discussed six times. Never once did we say that Valliere had voted in favor of that project!
Matter of fact, we specifically stated this about AgTec in DEFENDER No. 157: “We have Commissioners Smith, Hayes and Ciampi to thank for it.” Another time we wrote: “This new AgTec land use category just for Sunrise Groves was approved by Commissioner Ed Ciampi (plus Smith and Hayes), who is supposed to represent residents in this district.” There are other developer accommodations attributable to Valliere, but not that one.
If Valliere can quote from a specific issue that we erroneously said she voted for AgTec, then we will apologize in print, and (most painful) contribute $100 to her campaign. If she cannot justify her accusation, then she owes us and the public an apology for the misinformation … and she can contribute $100 to Ed Fielding’s campaign (;-)
A befuddled Valliere’s false claims about this matter make her indignant denial concerning any knowledge of the deceptive “survey” praising her and bashing Fielding [DEFENDER No. 175] highly suspect, to say the least.
BDB tries to take unearned credit for jobs and investment - without quite saying so. Slick.
The Business Development Board (BDB) has released a tabular breakdown of 18 companies that added 1,526 jobs and $28.6 million in capital investments. It’s titled: Business Development Board of Martin County New Job / Capital Investment Announcement History.”
BDB does not exactly say that this growth would not have taken place without their efforts or the 2008 Economic Stimulus Package. However, their following statement definitely tries to convey the impression that BDB made it happen: “This series of job creation projects clearly demonstrates our track record of delivering on our word and leveraging outside resources (regional/state/federal) to make economic development deals happen – even in an historically challenging environment.”
When you look closer at the numbers, you see it’s a sham. Of the 18 companies noted, only two were new, all the others having been here and expanded. The BDB “History” would like to imply that a company that has been in Martin for 20 years expanded because of BDB’s involvement. Those two new companies account for only 2% of the listed jobs added.
We challenge BDB to present verifiable proof as to how much of this growth since 2008 would otherwise not have come about were it not for BDB efforts.
It’s developer-business special interest money versus citizen control of their lives
skip to main | skip to sidebar
Between April 1 and July 16, Amendment 4 opponents raised 30 times more than supporters. Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy collected $4.7 million compared to $138,573 for the Hometown Democracy group that put the measure on the ballot in November.
Contributions to the opposition group included $1 million from the Florida Association of Realtors, $567,000 from Pulte Homes Corp. in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., $440,000 from the Florida Chamber of Commerce, $367,000 from the Lennar Family of Builders in Miami, and $200,000 from Florida Power & Light Co. Big special interest money not only buys big, misleading ads, but also influences elected officials by campaign contributions. Significantly missing: Citizen, environmental and neighborhood groups.
To help ordinary citizens get a seat at the table where vital decisions are being made about development, consider making a contribution to:
Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc.
P.O. Box 636
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170
Welcome another e-newsletter
We are always pleased to see citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. A new local e-newsletter is called “The Informer – Edition No. 11”. Hmmmm. So we opened our American Heritage Dictionary to learn what the name really means. A definition is: “One who informs against others, often for compensation.” What’s in a name, eh? The first 10 Editions have apparently disappeared, if they ever existed.
Where is it coming from? The sender is “Martin County”, period. Not the real Martin County, just the use of the name to make people think … oh, you know. Deception 101.
We then look at the content Hmmmmm again. A more appropriate name would be The Misinformer.
Well the editor’s name will tell us something. But wait, there is no named editor. It’s anonymous, apparently someone ashamed to show his or her face. We can’t blame them.
Let’s put it all together. Welcome, Anonymous Misinformer. We’ll fight to the death for your right to spew the opinions of developer-business special interests. However, respect can’t be earned by hiding behind the mask of anonymity.
Aquatic Complex operating cost in dispute
We certainly need a County swimming pool, but the need for an extravagantly planned Aquatic Complex is questionable. The problem is not so much the capital cost, which we have in hand, but the high operating cost of a water park.
Some politicians supporting the grandiose Aquatic Complex, like Susan Valliere, believe it will be self-supporting. Some, like Don Pickard, don’t know if it will be self-supporting, but still are rah-rah for it. Is that responsible financial planning?
An apolitical examination of the project by Acting County Administrator Taryn Kryzda was presented at the Budget Workshop. She said: “We will not know if the Aquatic Complex is self-supporting until we operate it ….. The County does not have the personnel or experience to operate the Aquatic Complex.”
+++++
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 7/31/10
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. 178
Desperately needed: An Ethics Policy for elected Boards that stops soft corruption
BARRY-SORENSON SET TO INTRODUCE SUCH RESOLUTION
It’s an American scandal!
We’re not talking about illegal hard corruption of the kind that sends Palm Beach officials to prison. We’re talking about legal soft corruption that induces elected officials to vote for proposals that enrich sharp operators through the influence that their political financial contributions buy. We see it in Stuart. We see it in Tallahassee. We see it in Washington – officials who cater to special interests at the expense of residents.
We need an Ethics Policy that separates elected officials from the easy money.
We can start small, right here in Martin County. We can have an Ethics Policy that says that elected officials who directly or indirectly accept money from such applicants as contractors, developers, suppliers, lobbyists and consultants may not vote on matters that benefit those contributors.
So we are delighted to learn that School Board Member Maura Barry-Sorenson is preparing such an Ethics Policy. We have seen a rough draft, written in legal format, of a resolution that Barry-Sorenson intends to propose to that Board. Here are a few key excerpts taken from a five-page draft:
Prohibition - Doing Business with the MCSB.
No School Board member acting in his or her official capacity may, either directly or indirectly, purchase, rent or lease any realty, goods or services for the MCSB, from any person in which the MCSB, or his or her relative, is an officer, partner, director or proprietor, or in which he or she or any relative (or any combination of them) has a material interest. No Board Member shall have or hold any employment or contractual relationship with any person if the approval, concurrence, decision, recommendation or advice of the Board Member in his or her official capacity may be sought, obtained or required on any MCSB matter involving such person.
Acceptance and Reporting of Gifts.
A Board Member, individual elected to that office, or nominee of a major party for election to that office, shall not, directly or indirectly, solicit, accept or agree to accept for himself or herself, or for a relative, anything of value which can be reasonably inferred as intended or expected to be intended to influence the performance of an official act.
Voting Conflicts.
A Board Member is prohibited from voting or participating in his or her official position on any matter if he or she knows or should know that doing so would inure, either directly or indirectly, to:
a. His or her special private gain; or
b. The special private gain of any person by whom he or she is retained for compensation; or
c. The special private gain of any of his or her relatives.
Prohibition of Campaign Contributions by Contractors.
A Board Member, or candidate for Board Member, shall not solicit or accept political campaign contributions from any person who is an officer, partner, director or proprietor of, or has a material interest in, a business entity which has a contract, or is in negotiations to contract, or has had a contract in the previous 24 months with MCSB in excess of $10,000 per year either for personal services or for the furnishing of material, supplies, services, or equipment to Martin County School Board, or for selling land or a building to the Martin County School Board, or for any franchise agreements with Martin County School Board.
Contractors or business entities, or those that have a material interest in a business entity making campaign contributions to MCSB candidates shall be barred from all contractual relationships with the MCSB for a period of four years after such contributions are made.
There’s much more in this well conceived resolution, but the above highlights make clear its thrust to prevent pay-to-play soft corruption. In our view, any elected official or candidate who refuses to support such an Ethics Policy should not be representing the people of Martin County.
With slight modification, this Ethics Policy would be as applicable to the County Commission as the School Board. To adopt such a policy that removes the undue influence on elected officials would require a majority of both Boards to place the welfare of all Martin County citizens at the highest priority, over the special interests of developer-business campaign contributors. We have yet to see such a demonstration of cojones from a majority of those two boards.
Remember – You read it first in the DEFENDER
MEDIA WATCH
A closer look at Sunday’s Stuart News
After reading the August 1 issue of the Stuart News, we then re-read it with a more critical eye. Here are our reactions to three of their most important pages.
Front Page
The bold headline “Remembering year we dodged a bullet” is a nice visual presentation of an event of questionable current interest in Martin County. Two-thirds of the page is devoted to Hurricane Erin. That Category 1 occurred 15 years ago. Landfall was Vero Beach, and little damage resulted. Martin County was essentially untouched. Yawn! Guess it was a slow day at the news desk.
There was also a thoughtful column by Eve Samples on the fleeting (Aug. 13-15) sales tax holiday for some back-to-school supplies. Quite reasonably, Samples thought it may do more harm than good.
There was a startling revelation in her column. Among the tax exempt items she reported, as listed on the Department of Revenue website, were: “bow ties; bowling shoes; costumes; fishing vests; garter belts; girdles; bras and corsets; hunting vests; leg warmers; martial arts attire; ski suits (but not boots); and tuxedos. You know, just your back-to-school basics.”
Editorial page
There was an excellent and important editorial titled “Imagine life without DCA.” It noted that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) “vital to regulating growth here, throughout the state faces possible extinction.”
The two concluding sentences stated: “It is imperative the 2011 Legislature reauthorize and fund the agency. To do less is to put Florida’s future at risk.” So true and well said. A four star performance.
The editorial would have earned the ultimate fifth star if it had connected the dots, from those legislators trying to kill DCA, to the developers and land speculators who contribute to their political campaigns with the wink-wink understanding that DCA is the enemy.
Op-ed page
Facing the editorial page, there were liberal-conservative syndicated columns flanking a debate in print: “Yea or nay to Amendment 4?” Taking the Yea position was Ed Candella, former City Council member of Yankeetown [see DEFENDER No. 175]. He explained how that town’s adoption of a law similar to Amendment 4 saved Yankeetown from ruinous development.
‘Before Yankeetown’s version of Amendment 4 passed, residents felt helpless. Now we’re empowered. Our community is too important to leave in the hands of politicians and lobbyists.”
The Nay position was presented by Toby Overdorf, Treasure Coast chair of the Vote No on 4 campaign. He is an environmental consultant hired by developers, and – like many who oppose Amendment 4 – stands to benefit financially from unrestrained development.
Overdorf makes a strong case with incorrect facts. He said that the problematic law in St. Pete Beach was like Amendment 4. [See DEFENDER No. 171] Though there are some superficial resemblances, it is critically different. He said Amendment 4 “would require taxpayers to fund elections for every revision of local comprehensive plans.” That’s totally false. Amendment 4 covers only land use changes, which are voted on at the next regular election. These are scare tactics with the ultimate aim of preventing residents from having a voice on how their community grows.
Thumbs up for the Stuart News serving as a forum for opposing views.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Specific past issues of DEFENDER referred to in these pages may be viewed at our website archive: www.MartinCountyDefender.com ]
Commission likely to seek ways around DCA rejection of Comp Plan changes
The major focus of the Commission’s Aug. 10 meeting will be to attempt a work-around past objections by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Details of the DCA objections were discussed in DEFENDER No. 172, which stated:
“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.
“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. ‘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.”
The Aug. 10 Commission agenda lists 26 items, Nos. 6A through 6Z, covering the changes. The Comp Plan Amendment numbers covered by the agenda items are:
10-01, St. Lucie Partners
10-04, Sunrise Groves, FLUM
10-05, Sunrise Groves, Text
10-06, Post Infill Parcels
10-07, Post Industrial Parcels
10-08, Post Waterway Parcels
10-09, Canopus Sound
10-10, Via Claudia Investments
10-11, AA Marina
10-12, Abundant Life Ministries
10-16, Baker North
10-17, Canopy Creek
10-19, 7th Edition FLUM
10-20, 7th Edition Text
10-21, Becker B-4 (RSN)
They include increasing densities, more intense usage, conversion of agricultural land to industrial, sprawl loopholes and other harmful changes to the Comp Plan that DCA rejected. Now it looks like the Commission majority will try to find ways around the DCA objections to satisfy the developer interests that influence them.
Subsidizing companies – the promise of jobs and the reality of cost
Port St. Lucie swallowed the sales pitch that spending millions to lure Torrey Pines would bring many jobs. So far there have not been many high paying jobs for residents. But there is a financial burden driving St. Lucie’s massive service cuts and higher taxes. Here is an excerpt from the Stuart News report:
PORT ST. LUCIE — The city is picking up unexpected costs to help repay a $40 million bond used to build the Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies because money from impact fees is down and some developers required to contribute toward the debt are struggling financially.
The city made agreements with 10 developers in the southwest annexation area and required them to pay the city a set number of impact fees each year — whether they build or not — to pay back the Torrey Pines debt.
The 10 developers account for half of the $40 million debt and the city picks up the remaining half through impact fee collections on new construction, said city spokesman Ed Cunningham. Those impact fees aren’t coming in as expected, so the city is paying its share from the general fund.
Is the Martin County Commission capable of learning from a neighbor’s experience?
+++++
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 8/6/10
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. 179
Commission meeting focuses on Comp Plan land use changes. It’s not good news
The 8/10/10 County Commission meeting, running from 9:00 am to 10:00 pm, was the third public hearing on the first of two annual sets of Comp Plan Amendments (CPA). Those approved again go back to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review. In this meeting, Commissioners considered 15 CPAs, 8 of which had been returned with DCA comments, not all favorable, plus 5 with very serious DCA objections.
Various agenda items were approved by 5-0, 4-1 and 3-2 votes. Some were harmless, and some will be damaging if they eventually go into effect. We’ll deal here briefly with the four most ominous CPAs strongly objected to by DCA. Transportation, sprawl and environment were among the objections applicants responded to with varying degrees of success. However, the DCA objection that the changes were not needed did not get a convincing response.
7th Edition: CPA 10-19 covers over 240 acres of agricultural land in the Tropical Farms area being converted to commercial waterfront and industrial. It’s based on an old discredited consultant report by Urbanomics that would all but turn Martin County into a conglomeration of business and industrial parks.
The County Growth Management staff punted to the developer to tweak the application, and to come up with fresh reasons to justify this Comp Plan change. Consultant after consultant for the applicant rose to the occasion with hot air opinions (“Martin County must be able to compete in the 21st Century. We must move forward instead of falling back. Yada yada.”) This CPA also requires the bad precedent act of moving the Urban Service Boundary. It is also harmful to Indiantown industrial land.
Then there was an obfuscating array of numbers from Census statistics - good for impressing the peasantry, but not necessarily relevant or convincing that there is need for this bad Comp Plan change. In the end, the Commission voted 4-1 to approve the altered CPA, Sarah Heard dissenting.
St. Lucie Partners: CPA 10-1 puts residents on the horns of a dilemma. 3,902 acres of agricultural land in Hobe Sound are offered up as the following sugar-coated pill. Normally, the landowner could build about 200 homes there, though much of the land is unsuitable wetland.
In exchange for being allowed to build about 600 homes, the owner would donate 2,452 acres of conservation land to the County. Is that a worthwhile exchange? It would result in a suburban enclave inside agricultural land. Another bad precedent, but we do need the conservation land. The deal passed 3-2, with Heard and Valliere dissenting.
The Commission consideration of this CPA was one iof the worst procedural mish-mashes we’ve seen. The Deed of Conservation Easement Agreement, which conveys the donated land, was not even included. Lot size was not specified. Details were changing rapidly. There were last minute supplements without time to study them. Plenty of confusion.
Rural Services Note: CPA 10-21, also known as Becker B4, is designed to provide a commercial enclave of stores, restaurant, gas station, post office and bed & breakfast on 5 acres. Location of up to 45,000 sq ft is junction of CR 714 and 609. Many consider this a sprawling camel’s nose under the tent.
Is it needed? Well, the buildout population range within 7.5 miles is estimated at 4,100, including traffic from St. Lucie. However, current population is closer to about 200. The Comp Plan now prohibits such commercial facilities in ag land. Approved 4-1.
Sunrise Grove: CPA 10-4 is King Ranch’s 1,717 agricultural parcel at I-95 and CR714. It is being given a new land use category called AgTec, which will allow a million sq ft of space and a 500-room hotel. A canal separates it from Port St. Lucie. Because the location is too far from Martin utility services, the applicant is expecting to obtain water and sewer from Port St. Lucie, and to run a road over a new bridge. This may be one of the worst precedents because is converts a large tract to industrial way out in ag land.
This development is being placed right next to a large residential development. Commissioner Ciampi says only a few of those residents voiced objections. That’s misleading. He conveniently forgot that the development’s Board, which represents all residents, strongly opposes AgTec. It passed 3-2, Heard and Valliere dissenting.
Originally, DCA rejected these Comp Plan amendments. It is hoped that they will recognize that the small adjustments made do not overcome their objections.
Dirty politics return – campaign signs stolen
Political campaign lawn signs for Commission candidates Sarah Heard and Ed Fielding were stolen at about 1:00 am from Skyline Drive in Jensen Beach. Occupants in a silver SUV were the likely culprits, but the individuals were not apprehended. Nor was there proof of who may have been behind the sign removal from private property.
David Bulk reports: “The night of Aug. 5 I was awakened by a car stopping in the middle of the street with two young men bailing out and taking the election signs from my yard.”
A separate report, from Reader L, states that at a different location, “2 Ed signs were put on my front yard Tuesday morning. I put a Sarah sign up in my yard about 3 pm same day. When I got home later, all 3 of my signs were gone and 2 Valliere signs had gone up on county property across the street from my driveway. Coincidence?”
We do not know who is responsible, but someone must be desperate.
Hear it now – four delightful songs, hilarious and devastating about the School Board
Local song writer Tim Black has teamed up with singer Pat Mesmer to record four sensational political parody songs relating to the Martin County School Board. Musically, they are a pleasure to listen to ….. and decimating to their targets. Included are:
I Want to Be Pirtle’s Girl (I Want to Be Bobby’s Girl)
Pay to Play (Yesterday)
I Feel Petty (I Feel Pretty)
Lady S (Lady Madonna)
For a ROTFL session, visit:
http://zafka.com/school/mcsb.html
What you’re not told about the Tax Exemption item on the primary ballot
► The Tax Exemption item on the primary ballot indirectly helps Commission incumbents pull in more campaign contributions because it’s discretionary as to which companies get chosen. It promotes more pay-to-play activity as companies vie for influence.
► Existing Martin companies that want to expand, but are not chosen, may feel discriminated against, and who can blame them? Meanwhile, all of us would take on an added tax burden to pay for a decade of exemptions – robbing Peter to pay Paul.
► It’s payback to the construction industry and allied special interests that contribute so generously to the Commission majority. The exemption applies only to new or expanded buildings. So if a company expands, providing more jobs, by renting existing vacant space (highly desirable in itself), sorry no tax exemption.
► This referendum item offers no enforceable mechanism for recapturing lost taxes if the chosen company fails to produce the promised jobs.
► There is no specific timeline or strict definitions for job creation. Like the Federal stimulus, jobs “saved” or planned for the future may be counted along with new jobs.
If the Commission – and the business organizations that dictate to the Commission majority - were serious about job creation, they would push for benefits for all appropriate local companies that truly add more jobs, not just a politically connected chosen few.
DON’T BE BAMBOOZLED. DON’T BE SUCKERED BY HYPE.
VOTE NO ON TAX EXEMPTION.
PLEASE PASS ABOVE REASONS ON TO FRIENDS AND RELATIVES.
Watch out for “but” when politicians talk about preserving our Comp Plan protections
“I think the urban boundary is very important. But I believe it should only be moved when it is in the best interest of the overall community.” – Susan Valliere
“I would like very much to stay with the urban services boundary, but I don’t think it’s something that is absolutely like an impenetrable wall.” - Don Pickard
“But” is a small word – small as a crack in the dike.
Quotable quote
“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” – President Harry S. Truman
+++++
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 8/13/10
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. 180
Business Subsidy Board formed
“LAND INCENTIVE JOB CREATION TOOLBOX” PLAN PROPOSED TO LURE COMPANIES TO MARTIN COUNTY
On April 1, 2010, thirteen leading business owners and corporation executives met to study why current Martin County efforts to attract new companies was having such limited success. The group was determined to find ways to correct present shortcomings.
On May 1, 2010, the group concluded that there were three major failings. First, what is now offered as incentive is inadequate, and similar to the enticements presented by more than 1,000 other counties and municipalities.
Second, the current marketing approach is dull and unimaginative, lacking the pizzazz that would motivate CEOs to give our county a second look.
Third, the costs of the current program, and the tax burdens being shifted onto the backs of residents and small businesses, were starting to make citizens fearful that the entire current effort is a costly boondoggle.
The one bright spot in current efforts is the clever labeling of tax diversions, prompting people who did not study the implications to favor the project.
On June 1, 2010, the group incorporated as a non-profit named Martin County Business Subsidy Board, commonly referred to as the BS Board.
On July 1, 2010, the BS Board hired Iam A. Parodee as executive director. Mr. Parodee, who almost graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, has served as business development director in Buttsville, NJ; Knockemstiff, OH; Looneyville, NY; Tightwad, MO; Crapo, MO; and Tick Bite, NC. More recently he had gone to Hell, MI to serve as Fund Distribution Manager for the Federal Stimulus.
The super-plan to attract companies
On August 1, 2010, the BS Board released the following proposal. Initially, it had the straightforward name of “Corporate Land Innovation Plan (CLIP)”. However, focus groups indicated that this name was dull or aroused unfavorable response.
So taking a leaf from the successful labeling of current efforts, it was re-named “Land Incentive Job Creation Toolbox.” Polling confirmed that everyone was in favor of “job creation,” people thought that “incentive” enhanced accomplishment, and the word “toolbox” gave the impression that it would fix the current high unemployment levels, whether it actually did or not. “Land Incentive Job Creation Toolbox” is a winner.
The plan has three major components: Land and Finance; Hot Marketing; and Tax and Cost Neutrality.
Land and Finance: The County owns thousands of acres that are just sitting there like a bump on a log, doing nothing. The BS Board would designate only 1,000 of its many acres with a new Land Use Category (as the Commission majority did with an AgTec designation to convert 1,717 private agricultural acres to industrial) to be called Business Campus.
The 1,000 acres would be broken up into parcels from 5 to 100 acres to appeal to diverse companies. On a first come, first served basis, companies would be invited to stake out a parcel for free land rent, just like the Great Land Rush of the 1800s. Corporate Land Settlers (CLS) would have to promise, cross their hearts and hope to die, that they will provide 20 new jobs per acre exclusively for Martin residents.
The 20 jobs/acre is based on creating 20,000 jobs at buildout. With a worker total of about 50,000 in Martin, less perhaps 10,000 self-employed, the 20,000 new jobs would allow everyone living in Martin County, who wants to work in-county, to do so. Great, eh?
CLSs could construct any building on their staked land, with free money derived from TIF-Based Tax-Exempt Industrial-Municipal Bonds. There are some financial wizards, formerly of Lehman Brothers, working out the details.
Hot Marketing: The invitation letter to out-of-county companies will promote FREE LAND – FREE CONSTRUCTION MONEY. That’s real excitement, not the pedestrian stuff going out now. And to make sure that CEOs will not be able to resist that attractant, a free mansion on the Business Campus will be made available to participating CEOs, just as college presidents get on their campuses.
Tax and Cost Neutrality: The buildings will be owned by the County, so there is no tax consequence for CLS participants, who would be provided building space rent-free – same as the Commission majority has provided year after year to the Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce in a County-owned building. But note: Not a penny of the tax burden has been shifted to residents, unlike the FPL $1 million property tax giveaway and the Tax Exemption referendum. Mighty clever.
BS Board proposed contract and financing
The contract proposed by the BS Board is unlike the one approved by all commissioners, except Sarah Heard. County’s10-year automatically renewable sweetheart contract with the Business Development Board (BDB) requires 30 months of notice for the County to terminate for cause (BDB may terminate in 90 days without cause). The BS Board will be happy to have a month-to-month contract with a termination notice period of 90-minutes.
The BS Board expects to be almost entirely financed by businesses and business councils that love subsidies. The exception is money for postage. County would save 99.9% of its $625,000 BDB contract, since the BS Board needs only $625 for mail postage to pay for invitation letters to company prospects (it sells itself), and self-congratulatory news releases to the media.
All BS Board documents would be considered public records. This organization has nothing to hide. Matter of fact, the BS Board invites all taxpayers who contributed to the $645 postage bill to come see how it is spent. No appointment required. Y’all come.
With 20,000 more jobs available, the only people expected to object are the employees of the Unemployment Office, who may have to find other work. However, an unforgiving Executive Director Parodee was quoted as saying: “The only ones who could oppose this plan are unpatriotic naysayers who hate the people of Martin County.”
BS Board directors were so delighted with this brilliant scheme that they voted Mr. Parodee a $25,000 bonus.
…..
[To politically informed readers: We hope you enjoyed the above instructive satire about a fictional BS Board – though every word about the BDB and Commission is true and factual. Now onward with the real news.]
Outrage! BDB spends thousands of tax dollars to prevent residents from seeing public records of how they spend
REPORT UNMASKS COSTLY LEGAL MANEUVERS OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOARD (BDB)
The following is a report by Ginny Sherlock, whose lawsuit aims to open BDB’s records to the public, as required by law.
The Business Development Board of Martin County is fiercely resisting efforts to ensure that the BDB operates in the sunshine.
The BDB has retained the most expensive attorney in Martin County -- $450.00-an-hour Steve Page and the Page Mrachek law firm -- to defend the public records act/sunshine law litigation that I filed in May. Thank goodness the BOCC approved an extra $300,000 for the BDB this year. The BDB seems intent on spending all of the taxpayer dollars it can get its hands on to avoid giving information to taxpayers about how our money is being spent and to make sure we are not permitted to see how BDB meetings are conducted.
(By the way, on September 30 of this year, the BDB will receive an automatic "pay raise" of at least 3%, bringing the County's obligation for the 2010-2011 fiscal year to a minimum of $643,750.00. Ron Bunch, the BDB's executive director, has seen more than a 50% pay raise in the past three years.)
Although BDB meetings are held on public property -- at IRSC's Chastain campus -- members of the public are not notified of meetings and citizens and taxpayers are not welcome. When asked at deposition whether a member of the public would be allowed to attend a meeting if he or she showed up at the proper time and place, Mr. Bunch responded: "It would depend on who it was."
A new attorney general opinion released last month provides solid support for the proposition that the BDB is subject to both the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Law. The opinion [see excerpt below] which was requested by the Lake County State Attorney confirms that a private economic development organization that performs services delegated by local government must meet in the sunshine. And when the organization appoints committees and subcommittees -- such as the subcommittee which developed the "Lake County Toolkit" -- those committees and subcommittees also must comply with the open meetings laws.
Nonetheless, the Martin County BDB continues to insist that the Public Records Act and Sunshine Law do not apply to secret meetings and expenditures of public dollars by the BDB.
Based upon the most recent AG opinion and other case law, it appears that members of the BDB Board -- including Martin County Commissioner Ed Ciampi, Stuart City Commissioner Mary Hutchinson, City Manager Dan Hudson, Acting County Administrator Taryn Kryzda, School Board member Sue Hershey and Stuart News President/Publisher Bob Brunjes -- are violating the Sunshine Law by discussing public business in secret meetings.
The law provides for fines (up to $500) and criminal penalties (second degree misdemeanor) for Sunshine Law violations. Palm Beach County Commissioner Jeff Koons recently resigned after being charged with, among other things, violating the Sunshine Law.
Additionally, any ordinances or resolutions adopted by the Martin County Board of County Commissioners which were recommended by the BDB as a result of non-public discussions and deliberations may be invalid, even if those ordinances or resolutions -- including impact fee and building permit fee mitigation, property tax exemption, and opportunity fund grant ordinances -- were adopted after a public hearing before the BOCC.
The courts have found that the public must be allowed to participate in all levels of the deliberative process. The BDB cannot develop and recommend programs in secret meetings which the BOCC subsequently adopts in a public meeting. Those ordinances may be declared invalid and must be re-adopted by the BOCC after the BDB re-convenes in public to discuss and deliberate its recommendations in the sunshine.
UPDATE
At a hearing on Aug. 12, 2010, Judge Sweet denied a request to limit questioning of Ron Bunch, executive director of the Business Development Board of Martin County, to prohibit inquiry about Mr. Bunch's previous employment by the City of Danville, Virginia. The BDB attorney has objected to questions about Mr. Bunch's tenure as economic development there. Judge Sweet said the continuation of Mr. Bunch's deposition will be limited to only one day unless a court order is obtained for continued questioning.
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
Florida Attorney General
Advisory Legal Opinion [Excerpt]
Number: AGO 2010-30
Date: July 13, 2010
Subject: Sunshine Law, private economic development council
“In the Sunshine Law, the courts have stated that it was the intent of the Legislature to bind ‘every board or commission of the state, or of any county or political subdivision over which it has dominion and control.’
“In the instant inquiry, the Lake County Economic Development Advisory Council is a private nongovernmental organization created to focus the private business community on the goals in the county's economic development plan. However, the situation you have described is not one in which a private not-for-profit entity presents independently developed, unsolicited plans or proposals for economic development to the county. Rather, Lake County commissioned and adopted an economic development strategic plan, the terms of which, according to your letter, are to be implemented by the Lake County Economic Development Advisory Council and the subcommittees of the council.
“By utilizing the Lake County Economic Advisory Council for the accomplishment of the county-adopted economic development strategic plan, the board of county commissioners has effectively delegated accomplishment of the goals set forth in the plan to the council and its subcommittees. Thus, while the statute would not ordinarily apply to private organizations, section 286.011, Florida Statutes, does apply when there has been a delegation of a board’s authority to conduct public business such as carrying out the terms of the county's strategic economic development plan.
“In sum, it is my opinion that the subcommittees of the Lake County Economic Development Advisory Council are subject to the requirements of the Government in the Sunshine Law.”
Sincerely,
Bill McCollum
Attorney General
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Gang of 4 Commissioners Smith, Ciampi, Hayes and Valliere not only approved the totally one-sided County contract favoring BDB, but they have failed to voice any objection to the BDB’s secrecy of how it spends our tax dollars or conducts business.]
The (unmentioned) elephant in the room
At the 13-hour County Commission meeting on 8/10/10, a flood of words were devoted to finding ways to circumvent DCA rejection of Comp Plan changes benefiting landowners. Yet the two words which underpin the pressure to downgrade Comp Plan protections immediately were never uttered. Even advocates for the changes admitted that it would be years before the development they want would take place.
Why change land use rules now?
It’s those two words: “Amendment 4.” Let’s say it louder: Amendment 4. Developer-business special interests know that given the opportunity to veto these harmful changes, voters would say NO. Amendment 4 gives residents that power, so the smart money and their Commission lackeys are trying to beat the Nov. 2 deadline.
There is good reason for developers and land speculators to be concerned. A poll by South Florida Business Journal asked if readers support Amendment 4. 64% said YES. 29% said NO. 7% said NOT SURE. Realize that these are readers of a business journal, not the Tree Huggers Gazette.
Noted in passing
Report by Reader J.B., who was waving a Fielding sign at an intersection: “We had a thumbs down from FIREMEN as they passed by in their truck. I thought public servants paid with public funds collected from all Martin County citizens when on duty were to represent the people.”
Drop a dime, earn $2,500
In response to thieves removing political campaign lawn signs [DEFENDER No. 179], Guardians of Martin County is offering a $2,500 reward “to the first informant reporting an offense in Martin County through August 24, 2010, and payable upon the criminal conviction of any person for sign vandalism witnessed and reported by the informant.”
Government’s role in job creation
“Government’s role in job creation is to provide predictable, reliable government and outstanding services that make the County attractive to businesses.” - Commissioner Sarah Heard
Some folks prefer to divert tax money, and change the Comp Plan, to benefit a few favorites. They hope for jobs. Alas, there’s no pony buried in the manure.
+++++
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 8/16/10
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: