The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 81
EAR will hear your comments
January workshops will receive public input on Comp Plan amendments
State law requires the county to produce an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) every seven years. Its purpose is to assess how well the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Growth Plan are being met, and if not what changes should be made. In July 2008, the County Commission adopted the EAR prepared by a consultant at a cost in the $100,000 range.
Consistent with EAR, the county has developed 12 amendments, which will be considered according to the following schedule:
January 2009 – Public workshops on the two elements of greatest citizen interest. These are the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Coastal Conservation. Dates, times and locations to be announced. It is vital that all residents who want a voice in how our county will develop attend these workshops.
September 2009 – EAR related amendments will be brought before the Commission.
December 2009 – EAR amendments adopted by Commission
March 2010 – Comp Plan changes must be implemented by this date, and then sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for final approval.
During this schedule, Martin’s Local Planning Agency (LPA) will also consider the amendments.
Government violates public records law
The Public Records Law, Section 119 of Florida Statutes, requires that all government entities produce documents requested by the public. This law has been enhanced with clarifying details in numerous court decisions and Attorney General Opinions. There are some exemptions covering legislative, judiciary and law enforcement personnel files, but the law is very broad. For example, it covers the records and communications of such entities as volunteer citizen boards, as well as those of staff and elected officials.
The Associated Press and the Florida Society of Newspaper Editors (FSNE) did a statewide audit of governmental compliance covering 163 school, sheriff and administrative offices. Almost 43% improperly handled citizen requests. Though Martin County did better than the average, the worst offender was the sheriff’s office. Supposedly this was because the request was made to the wrong records clerk – a thin excuse.
According to Stuart News editor Mark Tomasik, who is also FSNE president, because of the runaround by government staff, “Citizens are more and more frustrated with government … it discourages what is their right.”
Here are a few key points on what that right is. (1) You do not have to tell your name when making a record request. (2) The request can be oral rather than in writing (though writing may make the request clearer). (3) A citizen need not explain why he wants the record.
To overcome ignorance of the law by some lower level employees, it may be prudent to make your request directly to the boss or his designee (eg., the county administrator, the sheriff, the superintendent of schools, etc.)
The government has the right to charge a reasonable amount for copying costs it incurs, as well as requests that require an excessive amount of staff time. This is an area that the AP and FSNE should look into since it opens a loophole that may discourage record requests.
A personal experience makes high charges suspicious. I requested the expense report records that a couple of commissioners submitted during a limited period. How long should it take a clerk to find those records? Twenty minutes? An hour? Staff claimed that it took over five hours, and it would cost me $55! Either Martin County has the most confused and incompetent filing system, or they inflated the time to discourage future requests.
My suggestion is that if a citizen makes a record request, and it is rejected or unreasonably delayed, that it be reported first to the agency head. If no satisfaction, then file a complaint with the state Office of Open Government (cristopengov@eog.myflorida.com), and write a letter to the newspaper to expose such non-compliance with the law. We hope this will not be necessary.
Commission to get monthly financial reports … finally
The Commission has, at long last, set up an internal system whereby staff will present monthly revenue reports and projections at public Commission meetings. This will include ad valorem property taxes, sales taxes, gas tax, impact fees, building permit fees, ambulance fees, and other revenues. In these dire financial times this should enable the Commission to keep tighter control over revenues and expenses, as well as scheduling Capital Improvement Projects.
Construction permits continue decline
During October 2008, 395 residential and 40 non-residential Building Department construction permits were issued. This compares with 445 residential and 67 non-residential permits in September 2008. A year ago in October 2007, the permit totals were 714 and 60, respectively.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 11/30/08
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 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. 82
Facing the budget crunch
Budget shortfalls are hitting cities, counties and states across the country. Florida ’s shortfall of $5.1 billion, third largest in the nation, is likely to mean that the state will try to offload more financial obligations on Martin and other counties. If we do not take early action, we could end up like Philadelphia (11 of 54 libraries closed) or Atlanta (salaries of 4,600 employees cut).
One of our long time exasperations with the county’s wasteful spending relates to consultants. At the Dec. 2 Commission meeting, Commissioner Sarah Heard questioned why we are paying consultants who currently work on projects which will not be built for lack of funding. We are told staff is working on a plan to solve that problem, but why was there not such a plan in place six months or a year ago when the crunch was looming.
There is a philosophical issue on what to do with new income that becomes available. This past week the Commission decided, 4-to-1 with Valliere dissenting, that an estimated $250,000 to be gained from allowing cellphone towers in our parks would go into the Parks Department fund so parks can be kept clean, toilets open, and equipment maintained properly. County Administrator Duncan Ballantyne wanted the money to go into the General Fund to avoid a possible bad precedent for other departments. Of course, money sort of vanishes in a General Fund. Commission’s political focus rules when dealing with a highly visible quality of life issue.
Foreclosure help is on the way
There are some 1,400 Martin County properties currently in foreclosure, of which about 200 have reached final judgment. This is more than ten times the normal rate. Further, there are 2,400 properties, with such characteristics as sub-prime mortgages and no owner equity, that are in danger of foreclosure.
To deal with the problem, the county has set up a Foreclosure Task Force led by Community Redevelopment Director Jeff Oris. He outlined the four-phase plan developed by the task force as follows:
- Prevent foreclosures where possible
- Assist residents forced into foreclosure
- Preserve neighborhoods affected by abandoned houses
- Seek state funding for neighborhood stabilization
About $3 million in federal/state funds may be available for this purpose in Martin County , but it is uncertain whether we can get it. Oris will be working to involve a wide range of leaders and organizations to achieve task force goals. Efforts should focus on homesteaders and family businesses, rather than speculators. We hope those asked to participate will step forward to help.
Until Martin’s effort becomes fully operational, residents needing advice about preventing foreclosure can obtain useful information online at www.hopenow.com, or phone 1-888-995-4673. The Federal Office of Housing and Urban Development’s Consumer Counseling Service at 1-800-741-7040 may also be able to help.
There are plenty of mortgage counseling scams around. You can check with the Florida Attorney General’ Consumer Hotline at 1-866-966-7226.
School Board may be losing public support
Some School Board actions this year are causing people to question the wisdom and propriety of its decisions. First is the issue of openness. Al l these years the Board failed to provide MCTV coverage of its meetings. Now we will have it thanks to the determination and some dollars from a few businessmen. Separately, when it was reported that the former superintendent was skirting the public records law by having e-mails sent to her secretary, the Board did nothing.
Second, in what appeared to be a vindictive act aimed at incoming Superintendent Nancy Kline, the Board broke precedent by signing a three-year contract with the assistant superintendent instead of the usual one-year. Was that payback for Kline’s frequent dissents when she was on the Board?
Third, the Board cuts public input by reducing speaking time from five to three minutes. That partly silences the very people who are the most devoted and willing to speak up about education issues. The excuse that five minute speeches take up too much time is unconvincing. They could meet a second time during the month. Or they could bunch all those nice but time-consuming ceremonial presentations into one Saturday.
Ms. Kline is willing and able to shake up some school matters that need to be changed, especially with regard to transparency, costs and bringing others into the education picture. Our children would benefit by the School Board being more supportive of the newly elected superintendent.
Correction of EAR schedule
In DEFENDER No. 81, we noted the general schedule of EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) hearings over the next 15 months. Through a miscommunication, we erroneously stated that there would be public workshops on the amendments to the Comp Plan in January 2009 at dates and times to be announced. In fact, Growth Management staff is still working on a schedule, due for completion next month, for LPA (Local Planning Agency) public hearings. County staff expects to start taking amendments to the LPA in January, and to begin advertising workshops in January.
EAR-LPA FOLLOW-UP
At the Dec. 4, 2008 LPA meeting, Martin’s Growth Management staff presented a well conceived approach to developing the EAR document. There was particular focus on Land use (Chapter 4), Coastal (Chapter 8), and Conservation (Chapter (9). Even prior to public hearings on these three elements, citizens can not only make general comments, but they can present detailed proposed drafts of amendments for consideration. One leading developer said he plans to do so. Submissions and comments should be sent to Growth Management Director Nicki vanVonno: nikkiv@martin.fl.us . Public comments may be sent simultaneously to LPA’s Administrative Specialist Joan Seaman at jseaman@martin.fl.us.
As part of making Comp Plan provisions consistent and compatible with one another, and correcting scrivener errors, Growth Management plans to have it reviewed for understandable, plain language. Good idea, but here is where we run into an uh-oh. They plan to hire still another consultant to act as an editor to achieve clarity. Bad idea in these financially difficult times. It’s falling back on no longer affordable old habits: extra work – hire a consultant. If there aren’t a couple of county employees literate enough to edit for language clarity, then bring in some volunteers. There are plenty of competent residents in the county who would be willing do that – free!
Which commissioners are doing a second-rate job in posting public record e-mails?
Any e-mail sent to a commissioner at the county facility becomes a public record – including those with the boiler plate statement that the e-mail is a privileged private communication. To facilitate open and transparent government, the county provides website space for commissioners to post - in a timely fashion -
the e-mails they received
Some commissioners do an excellent job, keeping residents up to date. They include Commissioners Hayes and Heard. Ciampi is only one day late. However, two commissioners are laggards in posting e-mails: As of Dec. 4, Commissioner Valliere is almost three weeks behind, and Commissioner Smith is over two weeks late, which is not good constituent service. Get crackin’ guys!
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 12/6/08
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica,
Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 83
TIMING IS EVERYTHING
The home resale price roller coaster
The home sales price bubble inflated over time; then it deflated dramatically, but not instantly. The cycle took several years. Unfortunately, the supposed experts – bankers, developers, real estate brokers and political officials – either did not track the handwriting on the wall for the resale market or did not understand it. They may have been deluding themselves, too busy living on unrealistic expectations of price appreciation, raking in dollars and votes. And buyers seemed blindly optimistic that prices would keep rising forever, their faith in authority convincing them to forget caveat emptor.
To learn the timeline of the rise and fall of home prices in Martin County , we examined a substantial segment of house resales during the last months of 2008. Both higher and lower priced homes were included, though most were mid-range. We broke down 168 randomly selected resales by year of original acquisition. Then we analyzed the average percent increase or decrease of the price when the same houses were resold recently.
The general conclusion of this DEFENDER study is interesting in the same sense that lottery winners and train wrecks are. On average, the overwhelming majority of those who bought a house prior to 2003 and resold it in 2008 made a profit – usually a large profit. Al most all who originally bought in 2004 or later and subsequently resold in 2008 lost money – often a great deal of money. 2003 was the tipping point year.
For houses purchased prior to 2000, resale prices in 2008 were up 125%.
For houses purchased in 2000, resale prices in 2008 were up 52%.
For houses purchased in 2001, resale prices in 2008 were up 39%.
For houses purchased in 2002, resale prices in 2008 were up 30%.
For houses purchased in 2003, resale prices in 2008 were down 1%.
For houses purchased in 2004, resale prices in 2008 were down 22%.
For houses purchased in 2005, resale prices in 2008 were down 31%.
For houses purchased in 2006, resale prices in 2008 were down 40%.
For houses purchased in 2007, resale prices in 2008 were down 37%.
These specific percentages and annual pattern of dramatic gains and losses have not been previously recognized, at least not publicly.
In retrospect, it is apparent that although Florida ’s overall economy in 2005 was at a peak (gross domestic product was highest of all states), the growth engine was already starting to sputter. House-of-cards prosperity masked the impending collapse. Florida now ranks 47th in GDP.
LOOKING AHEAD
State economists have predicted that the current recession will last through 2009, with slow growth starting in 2010. This suggests that we are probably near the bottom now, but it is all speculative as to when the cyclic upturn will kick in. Martin County has had moderate long-term population and development growth. This should make us less vulnerable than some boomtown counties. However, we are not insulated from the current state and local pattern of no population growth, budget shortfalls, rising unemployment, and foreclosures.
Based on all of the above, what guideline should today’s prospective home buyers and sellers consider? There are what appear to be great home bargains for financially solid potential buyers willing to shop hard. However, for new buyers who do not expect to keep their homes more than two or three years, there still is some risk of further loss in market value. For those who expect to keep their homes for four or more years, the likelihood is that economic recovery will once again put such purchases on the path of appreciation. Houses may then become satisfactory investments, but probably less so than in the past decade.
If we are able to learn from experience, perhaps the next cycle will still perform like a roller coaster - but with a less frightening ride.
Highlights of 12/16/08 Commission meeting
LOOK FOR HIGHER TAXES IN 2009: County staff expects property assessments to drop more than 9% in 2009, necessitating a tax rate increase to make up for the reduced ad valorem tax collections.
A ROAD JOB WELL DONE: The plan to solve the terrible traffic situation at Monterey & Kanner by adding lanes (first reported on 6/19/08 in DEFENDER No. 59) has been completed on time and under budget. It’s a major safety and convenience improvement. Kudos to county staff.
WASTING OUR TAX MONEY: County continues to spend money to develop a new park, when the Parks & Rec Department does not have the funds to maintain existing parks. Why is Commissioner Heard the only one concerned about such foolish expenditure?
GOING GREEN WHILE SAVING MONEY: Presentation by a Trane Corp. representative to replace aging air conditioning with new technology worth $4.8 million was well received by Commission. Company will guarantee $343,557 in annual energy savings and $187,864 in operational savings. The savings will pay off a bank loan over 16 years without a tax increase or using capital funds. Good deal. This sustainable energy conservation will also reduce our carbon footprint.
TOP PROJECT PRIORITIES FOR FED FUNDS: Federal stimulus funds in the multi-hundred million dollar range may become available for the three top priority county projects. They are the C-44 project, the
Indian Street bridge, and the Lake O Hoover Dike. If we can get them – a big if – it will have major favorable impact on our economy and environment.
Personal reflections at year’s end
So many people have suffered this year – job loss, business failure, home foreclosure, investment loss – that it would be glib simply to sign off with just a traditional Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or Joyous Holiday. Of course I wish that for everyone, but I want to direct my year end reflections especially to those who are hurting.
We Americans are resilient and caring, among the many fine qualities that have made our nation great. This may be small solace when we are burdened with financial worry. So I’d like to pass along the mantra that has helped me through some difficult times during my long life: “This, too, shall pass.”
Courage. There will be better days ahead.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 12/18/08
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica,
Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 84
Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment
GETTING READY FOR THE 2010 BALLOT
Readers will recall that the Florida Hometown Democracy (FHD) amendment to the state constitution is a proposition that will allow citizens to have a say in how their communities change their comprehensive plans for growth. Some 870,000 Florida citizens signed petitions (611,000 certified signatures required) to put FHD on the 2008 ballot, but the underhanded efforts of the state Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries, certain business/developer interests, and numerous officials kept it off the ballot, but only temporarily.
SMART MONEY CONSPIRES TO ROB YOU OF YOUR VOTE
Here is what a competing business-industry “Floridians for Smart Growth” amendment – designed to prevent citizens from voting on changes - would require: Unlike FHD, a referendum on a Comp Plan Amendment would require 10% of all voters to travel to the office of the Supervisor of Elections to sign a petition within 60 days. The perpetrators know this anti-democratic proposal presents an almost insurmountable voting obstacle.
This proposed amendment, approved 4-to-3 by the Florida Supreme Court on Dec. 18, 2008, disenfranchises Florida active duty military and National Guard who are deployed out of state. The amendment also discriminates against disabled, housebound Florida voters. If approved by 60% of the electorate in 2010, the provision will become part of the Florida Constitution - the ultimate sellout to money interests.
Boiled down to its essentials, the Smart Money Growth Amendment will destroy citizen petition initiatives, but retain constitutional amendments by the lobbyist-dominated legislature. In sharp contrast, FHD would automatically empower the people by giving all residents a chance to vote on a limited number of local growth issues.
State legislators, beneficiaries of hefty campaign contributions from the so-called “Smart Growth” players, have done all they could to erode the 1985 Growth Management Act, which requires counties to have a Comprehensive Plan for growth. They have been modifying the Act for years to favor the growth machine. So instead of the Plan controlling growth, growth has been controlling the Plan. We can look back and see how that has led Florida to disaster.
One of the more recent malignant acts of the legislature was passage of a law allowing signers to revoke their petitions. The petition revocation law was declared unconstitutional by an appeals court. On Jan. 8, 2009, the Florida Supreme Court will hear a state appeal of that decision. One hopes the high court will affirm. If they do, the roughly 630,000 certified petitions will qualify the FHD amendment to be on the next ballot. If the court overturns, then there would be the costly but attainable gathering of about 40,000 more signatures. One way or another, FHD will be on the 2010 ballot.
GIRDING FOR BATTLE – KNOW THE FACTS
We can expect the same members of the failed growth machine to spend another five million dollars to mislead citizens again about what FHD does – and to attempt to persuade you that making it near impossible for citizen initiatives to get on the ballot is good for you. So that you will be better informed than the anti-FHD promoters want you to be, here are some of the myths and facts about FHD.
Myths about Florida Hometown Democracy
Myth No. 1 – “FHD is a radical change that destroys Growth Management’s Comprehensive Plans.”
Fact No. 1 – Quite the contrary. FHD is conservative in that it maintains the status quo by insulating Comprehensive Plans against radical changes approved by a single Commissioner vote. That’s what happened in Martin County when developer-financed Commissioners passed the so-called Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment to the County Comp Plan by a 3-to-2 vote, despite widespread opposition. Under FHD, a referendum would have decided the issue, but the growth machine does not want voters to control what happens in their own community.
Department of Community Affairs Secretary Tom Pelham has stated:
“The local plan is constantly changing, offers little stability or predictability, and has diminished credibility with the public. Instead of the 10- or 20-year visions they were supposed to represent, local comprehensive plans are in danger of becoming little more than six-month suggestions. It is not surprising that many citizens have lost faith in the ability of local comprehensive plans to control growth and development.”
FHD will help stabilize growth, control sprawl, preserve the environment, and protect Comp Plans. It will not affect healthy growth that attracts desirable industry.
Myth No. 2 - “FHD will flood us with elections for everything, including every little change in zoning.”
Fact No. 2 - This myth is simply a bald-faced lie. FHD applies only to changes to the Comp Plan, our fundamental document with a long term vision that includes Land Development Regulations (LDR). For ordinary changes in zoning or variances, which do not require LDR and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) revisions, Florida Hometown Democracy does not apply.
Myth No. 3 - “Land use rules are too complex for ordinary citizens to understand, so they should not be put to popular vote.”
Fact No. 3 - This arrogant and elitist viewpoint is a blatant insult to residents. It presumes that the opinion of Commissioners, even if they were not influenced by money, is superior to the collective wisdom of the citizenry.
Myth No. 4 – “There will be costly elections every month with FHD.”
Fact No. 4 – Not so. The county can bunch such elections, and have them annually and concurrent with biennial regular elections. And private amendment sponsors can be required to pay for the election listing just as candidates do.
Myth No. 5 – “FHD is supported only by a small clique of extremists.”
Fact No. 5 – Those 870,000 petition signers are a small clique? Those hundreds of civic, neighborhood, environmental and professional organizations that support FHD are extremists? Let the voters decide … and they will in 2010.
Politics makes strange bedfellows: Some socialist-oriented voices of the political left, including the Palm Beach Post, have joined in common cause with opponents of FHD. It’s the extremes against the center so that more power will rest with government, instead of the people.
DO YOU WANT TO HELP RESIDENTS TAKE BACK CONTROL?
The people can win this one, but it will take many of us talking to others over the next 22 months, educating them about FHD. We will need a cadre of informed citizens to counter the myths with the truth.
If you want to be part of the solution, just click on REPLY, type in your name, phone number and “OK FHD”, and click on SEND. You will over time receive information that will allow you to be an agent for constructive change and preservation by supporting Florida Hometown Democracy.
Battle plan erodes Comp Plan protections, promotes undesirable development
Development is very slow now because of a faltering economy, but the developer-business combine knows that eventually the cycle will turn up again. They want to be well positioned for that time. The most profitable way to achieve that goal is to change the land use rules embodied in our Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, rather than develop land already appropriately zoned.
Since most Martin residents do not want sprawl or environmental damage, the growth machine needs a convincing cover story to justify the changes. Then they can go forward with the following step-by-step plan to change the Comp Plan.
1 – Make huge financial contributions to the campaigns of candidates sympathetic toward construction oriented growth.
2 – Concoct some reasonable sounding benefits expected from the changes, even if they’re not true. Get someone who has (or once had) credibility in the environmental community to talk up the proposal.
3 – Get growth machine money to publicize the supposed benefits of the changes.
4 – Present the changes in a Comp Plan Amendment. Have the Commission listen to (and ignore) widespread citizen opposition, and pass the amendment.
It worked for the so-called Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment currently being challenged. The next such assault on the county pertains to wetlands mitigation.
Commercial wetlands mitigation – another anti-environment growth ploy
Wetlands serve such important functions as filtering surface water for our drinking water aquifer, preventing flooding, and preserving species. Wetlands mitigation is an arrangement that compensates for the destruction of wetlands. It may be justifiable when vitally needed public services require damaging wetlands. It is irresponsible and unjustifiable to allow such damage for private gain.
Uniquely, Martin County does not allow construction on wetlands. Other counties now wish they had such a rule. The effort to impose commercial wetland mitigation has already reached stage 2 in the above noted battle plan. To prevent the terrible impact that commercial wetlands mitigation would impose, the same philosophy as preventing cancer is needed: Early Detection. Hence this report.
Commissioner Patrick Hayes, who has barely had time to warm his newly won seat, is already touting the supposed justifications for commercial wetlands mitigation. This is the same Mr. Hayes who was an avid supporter of the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment so widely applauded by the developer-business growth machine, and condemned by almost all environmentalists.
UNDERSTANDING WETLANDS MITIGATION
Wetlands mitigation – ruin it here, fix it there to compensate - is a complex subject. Buried within these complexities are the uncertainties on which manipulation thrives. Mitigation may be achieved in various ways, including enhancement, restoration, creation, preservation and buying one’s way out. It may be unclear whether a claimed mitigation offers the same ecological benefits as the destroyed wetlands. Uncertainty about equivalence breeds loopholes.
In the words of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which has a mixed record of protecting the environment: “Compensatory mitigation activities may include, but are not limited to, onsite mitigation, offsite mitigation, offsite regional mitigation, and the purchase of mitigation credits from permitted mitigation banks.” Purchasing such credits is just another cost of doing business. [See EPA rules 62-342 to 62-621]
Mitigation banks of improved wetlands are still another complex link in the mitigation chain. Such banks require intensive study, monitoring and long-term management in a day when the state and county are reducing staff. Furthermore, there are banks known as Regional Offsite Mitigation Areas (ROMA), which may not be in Martin County . So the wetlands loss could be here, while the compensating wetlands are in another county. [See Florida Statutes 373.4135 & 373.4136]
Why allow commercial wetlands mitigation in the first place? It benefits only developers, while the county suffers.
IF YOU BELIEVE, AS WE DO, THAT COMMERCIAL WETLAND MITIGATION STINKS, LET OUR COMMISSIONERS HEAR FROM YOU. JUST COPY AND PASTE THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL ADDRESSES IN YOUR “TO” LINE, AND TELL ‘EM WHAT YOU THINK.
dsmith@martin.fl.us; svallier@martin.fl.us; sheard@martin.fl.us; eciampi@martin.fl.us; phayes@martin.fl.us;
Note: When Florida Hometown Democracy is adopted, all residents – not just a couple of Commissioners – will have the power to decide if major changes to Martin County , like commercial wetlands mitigation, should be allowed.
+++++
Our heartfelt best wishes for
A Happier New Year
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 12/31/08
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica,
Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 85
Martin County’s economic challenge
HOW DO WE ATTRACT DESIRABLE NEW INDUSTRY WITHOUT UNDERMINING OUR SPECIAL QUALITIES?
The great majority of residents are agreed – in principle – that we need to attract new industry that will provide jobs and a broader tax base, all without adversely affecting our quality of life. There is considerable consensus that the new model of economic growth must focus on industry rather than residential rooftops, and that both our natural and social environment must be carefully preserved.
But the devil is in the details. There is no universal consensus on which concrete steps should be taken to arrive at the agreed principle. Consider just one aspect of the problem: Proposed changes in an ordinance that specifies Development Review Procedures.
AMENDING ARTICLE 10 OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
On Jan. 8, 2009, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) met to consider changes that would “streamline” the review and approval process for the construction of facilities. Business interests believe that a speedier process is important in attracting new industry. With this in mind, they have proposed a wide range of changes which, in my opinion, include both good and bad ideas. Slow growth and environmental advocates did not file comments.
At the Jan. 8 LPA meeting, several business representative appeared to voice their support for the draft changes, and to propose still further changes. Only two speakers, Ed Fielding and Al Forman, were present to explain why some of the proposed changes were likely to subvert long established protections.
An example of a desirable proposed change would allow more than one resubmittal for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs). This will accelerate the process while maintaining safeguards.
PUTTING ABSOLUTE POWER IN ONE MAN’S HANDS
Now let’s look more closely at one of the truly bad proposed changes. It involves de minimus, the concept that the law is not concerned with trifles. The problem is that one person’s insignificant change is another person’s quite significant one – a frequent difference of opinion if you watch county board hearings. The proposed ordinance says that any dispute about what is de minimus will be decided by the County Administrator , whose decision is final. There is no review, appeal or public announcement. No commissioner or judge has such absolute dictatorial power. Besides, the County Administrator is not a specialist in land use regulations. LPA postponed any decision.
It pays for citizens to be involved at these formative stages of law making. It’s better than gnashing your teeth later, after an undesirable development has been approved – one that is fully consistent with the law.
We need to be receptive to suitable new industry coming here. It’s true that we are competing with other counties and states to attract companies. However, we must not mortgage our future by trying to be the most desperate bidder.
NEEDED: The right attitude for cutting costs
TWO COMMISSIONERS TAKE LEAD IN HOLDING THE LINE
It was an uncomfortable situation at Witham Airport . Briefly, the Sheriff’s Office was using a building rent-free to store non-aviation equipment after moving its helicopter. A condition of FAA airport grants requires that non-aviation users of buildings pay market rent. According to the staff report, that would require the county to pay the airport, at $7/sq. ft., some $43,000/yr from general funds. Rents would increase in following years. Faced with this requirement, staff said at the Jan. 6, 2009 meeting that the County Commission should pay it. But do we really have to pay that much?
Commissioner Sarah Heard was vehemently opposed to paying when we don’t have enough money to keep parks open. Commissioner Ed Ciampi showed business savvy by making a motion to delay any payment. Have the sheriff stay in the building until a new tenant is found, which may be a while. And given economic conditions, market level rent may really be much less than the $43,000 appraisal, especially in the building’s as-is condition.
Further, it came out that a sheriff’s fund had paid to construct the building, not the airport. So Heard suggested that, if necessary, the county should pay only the much cheaper land rent rather than building rent. Ciampi welcomed the suggestion and included that aspect in his motion, which passed unanimously. Staff will be coming back with more information, but for now over $3,500/month is not being spent.
Admittedly, it’s a bit confusing to follow all this. However, the take home message is that government officials and staff need to think in tough minded creative ways how to hold the line on spending – exactly as Commissioners Heard and Ciampi have done.
Let’s not degrade road construction rules
There are good reasons that the county requires homes to be built on paved roads, rather than dirt roads. Dirt roads throw unhealthy particulate into the air; they foster stream pollution; they are less safe; and especially after heavy rain, they slow emergency vehicles.
The problem is that paved roads are much more expensive than dirt roads. So some western landowners want the county to grant variances that allow home building on dirt roads. They can benefit from lower construction costs to increase their profit. Bad idea.
So far the Growth Management staff has wisely refused to support such a selfish idea that degrades the county. Let’s hope that the Commission will continue to recognize the negative implications of dirt road development.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 1/10/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica,
Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 86
Stuart News article re-ignites anger over $100,000-plus salaries for firefighters
COMMISSIONERS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
An excellent article in the Jan. 11, 2009 Stuart News by reporter George Andreassi listed the individual over-$100,000 salaries of 140 government employees in Martin County, among the total of 914 employees. 103 of the 100K+$ employees are on the County Commission payroll, and 79 of these are firefighters. Nearby counties have far lower costs and overtime bonanzas.
An online follow-up blog poll by the newspaper asked: “Are local government salaries too high, considering the economic climate?” Some 70% of respondents said YES.
The breakdown of the overpaid 79 includes: 15 fire chiefs and battalion commanders; 50 lieutenants; and 14 line firefighters. If health and pension costs were included, the numbers would be much higher.
While other departments are suffering cutbacks, not only did the International Association of FireFighters (IAFF) get raises into 2011for its members, but it persuaded the County Commission to hire nine more firefighters, rather than bring staffing in line to fit the budget.
How did this unfair and burdensome arrangement come into being? Let’s look back at the headline and lead ‘graphs of the 8/7/08 Issue No. 66 of DEFENDER:
Firefighter contract “giveback” a ripoff
COUNTY DIGS A DEEPER FINANCIAL HOLE AS COMMISSIONERS PANDER FOR UNION VOTES
NON-NEGOTIATED SWEETHEART DEAL GETS THUMBS DOWN FROM TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION
In 2006, the Commission signed an overly generous 3-year contract with the firefighters union (IAFF). Many of their non-managerial members earn over $100,000/yr. Recognizing that contract renewal next year would be tough in a budget cutting period, IAFF offered to forgo half of their 10% annual raise due in October 2008.
However, the strings attached to this supposed concession would eventually cost more than would be saved. The amended contract approved on August 5, 2008 by Commissioners Smith, Weberman, DiTerlizzi and Valliere, under the claim of public safety, would extend 5% annual increases to 2011 whether we have the money or not. [Snip]
WHICH COMMISSSIONERS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE?
Weberman and DiTerlizzi did their politically inspired work and are gone. Heard had the courage to oppose the IAFF demands. Hayes and Ciampi are new. But Commissioners Smith and Valliere are still on the Commission, and their irresponsibility deserves all the scrutiny that we can muster.
“If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s not necessarily a duck”
Really? Well those were essentially the words used by Jim Valliere in his opening statement at the Stuart courthouse denying that he and his wife Susan violated election laws in her 2006 campaign for county commissioner. In other words, he thinks that the Administrative Law Judge hearing the case, which charges many campaign violations against the Vallieres (28 against Susan and 79 against Jim) should not assume that, though the two are married, they actually discussed and decided things together.
Judge Robert Meade, who seemed very fair and competent, did not indicate what he thought of the inverse duck analogy. However, some audience members appeared highly skeptical, barely suppressing guffaws.
The alleged campaign finance violations revolve around coordination and contributions relating to Commissioner Valliere’s campaign committee, and her husband’s Political Action Committee (PAC), both of which worked for her re-election. Jim Valliere was treasurer of both committees. The case is being heard this week over a four day period. A decision is expected in the next few months. Civil penalties could range up to $1,000 per count.
Newspapers should monitor misleading ads
A Massachusetts company recently ran large ads in local newspapers, ads that were misleading, and possibly illegal. An auction was advertised with a bold headline claiming “conducted by Department of Auction Services; seized property held by County Sheriff .” It sounds official, but it is more evasively clever than official.
The large type “Department of Auction Services” is really Department of Auction Services, Inc., but you have to dig into the smaller print to learn it is a corporation, not a government agency. Furthermore, to do business in Florida , a corporation must be currently registered with the Department of State. This once-registered corporation is now listed as inactive.
Next, there is that “seized property held by County Sheriff .” If a reader thought that it meant a Florida sheriff – one that enforces the law and seizes boats and cars used in crimes - he’d be mistaken. The Massachusetts sheriff is primarily a process server of legal papers. All those “works of fine art and oriental rugs” were part of the shrewdly disclaimed “vast majority of additional goods” in the smaller print.
Newspapers need to clean up misleading ads, even if they are barely legal. It’s a minimal obligation that they have for their readers.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 1/15/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica,
Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 87
IT’S NECESSARY. IT’S COSTLY. IT COULD BE UNHEALTHY.
SEEKING THE ANSWER FOR MULCHING
This is a story of some of the challenges Martin County staff and officials face in solving a vexing problem: What to do with all those trees and branches that are cut and need to be disposed of.
Recycling is the obvious answer – better than filling up landfills - and that is accomplished by grinding the wood into mulch. We produce about 2,500 tons/yr (11,000 cubic yards). The good stuff, such as hardwoods and pine, are given to residents and county departments at no charge. A cubic yard is worth $4 to $6. Even junk mulch, such as bushes and leaves, are not wasted, going to local sod farms as soil supplements.
The problem is that grinding/chipping trees in the open also produces tiny specks that become airborne particulate. As the particles are taken by the wind and deposited on nearby houses, they create a mess. Worse still, the particulate is also deposited in the lungs of residents. That is a serious danger to health, as well as a violation of environmental laws.
The open air mulch facility at the old landfill in Palm City has understandably raised the concerns and ire of its neighbors. Their earlier knee-jerk reaction was to move the mulching – a familiar response of people displeased with troublesome nearby facilities. Now they are aware that the only reasonable solution is to put the mulching indoors.
On board with the concept of enclosing mulching in a large building are three key players: Commissioner Ed Ciampi, whose district includes Palm City ; Environmental Services Director John Polley; and Solid Waste Administrator Patrick Yancey. To solve the problem, professional staff is planning for a building that may cost a million dollars, a pittance perhaps compared with the plans for a new $45 million Constitutional Officers’ Building, but still a lot of dough in these hard times. A new mulching building could be financed from the $3 million now in the approved budget for expanded recycling.
Thinking in creative ways to put up a structure quickly and inexpensively, Commissioner Ciampi came up with the idea of erecting one of those semi-cylindrical quonset shaped buildings with plastic sheeting over metal arches. Locally, smaller versions of this type of structure are seen in commercial greenhouses. Larger ones are used around the country for farm storage in non-hurricane areas. Erection is fast, and cost would be around $100,000, far less than a conventional building.
The Commissioner’s proposal for a ribbed plastic structure is innovative. It was presented at a private, unannounced meeting on 1/16/09 with select dissatisfied residents from the nearby Stuart West and Cobblestone developments. Al as, none of the residents present had the knowledge or courage to challenge the Commissioner’s well intended, but fatally flawed, proposal. Simply stated, plastic covered structures are unfit for the job because of the following reasons:
CODE VIOLATION – To allow such a structure for what is a mulch manufacturing plant would require the County Commission to waive the code requirements that protect our community, a slippery slope one should hesitate to enter. Otherwise, why not waive the rules for private buildings, too?
HURRICANE SUSCEPTIBLE – After every hurricane, we’ve seen such structures ripped to shreds. They simply can not withstand wind speeds over 95 mph – and that is just a Category One hurricane.
UNSUITABLE FOR EQUIPMENT – An indoor mulch plant requires the mounting of heavy filtration equipment, fire sprinklers, misters and fans. Ribbed plastic sheet structures are poorly suited for this.
INEFFICIENT FORM FACTOR – Picture a concave-down half-circle. These structures are roughly twice as wide as they are high. Trucks require a minimum 35-ft height clearance, which would be available only in the center of a 70-ft wide semi-cylinder. This is impractical use of space.
Were there no over-riding factor, bad economic conditions would suggest dropping the building idea. However, because of the serious health issues involved, it is important that the County Commission move ahead promptly to approve the construction of a more conventional – and useful - mulch building. The health of residents, as well as the county’s potential liability, depend on it. Let’s do it right … the first time.
A good neighbor looks at Martin County
Meet Charles Grande. He is an environmentalist, a civic volunteer, a former top computer systems executive, and currently a Commissioner in St. Lucie County. He has watched the fast growth and overdevelopment of his own county, and the more sensible control in Martin County . He has doubtlessly noted the 10,764 in-process foreclosures for 2008 in St. Lucie (third worst among Florida ’s 67 counties), and compared it with the 2,098 in Martin (27th worst – bad enough).
Mr. Grande has expressed his admiration and concern about where Martin County is heading in a letter to Martin’s Director of Growth Management Nikki VanVonno. Thanks to Lloyd Brumfield for a copy.
Nicki:
For as long as I can remember, Martin County has been the shining example for the rest of us in the area of land planning. Your Comp Plan is clearly the best, your staff is clearly the best and the results to date demonstrate what good planning can accomplish.
It seems that now, rather than maintaining that level of excellence and challenging the rest of us to improve, Martin County is embarking on a movement to drop back to the rest of us. It may be easier to be average but it’s not something to be proud of.
The Valliere amendment, the wetlands changes, and now the process shortcuts. I may be left without an idol.
Love,
Chas
[Isn’t this “drop back” a trend that we should all be concerned about? – Ed.]
Spend, spend, spend. Why? Well the County planned to a few years ago!
Let’s just suppose. Suppose that you planned a few years ago to add an expensive wing to your house one day. More recently, you lost your job and can barely pay the mortgage. Would you proceed in 2009 to build that home extension?
The same kind of question posed to the spendthrift County Commission has been answered with a resounding YES. That is essentially what they did at their 1/20/09 meeting concerning a new $3.5 million maintenance building. The County has spent $350,000 for planning, which would still be useful at a future time when the economy is better.
To make the matter worse, the County would have to borrow $2.2 million to pay for the project, abandoning the prudent policy of pay-as-you-go improvement. The four-member Commission majority just doesn’t get it, voting 4-to-I to approve construction of the maintenance building. Only Commissioner Heard opposed going forward with this project at the present time.
Foreclosure Task Force moves ahead
Martin’s Foreclosure Task Force is making progress in organizing foreclosure prevention and assistance. They may sponsor a “fair” to bring together banks and counselors with members of the public seeking information.
Both financial providers and homeowners are invited to get involved in task force planning. Anyone interested should contact the Foreclosure Task Force leader, CRA Director Jeff Oris, at 288-5666.
CONGRATULATIONS to all Witham Airport stakeholders who have worked so hard on the Airport Noise Abatement Committee (ANAC) to reduce noise. Credit for a recent award for ANAC accomplishments belongs to airport users, fixed base operators, local residents, officials and airport staff who cooperated in a notable display of community spirit.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 1/22/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica,
Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 88
Commission “streamlines” hearing procedures by throttling interveners
RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION OF AFFECTED PARTY AND NEW TIME LIMITS ON SPEECH STIFLE OPPOSITION TO HARMFUL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
On Feb. 3, 2009, the Martin County Commission radically changed its Rules of Procedure regarding quasi-judicial public hearings. Those most seriously affected are residents who may be adversely affected by an application under consideration. Previously, if such citizens were willing to be sworn, they became interveners with the right to speak, question, and be questioned the same as the applicant.
No longer. The developer-applicant still has 45 minutes for presentation and 20 minutes for rebuttal. However, unlike the long established previous rules that gave each intervener the same time, all interveners combined will now be allowed the same 45 and 20 minute time slots!
It gets worse.
The Commission has redefined who can be an intervener. Only those qualified for notification under Land Development Regulations (LDR) may qualify. Basically, this means that if one is an owner – not necessarily an in-state resident – of a property within 300 ft. of a proposed project, or a homeowner association, that person qualifies as an intervener. But first one must file notice of intent seven days in advance.
Therefore, if you are a rental resident within, say, 50 ft. of a project, you have no right to intervene. If you are a property owner and resident who is, say, 750 ft. from a project, and subject to flooding, hazardous road conditions, or aquifer pollution, you have no right to intervene. All you can do is speak – but not question – during the three minutes allotted to open public comment.
As stifling as the above will be for Martin citizens, it could have been even worse. Commissioner Doug Smith wanted every intervener to pay a $200 fee, and Commissioner Patrick Hayes proposed a $500 fee to allow restricted organizations outside the 300 ft. limit. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. A procedural poll tax was not approved. Only Commissioner Sarah Heard consistently opposed the onerous restrictions of the new Rules of Procedure. Two business representatives heartily approved the changes during public comment.
Land acquisition from sales surtax preserves Martin’s future
THERE’S NEED TO GUARD AGAINST FAVORITISM
In 2006, the County Commission rolled the dice with Ordinance 711. The ordinance proposed a half-cent sales surtax to acquire conservation land, and to construct parks and recreation facilities – subject to approval by voter referendum. In a grand display of forward looking citizenship, voters approved the ordinance to run from Jan. 1, 2007 to Dec. 31, 2011.
It was estimated that the sales tax would provide the County with $60 million over five years. Half of the money goes towards Parks and Recreation, while the other half is for acquisition of Conservation Land. A $25 million dollar line of credit was issued for the land conservation half of the money. So far, about $15 million has been spent, amplified by federal and state grants. These grants are drying up, either because of the down economy or the focus on the prospective 180,000-acre U.S. Sugar purchase.
FORMATION OF LAND ACQUISITION SELECTION COMMITTEE
To implement Ordinance 711, the County Commission set up a seven-member Land Acquisition Selection Committee (LASC) pursuant to Resolution 89-4.26. LASC is empowered to evaluate and recommend proposed purchases. Each Committee member, appointed for three years, makes an individual assessment of a property’s value for acquisition. Then a group effort ranks the list of offerings. Recommendations to the County Commission are usually unanimous.
The first whiff of concern at the creation of LASC relates to the appointment of members. The criteria for appointments specified that they be representatives of certain select organizations. One member would be a County Commissioner. For environmental assessment of proposed properties, the Resolution specifically requires that the members be representatives of the Martin County Audubon Society, the Martin County Chapter of the Native Plant Society, the Environmental Studies Council (so far, so good), and the Treasure Coast Builders Association.
There may be some fine environmentalists in the builder trade organization, but that is not their organization’s primary focus. A number of far more appropriate choices were available, organizations clearly focused on the environment, but unfortunately having less political clout with the County Commission. Better choices would have included the Rivers Coalition, the Martin County Conservation Alliance, and the Sierra Club, among others.
For economic assessment of properties, the Resolution requires appointees who represent the Economic Council and Board of Realtors, plus the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) as advisor. There certainly are ecology-minded members of the Economic Council and the Realtors, though a highly regarded state certified property appraiser or someone from the Tax Assessor’s Office may have been a better member choice.
A concern arises, at least as regards the appearance of propriety, when those who are very anxious to sell their property are members of the organizations sitting on the LASC, or the lawyers and realtors pitching a sale for client property owners they represent, are organization members. The concern is heightened when properties are not pristine or sensitive lands - undeveloped pine flatwoods, wetlands, mangroves and dunes, for example – but rather land with buildings already erected.
According to the Martin County Environmental Lands Administrator’s office, there are fifteen properties currently under consideration for acquisition, ranging from 0.5 to 2,398 acres. Our examination indicates that nine are waterfront related, and at least four are adjacent to preservation areas. Five have a building on the property, including the questionable Hutchinson Island Taschman property on the ocean shoreline.
To become better informed about how your surtax money is being spent, you can attend the next LASC meeting on Thursday, Feb. 26, 2009, at 2:00 pm in the County Commission chambers. Visitors are allowed to address the Committee.
Follow-up on $100,000+ county employees
In DEFENDER Issue No. 86, we reported on the excessive number of firefighters being paid over $100,000. Recently, a column in the Stuart News by Don Pickard, President of the Martin County Taxpayers Association, shed additional comparative information on this financial burden for the county. Number of $100,000+ earners:
We can thank the previous County Commission majority – two of whom are still on the Commission - for this rip-off.
The people speak out
It may not be New York’s Union Square, or London’s Hyde Park, but Stuart’s southern foot of the Roosevelt Bridge is a popular place for Martin residents to express their views. Currently, a couple dozen residents – Christians, Jews, atheists – are gathering at the bridge on Thursdays at 4:30 pm to let the world know that they support Israel in the fight against Hamas terrorists. Honks from many passing cars have been sounding their approval.
Sharing a laugh with readers
From time to time, our e-mailed DEFENDER gets bounced back to us because the address is no longer operative. However, one rejection from a business subscriber was a first time event. The reason for rejection was stated in their smut filter report to us: “Block - Unacceptable due to offensive language”.
Say what? Their report told us what the offending word was. We checked Issue No. 87 and found the word in our article that discussed a building for mulching. The offending word was in this sentence:
“Erection is fast, and cost would be around $100,000, far less than a conventional building.”
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 2/4/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
www.MartinCountyDefender.com
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 89
Proposed fire assessment fee presents many problems, few benefits
The Fire/Rescue Department that has brought us 31.2% of employees with salaries over $100,000 has proposed a radically different way of paying for fire protection. It was presented at the Feb. 10, 2009 Commission meeting. Only about 17 agencies – counties, cities, towns, fire districts – in the entire state use the suggested fixed special assessment fee instead of the current ad valorem tax.
The conceptual basis of charging for a structure’s type rather than value is that the same fire truck goes to a fire in a $200,000 house as a nearby $500,000 home, so they should pay the same. If a fixed fee were more equitable, why does the Fire Department want to retain ad valorem tax for EMS service? After all, the same ambulance goes to a trailer as a mansion. With the fixed fee, more expensive properties will save more.
The main benefit of a fixed fee is easier long range capital improvement planning for the Fire Department. The problems for the County would be many. The categorization of the fee structure requires costly consultants because of its complexity. Such a change would further complicate negotiations for merging County services with the City of Stuart . How would it affect the sweetheart low fees that wealthy Jupiter Island and Sewall’s Point pay for County fire service? There is a fair chance of legal challenges. Fixed fire fees are a bad idea.
Crafting an annual County budget when reduced funds require cutbacks
IT’S TOUGHER THAN YOU MAY THINK
On Feb. 4, 2009, a workshop was held for Martin County ’s bosses and hired help. Its purpose was to develop a process for establishing a budget for the 2009-2010 fiscal year (FY2010). The Commissioner bosses were asked by senior staff employees to provide guidance for a budget to operate the County on reduced funding. A proposed budget must be submitted to the Commission for approval in September 2009.
County Administrator Duncan Ballantyne’s staff was organized and knowledgeable. They presented an Excel spreadsheet that allows financial numbers to be juggled. For example, if across-the-board equal cuts were made, it might require a 7% reduction. However, if Sheriff and Fire/EMS are cut less, or not at all, then other departments may have to cut twice as much since those two account for about 60% of the budget. Perhaps we should have independent efficiency experts assess personnel allocations and procedures to learn the wisest cuts.
WHICH SERVICES ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO US?
So it becomes a matter of priorities. Without endorsing any one action, here are some of the numerous reductions that could be made to help close the gap:
- Impose limited unpaid furloughs
- Lay off some deputies and firefighters
- Close a fire station
- Close some libraries
- Close more parks
- Cut management salaries
- Reduce health and pension costs
- Eliminate some senior staff through reorganized departments
- Cut back number and assignment of vehicles
- Reduce travel by staff and officials
- Reduce some office personnel
- Renegotiate labor contracts under “Financial Urgency” Statute 447.4095
We should recognize that most of the above cuts will, in varying degree, adversely affect our quality of life. There is no free lunch, but do we need Kobe beef filets?
Though it is assumed common knowledge that there is always fat and waste that could be cut (fortified by the fact that the County government budget grew far faster in the past decade than population), the question is: Which specific services do we want to reduce or eliminate?
The situation is further complicated by the budgets of elected “Constitutionals,” such as the Sheriff and Supervisor of Elections. They made cuts last year. How will the Constitutionals, including Tax Assessor, Tax Collector and Clerk of Courts, carry out their legal mandates? Can we risk having elections that are so underfunded that outcomes are uncertain?
One partial solution is not to cut, or to cut less, by raising taxes. Governments can do that, unlike families and businesses that must learn to do without during hard times. One such proposal at the workshop was to impose an FPL franchise fee consisting of an added 5.9% on electric bills for the next 30 years. Other counties and cities have such an inescapable fee, but do we want to impose it on families already struggling? Do we want residents in 2039 to be paying for 2009 problems?
PROVIDING GUIDANCE TO STAFF
Toward the end of the workshop, the Commissioners were floundering, rather than offering clear-cut guidance to staff. One Commissioner was grasping at straws. One was clueless. One was busy pontificating. In the end, they will all do the best that they are able in these trying times.
Finally, Commissioner Ed Ciampi proposed three constructive points to serve as guidelines for staff.
1 – The amount of tax paid by homesteaders should be the same as last year, irrespective of millage rate.
2 - Start by calculating 10% cuts and see where that takes us. Try to minimize high profile direct service cuts.
3 – Press the Constitutionals to volunteer the best cuts they can. [Good luck with that. – Ed.]
It’s still early in the cycle since most of the work needs to be done by June. More discussions are still to come.
One point that did not get enough attention at the workshop was trying to find out which cuts residents are most willing to endure – not what one Commissioner thinks he knows. There was some suspicion that citizens would not be willing to face up to the cuts required. So leave it to papa? Better yet, we’ve heard unofficially that a professional survey with at least a 5% confidence level is in the works to learn what residents would prefer.
Meanwhile, it never hurts to let our elected representative know which services you think are most expendable, or if higher taxes are acceptable.
SHORTSIGHTED THINKING IN TALLAHASSEE
Plans to kill key growth management mandates will not stimulate economy
The State Senate’s proposed Community Renewal Act is supposed to stimulate the economy by undercutting road and school concurrency requirements of Florida ’s Growth Management Act. It would also fast-track project applications considered Developments of Regional Impact (DRI), especially in urban areas. There is no proof that such law would produce any positive effect in either home construction (300,000 homes currently unsold) or commercial construction (retailers and industrials are constricting, not expanding).
What this bit of special interest legislation would do – once the current crisis passes because of pent up demand, aided by real job-creating stimulus money (not puffed up social spending) – is return us to ruinous unmanaged growth so profitable to the few.
Bill SB630 would eliminate impact fees that fund infrastructure, thereby reducing home rule and adding a tax burden on residents. County Commissioners wisely went on record with a resolution opposing this.
We would all be better off if those geniuses in Tallahassee recognized – as Department of Community Affairs Secretary Tom Pelham has stated - that Growth Management did not cause the current recession, and it can not reverse it. But the lobbyist-driven State Senate is ready to steamroll this bad piece of legislation when it convenes on March 3 for a 60-day session.
“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session”- from N.Y. court decision in 1866
WANT TO TRACK GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVENTS?
Go to the following link to read the Growth Management Department’s informative e-newsletter:
http://mcdevrev.wordpress.com/
SPREAD THE WORD: 211 CAN SAVE LIVES
There are teenagers who are suicidal. There are women in dangerously abusive situations. There are old people about to have their power turned off. There are public services to help such people. Access these services by calling 211.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 2/11/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica,
Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 90
“Streamlined” Development Review Procedures erode limits and protections
QUALITY-OF-LIFE ADVOCATES IGNORE REVISIONS
On Feb. 24, 2009, the County Commission will consider, and no doubt pass, significant changes to Article 10 of Development Review Procedures of the Martin County Land Development Regulations (LDR). These changes are claimed to streamline the review process, and reduce “requirements that impede economic development opportunities.” Intended or not, the proposed ordinance will also erode long established limits and protections that have kept much undesirable development in check.
In the ongoing battle between business-developer oriented Expansionists and go slow quality-of-life Preservationists, most Preservationists deserted the field. At the Jan. 8, 2009 meeting of the Local Planning Agency (LPA), which considered the Article 10 revisions before they moved to the upcoming Commission meeting, only two residents appeared to voice any opposition – Al Forman and Ed Fielding. Both strongly opposed a de minimis provision, which is based on the concept that the law is not concerned with trifles. But one man’s trifle is another’s big dessert.
The proposed de minimis provision before the LPA stated that which issues are minimal would be decided by the County Administrator , whose decision would be final - no review, appeal or public announcement. No commissioner or judge has such absolute dictatorial power. Besides, the County Administrator is not a specialist in land use regulations. We are pleased that the final draft eliminated de minimis.
WHAT’S MINOR IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
However, the proposed ordinance does have loopholes under the umbrella of the word “minor.” It is to the credit of the Growth Management Department that the Commission is being asked to define the meaning of minor. This is needed because Section10.14.C.4 of the Article 10 ordinance newly exempts a wide range of administrative amendment reviews for changes that are not more than minor. This includes roads, drives, sidewalks, parking areas, landscaping, and boundaries.
Some of the proposed additions and deletions in Article 10 are reasonable, improving timely processing of applications, or lifting too constrictive limits. However, other changes are worrisome because they could open the floodgates for hasty or undesirable approval of development applications. It is beyond the scope of this article to analyze in detail the 26-page draft ordinance, but it should be instructive to be specific about some revisions.
In Part 2, Section 4c, the following words have been added: The County Administrator shall determine whether an item is a minor technical issue. Well, de minimis may be gone, but its questionable spirit lives on.
EXTENSIONS AT APPLICANT’S OPTION
In Section 4d, the following words have been added: If the report identifies the processes that must be completed prior to the issuance of the development order, the required period for response by applicant shall be automatically extended until the other processes are completed, not to extend beyond one (1) year. There is no stated limit to how many times this kind of automatic extension can be granted. Add this to the 3-year extension approved in 2007, and developers have the right to drag out the process until a time years later when new conditions may warrant different criteria. We need job creating business stimulation this year and next, not years from now … maybe.
SUSTITUTING POLITICIANS FOR PROFESSIONAL STAFF
In Section 4f, the following words have been added: At any time, the applicant may request that the County Administrator forward the application to the decision-maker for review and final action. This is a ticking time bomb that will allow dissatisfied developer applicants to bypass professional staff scrutiny and bring its concerns directly to the political decision maker, the Commission. Not good.
GOODBYE TO LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
In Part 3, Section 1, the following words have been added: The LPA shall not review applications that are subject to the expedited review permitted.” Combine this avoided scrutiny and public comment with the deletion of these words in Part 6, Section 10.12.B.2: Projects eligible for an expedited staff review must comply with the level of service standards and demonstrate that there is available capacity for the needed public services. This means bad applications, including those that will reduce the level of service to residents, will slide though more easily.
There’s more, but you get the idea of what some Article 10 revisions will do to us, not for us. The saddest part is that it will not stimulate economic activity any more than money for condoms will in the Federal stimulus package. The procedural inducements will have real negative impact only after the economy turns up.
While Preservationists were asleep at the switch, Expansionists were busy peppering county staff with phrases they wanted to see in the revisions. It’s the eleventh hour, but perhaps environmental / quality-of-life folks can finally wake up and speak up.
THE BRIDGE: Still an elusive priority
On Feb. 12, 2009, the Florida Department of Transportation sent a dozen employees from Lauderdale to the Palm City Community Center to display plans for the Palm City / Indian Street Bridge . There were maps and drawings for the large number of residents who attended. Hit of the show was a computer generated virtual tour of the bridge and access roads. What was lacking was a chance to sit down, listen to a presentation, and ask questions from top officials. Visitors could have learned that the present Palm City Bridge is the county’s busiest road (other than the expressways and US 1), and a vulnerable choke point.
The unseen 800-pound gorilla in the room was financing. Would the Feds come up with the more than $100 million needed? Would the project be considered a top priority? How important is the need for Martin to make legal changes affecting properties impacted in the future by eminent domain? Big questions. No answers.
DOES THE COUNTY KNOW WHAT IT’S DOING?
First we have the county saying the Indian Street Bridge is top priority. Then last week the Martin County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) says it ranks sixth behind some road paving projects. A couple days later it changes its mind and says the bridge is top priority. Maybe “planning” should not be the MPO’s middle name.
Then we go online to www.stimuluswatch.org to learn about the $15.6 billion worth of 1752 stimulus projects being proposed for Florida . Projects are listed, among others, for Miami and Jacksonville , as well as the cities of Gretna , Largo and Dunedin . Port St. Lucie has over $139 million in proposed projects (including money for taser shotguns). Nothing is listed for Stuart or anywhere else in Martin County . Hmmm.
Calorie madness in Tallahassee
Not had enough of the nanny state? Now a state legislator wants to mandate that restaurants list the calories of every dish next to its menu price. Perhaps we’ll get a dining out tax – just what the restaurant industry needs nowadays – that is proportional to the calories consumed. [Maybe I shouldn’t make jokes. Some dum-dum in Tallahassee might think that’s a good idea – Ed.]
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 2/19/09
The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2009 by WordsmithAmerica,
Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.
All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website: