The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 1
NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS
You have been selected to become a charter subscriber to The Martin County Defender at no charge because, at some point, you had the courage and insight to go on record in supporting efforts to retain our fine quality of life in Martin County. If you do not wish to receive future issues, send an e-mail to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
and type “Unsubscribe” on the subject line. If you have a friend who believes in slow growth, safeguarding the comp plan, and protecting the environment, send us an e-mail with “Subscribe” on the subject line, and include that person’s name and e-mail address in the text.
IN THIS ISSUE:
The divide between citizens and commissioners
Consultants have been a waste of money
YMCA tries to block FAA info for members
A great view of Commission meetings
The divide between citizens and commissioners
We know that Martin County residents want to slow down growth. We know that because impartial professional surveys have proved it. For example, last year the highly regarded Community Foundation for Palm Beach and Martin Counties hired a top notch polling organization, Princeton Survey Associates Research International to conduct telephone interviews with Martin County residents. Here are highlights of their findings, with a sampling error margin of 4.6%.
An overwhelming 82% of Martin adults call for reining in growth, either by freezing it (26%) or by slowing it down (56%). Only 13% say development is too important to slow down. The most important problem facing the County (46%) is some aspect of growth and development, over twice the second place problem, traffic at 21%.
This sentiment was confirmed in the 2006 election when two challengers, heavily financed by developer interests, were handily defeated by moderate Commission incumbents. There has been a noticeable shift toward slower growth since the 2004 election, when three faster-growth incumbents squeaked by with less than a majority against the split vote of multiple slower-growth candidates.
If you read the hundreds of comments – as we did – sent to commissioners by Martin County residents opposing the adoption of the pro-cluster recommendations of the Glatting Jackson report, you would get the sense of voters’ rising indignation toward spending a half million dollars to get undesirable proposals most people fervently oppose.
Why do the faster-growth Commissioners continue to give too much away to developers? Do they vote as they do because of the generous campaign contributions from developers? Or do they receive the contributions because of their growth viewpoint? And given the Browardizing result either way, does it matter which?
Consultants have been a waste of money
The smaller boondoggle resulted in $50,000.00 of tax money being thrown away. That was the study by consultant Urbanomics. Basically it recommended that large areas of Martin County be turned into commercial and industrial parks. This outrageous report was apparently prompted by business interests lobbying for it with senior County staff. The Commission did not vote on launching it, but it is doubtful that it could have gone forward without the blessing of County Administrator Duncan Ballantyne. Consultant report – R.I.P.
The $528,000.00 Development Patterns study was approved by a Commission majority. The consultant selected, Glatting Jackson, was somewhat famous for its cluster housing plan for Sarasota. A couple of years previously, Tim Jackson was on the Blake Library stage touting the benefits of clusters. The consultant’s report did not disappoint the faster-growth commissioners in this regard.
This study had an extensive outreach and workshop participation program to gain public input. Many citizens spent hours in discussions on related topics, often presenting group conclusions on large sheets that were pasted on the walls. The consultant was to collate and analyze them later. The cost for this outreach part of the study was about half of the entire contract price, according to Commissioner Lee Weberman. Alas, the final report did not include any analysis of public input. Perhaps the consultant did not want to show that citizen views were opposite to their recommendations. The report did include a few letters from lawyers representing landowners! Maybe the entire consultant project was a sham from start to finish.
YMCA tries to block FAA info for members
On March 17, 2007, citizens exercising their First Amendment rights handed out flyers at the entrance to the YMCA on Monterey Road. The flyers noted how the Federal Aviation Administration was making the unsupportable claim that they controlled YMCA land for airport use. A YMCA manager rushed out in an attempt to prevent this distribution of flyers, thereby trying to block the information from their members. Is this YMCA policy? Shouldn’t the Y be rallying its members to oppose the outrageous FAA grab? The flyer distribution went on without interruption.
A great view of Commission meetings
You may know that Tuesday Commission meetings are broadcast live on MCTV, and re-broadcast Wednesday at 9:00 am and 10:00 pm, Friday at 4:00 pm, and Saturday at 10:00 am. But do you know that you do not have to wade through many hours of boredom to see an issue of interest discussed?
Just go to www.martin.fl.us, and click on Video on Demand. That takes you to a page that lists past meetings by date and duration. Microsoft Video Player is required, and you can get that on that same page. Not only can you choose a particular meeting when you click on Video, but you can click on the topic of interest. You can view individual comments by commissioners and the public. As the kids say: Real Cool!
BRIEF COMMENTARY
* COMING SOON TO A COMPUTER NEAR YOU: Our detailed case history on how developers and a commissioner majority worked hand in hand to develop laws of questionable legality, laws that are good for the developers, but bad for nearby residents and the county generally. We’ll explore the lawsuits being filed to overturn this slick piece of work.
* There is a special place in our heart for readers who tell us what they think. And if you want to criticize us, that’s OK. We promise not to hit you with a SLAPP suit.
* To help commissioners differentiate me from those who tell them how good more development is, I intend to include this opening phrase when I speak or write to the Commission: “Full disclosure – neither I, my employers or family have a direct or indirect financial interest in the matter before you.”
* Mantra of the month: “Martin County is special and shall stay that way …hmmmmmmmm.”
Al
Al Forman, Editor 3/19//07
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 2
Developers develop phony claims
If you were faced with the difficult task of convincing people that it was in their best interest to sacrifice some of their quality of life so that you could make huge windfall profits, how would you go about it? Well you certainly would not come right out and say so. The clever thing to do would be to couch your goal in terms that seem to be consistent with people’s own interests. And that is exactly what some developers and their supporters have done.
The no-growth/pro-growth canard
Those who want to accelerate the construction of home developments and commercial facilities are trying to frame the issue as people being divided into opposing no-growth and pro-growth camps. Those who want to emasculate our Comp Plan with amendments to allow faster growth argue that the no-growth faction is against progress, and that faster growth is inevitable. The problem with that position is that few people are really no-growth. Most Martin County residents just do not want the kind of environment that is fostered by fast-growth, and the poorer quality of life that browardization brings.
The real debate is whether Martin County should have slow-growth or fast-growth. The question of no-growth versus pro-growth is a concocted issue to support fast-growth.
The property rights flimflam
Look, says the fast-growth developer or his political pal, when you own a piece of property, shouldn’t you have the right to do what you want with it? That’s an argument that resonates … until you think about it more carefully. Suppose I own a lot next to your house. Should I have the right to build a slaughterhouse, or even a gas station, next to where your family lives? Oh, so property rights have their limitations, thankfully. We all live in a county that provides schools, roads, libraries, fire rescue and police protection that our taxes pay for. And that covers my property rights as well as yours.
Property rights limitations have been challenged in court. Inevitably, the courts reject the contention that counties must change their zoning to accommodate more development. In Martin County v. Section 28 Partnership Ltd., the Fourth District Court of Appeals found that “the record contains sufficient evidence establishing that the County’s comprehensive policies are based on rational and sound planning principles, designed to preserve agricultural lands, protect wetlands and environmental resources, ensure the efficient use of public resources and discourage urban sprawl.”
Going even further, in Lee County v. Morales, the Second District Court of Appeals held that substantial reduction of allowable density was legal. A land owner is not guaranteed the most profitable use of his land, but simply some use that can be economically carried out. Similarly, in Glisson v. Alachua County, the First District Court of Appeals held that county mandated density reductions from one unit per acre to one unit per five acres was legal.
So the property rights argument made to favor developers is a smoke screen.
The “state makes us do it” nonsense
When large landowners hire a high power legal outfit to pitch their pitch, we are sure to hear strong legal claims, some of which contain half of the facts, with the other half carefully filtered out. For example, one attorney reminds us that “a plan that fails to provide for growth violates Florida Law.” She also states that “Martin County’s plan must accommodate the jurisdiction’s projected growth” and not be exclusionary. IMPLICATION: You’re not allowing for enough growth if you don’t allow high density for the landowners.
The fact is that the current Comprehensive Plan provides for growth, just not as much as the fast-growth people would like. So far I have not found any court ruling where the state of Florida made a county substantially increase its density above that provided for in their approved comp plan.
********************
To obtain a free subscription for someone who believes in slow growth and preserving the Comp Plan for Martin County, send name and e-mail to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
You may also send unsubscribe request to above e-mail address.
********************
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 3
CALL TO ACTION!
Your e-mail will defend Martin County
when you voice your opposition to
Martin Arbors Community Development District
The proposed new mini-government
Dressage Holding Company, LLC has filed a petition before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) to establish the Martin Arbors Community Development District (CDD) within the recently-approved Dressage and Polo Club developments covering 1,710 acres next to I-95 in Palm City. The Martin County Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing on April 3, 2007 to consider the proposed district, and to adopt a resolution stating their support or lack of support for the action.
County staff recommends that FLWAC and the Board of County Commissioners DENY this CDD petition. Commissioners Sarah Heard and Lee Weberman are expected to support the staff recommendation and vote for rejection.
Why we oppose Martin Arbors CDD
Community Development Districts have a long history in Florida. The basic concept is that a needed public service that benefits only one local area should be paid for by taxes in that area. Special community needs are usually involved, such as providing residents with potable water, mosquito control, drainage or preventing neighborhood blight. Martin Arbors has no such special need. Though the CDD application is perfectly legal, would its approval be good policy? At its core, Martin Arbors is a private, profit-making venture. Some people think a Martin Arbors CDD would just be an elite enclave that may avoid some Martin County controls.
Our objections include the following concerns:
1 – We do not need another layer of government between the county and its residents when there is no compelling reason.
2 – A CDD saves money by not paying sales tax on goods and services. Do others thereby have to pay more?
3 – A CDD can finance with tax exempt bonds issued at reduced interest rates, while other private ventures pay full rate.
4 – A CDD can participate in state term contracting, another cost saving benefit not available to typical Planned Unit Developments (PUD).
5 – A CDD has some Sovereign Immunity Protection that is not available to the PUDs many of us live in.
6 – A private CDD in a rural area sets a precedent for fragmenting the land west of the Urban Services Boundary.
If the fairness or desirability aspects of the application trouble you, let the County Commission know that you oppose the Martin Arbors CDD application. E-mail to:
Commissioners@martin.fl.us
The final decision is up to FLWAC, a high level state body that includes Gov. Crist and his cabinet. In case the Martin County Board of Commissioners is not listening, just to be sure you may also wish to communicate your thoughts to FLWAC’s clerk:
Barbara.leighty@laspbs.state.fl.us
Let your voice be heard!
********************
To obtain a free subscription for someone who believes in slow growth and preserving the Comp Plan for Martin County, send name and e-mail to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
If you received this e-newsletter, you are already subscribed.
You may also send unsubscribe request to above e-mail address.
********************
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 4
Martin Arbors District voted down by Commission
(your e-mail help still needed for one last battle)
So the smart developers came to Martin County on April 3 to sell the idea of making an ordinary Planned Unit Development into a Community Development District, the first of its kind here. It would have been a profitable coup if the Commission had bought it. [See Issue No. 3 for details.]
The Commission, showing real wisdom, voted unanimously to turn down the proposal, and to so inform the state, which makes the final decision. The citizens who spoke against the Martin Arbors District, and those of our subscribers who e-mailed the commissioners and the state agency as we suggested, played an important role in convincing the Commission to turn thumbs down.
However, the Martin Arbors developer is not giving up. There is too much money to be made. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) has the final say. The developer will try to get FLWAC to over-ride Martin County’s negative recommendation. Since we do not know how much pull the developer has in Tallahassee, it is vital that many of us be active citizens and let FLWAC know that they should not approve this special District.
IT WILL TAKE YOU ONLY ONE MINUTE TO COPY THE FOLLOWING TEXT AND E-MAIL IT TO THE FLWAC CLERK:
Barbara.leighty@laspbs.state.fl.us
To FLWAC:
Please do not approve the application by Dressage Holding for a Martin County Community Development District called Martin Arbors. The Martin County technical staff has recommended against it. The Martin County Board of Commissioners, in a rare show of unity, has unanimously voted to recommend that you not approve this CDD application. Numerous citizens spoke against it, none for it. Thank you for listening to the residents and officials of Martin County.
(State your name)
***************
CASE HISTORY:
How commissioners and developers worked together to undermine the Comp Plan and foster industrial sprawl
Background
About 16 years ago, Martin County recognized that interstate highway travelers may need conveniently accessible basic services such as restrooms, gas and food. So Exchange Oriented Transient Commercial Service Center (EOTCSS) zones were established at I-95 exits. Since this was an exception to Comprehensive Plan provisions, any development plans for EOTCSS required a special waiver from the Commission.
Obtaining a waiver has been difficult because the developer had to prove that development was needed at this location, that adequate infrastructure existed, and that resulting impact would not exceed applicable guidelines. These requirements helped safeguard the Urban Services Boundary (USB) and protect nearby property. One result, for example, was that the Transient Zone at I-95 and Martin Highway (SR714) has had no development.
Getting rid of the waiver
It would be a big help to developers to get rid of that waiver requirement.
A vehicle for getting rid of the waiver requirement was at hand. Camayen Cattle Company proposed a plan for the Port Mayaca Commercial Service Center, which was approved (Martin County Ordinance #723 and Comp Plan Amendment #06-21). This project is over 15 miles from I-95, and has nothing to do with I-95 Transient Zones. Yet the Board of County Commissioners slipped in a provision that eliminated the waiver requirement that protected I-95 interchanges such as those at Bridge Road and Martin Highway.
From now on, with just a simple county staff approval, the 179.5-acre Martin Highway Transient Zone could theoretically be built out to include 48 gas pumps, 3,508 hotel rooms, 10,000 sq. ft. of specialty retail, 29,390 sq. ft. of fast food drive through, and 29,390 sq. ft. of convenience market. Somewhat similar figures apply to the 148 acres at Bridge Road.
Leapfrog for industrial sprawl
Since there may not be a market for such intense development limited to transient service, developer interests came up with an additional plan using the magic word Biotech. Known as Expressway Oriented Research and Biotech Centers (EORB) and approved by the Board of County Commissioners (Ordinance #736, Comp Plan Amendment #06-163). This designation, an overlay covering the Transient Zones, allows all kinds of biochemical manufacturing, laboratories, offices and related production facilities. This Biotech zone provides an exception to the Comp Plan requirement that industrial facilities be restricted to Industrial Zones within the Urban Services Boundary (USB). There are currently thousands of acres of unused land zoned for industrial within the USB.
Such changes to the Comp Plan require approval of the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which tends to look intensely at certain factors, and ignore others. Since DCA may look askance at such radical industrial spot zoning five miles west of the USB, the removal of the Transient waiver requirement allows Martin County government to say it is not much more than the Transient Zone if it were built out. Of course, the land is pristine right now.
The initial public proposal for the Biotech zone came from a planner who derives his income from planning developments. One pro-developer commissioner stated that voting for the Biotech was “a no-brainer.” Perhaps he was right, but opposite to the sense he intended.
Legal action – the last resort
In the process of approving the Transient waiver elimination and the Biotech overlay, the county has violated many laws and regulations. The only way to correct the deliberate violations of law and procedure is through legal action. This includes a lawsuit and a petition for hearing with the DCA in an attempt to overturn the ordinances and amendments noted. These filings have taken place, and the lawyers are starting to battle it out.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the two heroes in this effort to protect the county and its residents from the grasp of those who would turn Martin County into the sad states seen in counties north and south of us. They are Virginia P. Sherlock, Esq., and Donna S. Melzer, Esq. These two talented attorneys have gone far beyond the call of duty, sacrificing time and income to fight the fight to save us.
Full disclosure: I am a plaintiff in the legal actions because I have special standing. I own a home in a development adjacent to one of the areas of concern. I have steadfastly opposed the Biotech plan, and without any advice of counsel, filed an objection to it with the DCA shortly after passage of the amendment.
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 5
A love fest at the County Commission meeting, but …
The April 11 Commission meeting was a rarity. Developers, environmentalists and Commissioners were praising – nay, fawning – over each other in approving the Atlantic Ridge development proposal in Hobe Sound, one mile west of US 1. Basic details: Landowner donates 2,300 acres of sensitive environmental land to state, allowing 650 homes to cluster on 800 acres inside the Secondary Urban Services boundary. The Primary USB is extended to include the development. Overall, density is reduced, the USB gets a hard edge, and a link is forged from Halpatiokee Park through Atlantic Ridge Park to Jonathan Dickinson Park.
Dozens of speakers, including numerous environmentalists, spoke in favor of the plan. Most of them also said that this was no precedent for Glatting-Jackson recommended clustering in rural lands. Only three speakers and Commissioner Valliere invited more cluster proposals. The vote in favor was 4-to-1, Commissioner DiTerlizzi dissenting.
… Commissioners turn a deaf ear to advice
County Commission observers have long noted the disconnect between 82% of residents wanting to reign in growth, and 70% (sort of representing three-and-a-half people on the five-member Board) of Commissioners voting at almost every opportunity for more growth through re-zoning for higher density, commercial and industrial development.
This past week, the Commission extended its disconnect. Not only did they ignore what citizens want, they repeatedly ignored their own professional Growth Management staff recommendations to reject the majority of developer applications. They ignored an assessment by the Health Department as well. Commissioners approved a raft of Comp Plan changes to allow developers to build where they could not do so before.
Pilot survey reveals attitudes toward developers
paying for added infrastructure
The questionnaire
A personal, signed letter was sent to 23 people, elected officials, organization leaders and ordinary citizens. Almost half were sent to people reputed to favor faster growth, a similar number to people reputed to favor slower growth, and a few recipients not clearly defined. We asked how much added infrastructure cost caused by development should be paid by developers.
Here is what we wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear XXXXX:
As you know, building residential, commercial and industrial facilities results in the need for additional infrastructure and public services. The question has arisen as to how much of the added infrastructure costs – including schools, roads, law enforcement, and fire/rescue – should be borne by the developer rather than by public funds.
To learn your opinion and that of others, including a diverse mix of officials, organization leaders and ordinary citizens, we are asking you this question:
What percent of the added infrastructure costs should be paid by the developer? (Check one)
100%____ 50%____ 0%____ Other percent____% Don’t know____
……………………………………… …………………………………………..
We enclosed a stamped, self-addressed return envelope.
The responses
The following individuals replied with the percent of added infrastructure cost that should be paid by the developer:
Mike Cilurso (Jensen Beach Group) ………….. 100%
Henry Copeland …………………………………. 100%
Mary Dawson …………………………………….. 100%
Linda Grand (Guardians of Comp Plan) …….. 100%
Sarah Heard (County Commission) ………….. 100%
Scott King ………………………………………… 100%
Charles Pattison (1,000 Friends of Florida) … 100%
Dave Shore (WAAM) ………………………….. 100%
Bill Summers ……………………………………… 50%
The following individuals did not reply:
Greg Braun (Audubon Society)
Don Cuozzo (Houston Cuozzo Group)
Michael DiTerlizzi (County Commission)
KathyDeWindt (Martin County Taxpayers)
Renee Doss (Renar Properties)
Tom Fullman
Tom McNicholas
Nancy Offutt (Treasure Coast Builders)
Tammy Simoneau (Economic Council)
Doug Smith (County Commission)
Sally Swartz (Palm Beach Post)
Susan Valliere (County Commission)
Lee Weberman (County Commission)
Jeff Wittmann
{Affiliation for identification only; response does not necessarily reflect organization’s position.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
It is not possible to ascribe a particular viewpoint to each of those who did not reply. Maybe the letter got lost in the mail, or was chewed up by Fido. Some think it unimportant to respond. However, the above data does lead to two reasonable conclusions when one is aware of the fast/slow growth attitudes of the individuals.
1 – Slower-growth advocates are generally in favor of developers paying all added infrastructure costs.
2 – Advocates of faster-growth generally appear to be reluctant to state their position on developer infrastructure payment. One wonders why. Could it be that they want taxpayers to pick up the tab, not developers, but they are too embarrassed to say so publicly? Or for elected officials, are they afraid that if they say too high a number that generous developer campaign contributions will dry up?
********************
To obtain a free subscription for someone who believes in slow growth and preserving the Comp Plan for Martin County, send name and e-mail to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
If you received this e-newsletter, you are already subscribed.
You may also send unsubscribe request to above e-mail address.
********************
Al
Al Forman, Editor 4/12/07