The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 11
Sham!
SPECIAL REPORT:
Examination of internal County documents indicates “public input” component of Glatting-Jackson contract may have been window dressing.
Summary of Key Findings
1 – Contract contained no provision that consultant recommendations in any way comply with expressed wishes of citizens. Competing proposal did.
2 – Contract contained no provision that consultant’s report of public input be summarized and presented with the same clarity and prominence as development recommendations.
3 – Hourly fee and material charges were high, raising total cost of study.
BACKGROUND
When we attended the various workshops run by Glatting-Jackson, attendees were asked to fill out large sheets summing up various development views of people at each table. The sheets were pasted on walls for all to see. When we asked what would be done with all the answers, we were told that they would be collated, analyzed and reported.
When the preliminary final report was published, there was almost nothing about what public input had produced. I criticized this omission at one of the last presentations in Indiantown. Consultant Tim Jackson said – and this is on tape – that I was right, and that the information would be published in the complete final report.
When we did not see that in the final report, we wondered if the consultant had fulfilled the terms of his contract. If they had not, why were they paid? So we decided to investigate. We examined thousands of county documents relating to the Land patterns Study contract, report and payments. The results were revealing.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The county’s contract with Glatting-Jackson provides for an Open House “designed as a communication tool for the dissemination of information.” The Community Workshops were designed to present the baseline profile and evaluation criteria, and to “include participant [citizen] exercises to generate feedback.” How would Glatting-Jackson use this feedback? No one knows. Nowhere does the contract require the consultant to “build on the community values through the visioning workshops to translate those values into goal statements and guiding principles for the alternative scenarios.”
This last quote came from the contract proposal of Renaissance Planning Group, a consultant that competed with Glatting-Jackson for the Martin County contract. How would Renaissance use the citizen values information from outreach activities? To quote their competing contract proposal again, Renaissance would “align the preferred land use/growth vision with these community values.” Glatting-Jackson never did that because the Commission never required it. Public input reflecting citizen values played no apparent role in forming what turned out to be pro-growth recommendations. People who spent all that time at the workshops may understandably feel that they have been misled.
So Renaissance lost in the consultant selection process. It’s impossible to learn all the reasons they lost. It is worth noting that a year or two before, Tim Jackson was on the Blake Library stage promoting his cluster housing plan for Sarasota, a plan somewhat similar to his recommendation for Martin County.
REPORTING PUBLIC INPUT
When reading the Land Patterns Study report, the various alternatives are concise models of clarity. It is easy to understand the meaning of Urban Settlement, Cluster Development, Rural Estates, and so on. Not so with reporting of public input. It is packed in 58 manuscript pages of text, confusing tables, disjointed and unclassified comments. Even then, much of it was delayed until appendices were added in late March 2007, after our criticism of their failure to report fully on public input. This was about the time that final payment from the County was due.
We believe that Martin County citizens are entitled to learn at least the basic facts about public input. So we undertook the tedious job of finding out by examining public records. Here for the first time is a simple statistical analysis derived from 329 identifiable citizen comments collected by Glatting-Jackson. This summary is not in the consultant’s report.
181 comments related to a wide variety of topics, including the environment, river, water, schools, agriculture, affordable housing, transportation, political influence and the future. Most comments implied opposition to too much growth.
98 comments specifically favored less growth (84.5% of growth comments)
18 comments specifically favored more growth (15.5% of growth comments)
28 comments specifically opposed clusters (87.9% of cluster comments)
4 comments specifically favored clusters (12.1% of cluster comments)
Is it any wonder that pro-growth commissioners did not want this information clearly presented in the widely distributed printed report on the Land Patterns Study? If they had wanted it, it would have been in the contract.
THE HIGH COST
The cost of this study has been widely publicized as $528,000.00. Less has been said about the County costs to fulfill its end of the contract: “The County will prepare and meet all notification and advertising requirements for the meeting, and provide a facility for the meeting.” That, and other functions, have required lots of staff time to carry out the contract obligations imposed on them by the Commission. County staff has handled this contract in a most professional manner.
Let’s take a closer look at some specific contract numbers. Glatting-Jackson billed staff charges of $457,609.00 for 3,159 personnel hours. That comes to $145.00 per hour, a rate that a top consultant staff member may justify. However, the hours include lower level workers who do not earn anywhere near $145/hr.
And then there is the charge for “meeting materials.” It came to $35,394.00. Ouch.
The rules of the game do require periodic studies covering development patterns, but there is nothing that mandates such an expensive study. There is something terribly wrong about a study that recommends what the citizens do not want. Other than “selling” the study’s virtues, what purpose did public input serve? Worse yet, when so many citizens understandably believe that the study result was pre-ordained, it becomes a concern that needs to be addressed.
Jensen Beach NAC reluctantly approves revised Renar plan
COMMISSION APPROVAL ON MAY 22 NEEDED
The May 14 meeting of the Jensen Beach Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) was packed with citizens eager to hear the revised and vastly improved plan for the north parcel of Renar Riverplace. Developers Renee and Arden Doss presented a heartfelt and well reasoned lower density plan to the cheers of attending residents. NAC approved it with amendments, 4 in favor, 1 opposed, 2 abstained, over the objections of business interests. Now it’s up to the County Commission to decide, at its May 22 meeting, whether to accept the revised plan.
In reporting on this event, the Palm Beach Post’s Jason Schultz did a superb job. He not only included detailed facts and statistics, but he reported on the dogged opposition to lower density through less construction which was mounted by business groups. A shopkeeper’s association opposed it. Chamber of Commerce Exec Director Ron Rose read a new resident’s opposing letter that had the ring of a three-dollar bill. NAC chair Ken DeAngelis called it too drastic a cut. Tammy Simoneau, exec director of the Economic Council (whose faux-environmentalist ads tout a pro-cluster Comp Plan Amendment as limiting growth forever!) said of the new, more open Doss plan: “We don’t want green space in the CRAs.” If you relied on the meeting report in the Stuart News, you would not know any of this.
*****
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve our quality of life in Martin County
*****
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send e-mail with “Subscribe” in the subject head, to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
If you received this issue, you are already subscribed.
*****
Al
Al Forman, Editor 5/17/07
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 12
IF you want to maintain our quality of life in Martin County
IF you want to preserve our natural environment
IF you want to prevent crowded schools, clogged roads and higher taxes that development sprawl brings
Please accept this invitation:
You are cordially invited to attend
The First Forum on
Preserving Quality of
Life in Martin County
Monday, June 4, 2007
6:00 pm sharp at the Blake Library
Sponsored by
The Martin County Consensus
A 90 minute enlightening experience
featuring distinguished guest speakers:
Maggy Hurchalla
And
Virginia Sherlock
A lively question-and-answer period will
give attendees the opportunity to voice
their opinions and suggestions
Who is the “Consensus”?
The Martin County Consensus is a grassroots citizens movement that includes leaders from a wide range of neighborhood, environmental and slow-growth, anti-sprawl organizations. “Consensus” is structured as a not-for-profit Florida corporation. Their mission statement reads:
Our mission is to encourage informed public awareness and participation to improve the quality of life for Martin County citizens. We will work to maintain controlled, responsible non-sprawl growth.
The Consensus is a big tent group with specific positions taken on public issues. Attached is their Mission Statement and Position Summaries covering a wide range of important concerns. The organization’s board includes: Chairman Tom Fullman, President Bill Summers, Secretary/Treasurer Al Forman. Other members of the Board of Directors are Linda Grand, Jay Honan, Tony Parkinson, Lynne Pine, Paul Shidel, and Dave Shore. Please come to the Forum if you can. I promise it will be a fast moving, informative experience where you will meet some of the best like-minded people.
A Consensus membership application is also attached. If you can not attend the Forum on June 4, you still have the opportunity to support the Consensus goals by joining this true grassroots movement. You’ll be glad you helped keep Martin County the special place we all enjoy.
Trouble brewing in CRA-land
To a growing number of Martin County residents, the CRA – Community Redevelopment Area – is an excellent idea that his been distorted into a developer and business money machine that ignores what ordinary citizens want. As one wag put it, CRA stands for Causing Resident Anguish.
BACKGROUND IN BRIEF: Based on Florida Statute 163, Part III, the Martin County Commission set up the Countywide Community Redevelopment Plan with the Commissioners sitting as the CRA Board. Seven older neighborhoods were designated as suitable for redevelopment: Jensen Beach, Port Salerno, Hobe Sound, Rio, Golden Gate, Old Palm City and Indiantown. Between the years 2000 and 2003, CRA plans were adopted. The CRA Board appoints Neighborhood Advisory Committees (NAC) to advise the CRA Board on Community Development Plans (CRP), which includes a Vision Plan and Implementation Plan for each area. Various financing and zoning arrangements, not normally allowed outside the CRA, have been adopted, along with public-private agreements. This is the tip-of-the-iceberg essence of the 138-page countywide plan.
The mission of the Martin County CR agency is: “To improve and revitalize neighborhoods as characterized by decent and affordable housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities for residents of Martin County.” Furthermore, the plan states that “Allowable land uses should contribute to a sense of place [including] the natural features of the area (Jensen Beach’s Indian River location)”. In addition, the plan states: “Allowable land uses must improve the neighborhood’s quality of life. Think of things that will improve the quality of your life: affordable, quality housing, a park…”
Clearly, the CRAs have failed to carry out various objectives stated in their own official plans. For example, at the May 14, 2007 meeting of the Jensen Beach NAC, that committee agreed by one bare vote to accept Renar’s revised plan which did comply with at least some of the above objectives, and satisfied community objections. [See Defender Issue No. 11.] Business promotion organizations like the merchants association and Chamber of Commerce opposed the improvement, lobbying for greater density. The representative of the Economic Council, apparently did not agree with the desire for a park. She said: `We don’t want green space in the CRAs.” Quality of life issues do not seem to matter. Even with the NAC’s favorable vote, its chairman went before the Commission to oppose Renar’s excellent new plan. NAC housecleaning may be in order.
A major part of the problem is that the pro-developer CRA Board appoints the NAC members. Ordinary citizens usually are unaware of NAC appointments, even if they stood a chance to be appointed. Also, if a resident is impacted by a CRA structure across the street, he is not allowed to serve on the NAC because he is not in the CRA. Residents are petitioning for change.
The Martin County Defender is gathering citizen complaints about bad decisions, wasted money, and disdain for citizen concerns in CRAs. Let us hear from you if you have evidence supporting such complaints.
*****
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve our quality of life in Martin County
*****
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send e-mail with “Subscribe” in the subject head, to: mc-defender@comcast.net
Requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 13
Tuscawilla – Commission sells out to developer
Extending utilities undermines USB anti-sprawl protections
Just west of Palm City on CR 714, a large upscale residential development called Tuscawilla is being built. The plan has been approved for 294 homes on 813 acres. Since it is outside the primary Urban Services Boundary (pUSB), with most of it inside the secondary (sUSB), wells and septics were required. At no time during the process that approved the Tuscawilla plan did the developer claim that septics were a threat to the environment.
On second thought, the developer apparently realized that much more profit could be made if the county extended water/sewer services to the homes. The problem is that the Comp Plan repeatedly makes clear that such utilities may be provided only inside the pUSB. So the developer’s well connected attorney, who has represented Michael DiTerlizzi in the past concerning real estate matters, tried to convince the Commission that they already have the power to allow water and sewer lines by simple vote. County staff and most of the Commission know that such service requires a Comp Plan amendment that takes more time and presents more legal hurdles.
On May 22, three commissioners – Doug Smith, Lee Weberman and Michael DiTerlizzi – voted to direct staff to come up with the paperwork that would get the pro-Tuscawilla amendment process started. Some people have been calling these three commissioners the Sprawl Trio. Commissioners Heard and Valliere dissented. To avoid the onus of moving the primary USB, the three pro-developer commissioners are doing a work-around that does not officially move the primary USB. Rather, they are changing the Comp Plan to allow water and sewer within the sUSB. Though not exactly the same as moving the pUSB, it has a similar effect. This amendment fosters sprawl because the next adjacent property claims it should have the sewer/water, and then the next one, and so on.
The Tuscawilla vote has understandably angered Palm City residents within the pUSB who do not have sewer/water in their present homes. Yet three Commissioners are amenable to providing sewer/water for new residents outside the pUSB who are not yet even here!
We expected such acquiescence to developer wishes from Smith, who rarely votes against what developers want. Weberman’s vote was uncertain because, to a number of people, he is considered either an independent thinker or a loose cannon, depending on one’s viewpoint. Weberman voted pro-sprawl. DiTerlizzi’s vote has more complex implications, so we must look back for a moment.
HOW MUCH IS A COMMISSIONER’S “OATH” WORTH?
On April 11, 2007, the County Commission voted 4-to-1 to move the primary Urban Services Boundary in Hobe Sound to include 650 homes with utility water/sewer in exchange for developer Micha’s generous donation of 2,300 acres of environmentally sensitive land at Atlantic Ridge. This deal actually reduced density on the total acreage. [See Defender No. 5.] We called this meeting’s almost universal agreement between Commission majority, developer and numerous pro-environment citizens a love fest, and others picked up this label.
The lone dissenting vote on April 11 was cast by Commissioner Michael DiTerlizzi. He explained that he had taken an oath not to move the USB even though this particular change might be justifiable. Extending the primary USB would chip away protections against sprawl, he said. DiTerlizzi made clear that he was standing by his oath on principle.
However, when the Tuscawilla vote came up, he voted for extending water/sewer outside the pUSB. So technically, he did not vote to move the USB, but he did the very “chipping away” that he warned against. DiTerlizzi’s vote seriously undermines the pUSB and promotes sprawl – not much different than if he had voted to move the pUSB. It seems reasonable to ask: How much is a commissioner’s “oath” worth?
Why are Martin impact fees so low?
Not only have some commissioners pushed more development by changing current rules for select projects, but they have made sure that developers do not spend as much in Martin County for impact fees as others do elsewhere on the Treasure Coast. According to a May 24, 2007 report by Henry A. Stephens of Scripps, Martin County has the lowest impact fees for the four-county region of Indian River, Brevard, St. Lucie and Martin Counties. This is the fee for a 2,000-sq. ft. home:
Indian River - $9,803. County currently considering raising impact fee to $16,838.
Brevard County - $9,187.
St. Lucie County - $8,904.
Martin County - $6,956.
Any shortfall to provide the added services for new development here would be paid out of taxes on all Martin County residents. Martin County Taxpayers Association: Why your silence on this matter?
Public meetings worth attending
MONDAY, JUNE 4: 6:00 pm at the Blake Library – Forum “Preserving Quality of Life in Martin County,” sponsored by The Martin County Consensus. Featured speakers are Maggy Hurchalla and Virginia Sherlock. Attendees can participate during question/discussion period.
THURSDAY, JUNE 7: 7:00 pm at the Commission Room, County Administrative Center – Local Planning Agency (LPA) will consider Renar’s Jensen Beach CRA reduced density plan supported by Jensen Beach residents, but opposed by business organizations.
TUESDAY, JUNE 26: Specific time during day TBA, at the Commission Room, County Administrative Center – Board of County Commissioners will consider Renar’s Jensen Beach CRA reduced density plan supported by Jensen Beach residents, but opposed by business organizations.
*****
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve our quality of life in Martin County
*****
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send e-mail with “Subscribe” in the subject head, to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
If you received this issue directly (not forwarded), you are already subscribed.
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 14
Needed….for our children’s sake
Martin County School Board must insist on full developer funded concurrency to maintain quality education
Development advocates loudly – and falsely – proclaim that growth pays for itself. Nowhere is this myth more evident than in funding schools in Martin County. The only way pay-for-itself is possible is if the cost to build new schools, caused by new residential development, is paid concurrently by the developers who profit by the construction. Otherwise, the cost burden falls on all county taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the Martin County District School Board has failed to insist on full concurrency. Instead they have been negotiating low school impact fees out of timidity, so current residents pick up the cost differential. With the tax upheaval at the state level, we should not rely on always having an educational taxing exemption. Besides, more school funding based on growth paying for itself is better for students and teachers, as well as taxpayers.
Here is the arithmetic: Authorities use the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council factor of 0.259 student/house (one child in about every four houses). It sounds too low, but let’s use it for our calculations. It costs the school district $34,000 per station, or student seat, to build a school. Therefore, in a new development with, say, 300 homes, the numbers are 300x0.259=77.7 student-homes. Multiply this figure by the $34,000 per student-station and we get $2,641,800.
However, the complicated formula used by the School Board cuts this approximately in half for a net figure of about $1,320,900. That is a school impact fee of only $4,400 per house, not quite enough to pay for schools. This is above and beyond county impact fees that cover roads, police and other services. So a new development with 300 homes would pay only $1,320,900 toward school construction, though a good argument can be made that the 0.259 factor and approximately 50% reduction in the formula result in too low an amount.
The School Board has leverage to insist on adequate payments since, if they do not approve a new development, construction is held up. But it often lacks the courage to insist on the full concurrency payment. Also, the Board is too easily misled into accepting highly inflated land donations in lieu thereof. The result is either higher school taxes to pick up the shortfall, or more crowded and less safe conditions such as temporary structures.
To encourage the Superintendent and Board Members to do the right thing by insisting on full and timely development concurrency, you can deliver your thoughts to them at the following e-mail and phone numbers listed on the official school site. Write or call them … for our kid’s sake.
Superintendent Dr. Sara A. Wilcox: wilcoxs@martin.k12.fl.us
Board Member Lorie Shekailo: shekail@martin.k12.fl.us
Board Member Sue Hershey: (772) 287-3845
Board Member Laurie Gaylord: (772) 201-4131
Board Member Nancy Kline: klinen@martin.k12.fl.us
Board Member Dr. David Anderson: (772) 597-3900
Our shore erodes as officials dawdle
Commission and DEP allow developer-caused erosion to continue as government delays enforcement
Here is an opportunity to see an easily accessible piece of the ecologically sensitive Aquatic Preserve shoreline as it slowly erodes. It is the unintentional consequence of bad human intervention. Drive over to the Renar Riverplace traffic circle, and look at the shore running north parallel to Indian River Drive toward Dena’s Café. You will see a barrier of rip-rap rocks that have been dumped on the sandy shore. Note the shelf-like drop-off, called shoaling or scarping, where once there was a gentle natural slope, and shallow water that held juvenile fish, wading birds and seagrasses.
Steve Dutcher, developer of the proposed Dutcher’s Cove condo project at this location, originally planned to build a seawall to tie into Bill Reily’s proposed Pitchford’s Landing seawall. A judge denied the Pitchford seawall. Dutcher changed his plan and dumped the rip-rap, but failed to plant mangroves and grasses required by the permit. Such plantings would have prevented the sand washout. The reason that the rip-rap was placed there was not to protect the shore, but to “harden” it. A hardened shore would have allowed a developer-preferred 20-ft. setback, instead of the 75 ft. required for a natural shore.
The County issued a formal Notice of Violation, but has taken no action to correct the problem. Instead it keeps extending the deadline again, and again, and again while drafting and re-drafting reports. The state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is investigating at a very leisurely pace, while two feet of the shoreline has eroded.
If you care about our environment, you can ask the five commissioners to take action to clean up Dutcher’s Cove rip-rap in Jensen Beach. Reach them all at:
Commissioners@martin.fl.us
DEP can be contacted at:
michael.sole@dep.state.fl.us
*****
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve our quality of life in Martin County
Our thanks to reader Kerry Cochell who has archived Defender issues at his website:
http://www.tc-voices.com/index.php?topic=715.new#top
and our deep appreciation to the many other readers who keep us informed.
*****
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send e-mail with “Subscribe” in the subject head, to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
If you received this issue directly (not forwarded), you are already subscribed.
*****
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 15
The poison pill in the caviar
PRO-DEVELOPER COMMISSIONERS SLIP SPRAWL-INDUCING PROVISIONS INTO NEW POLICY PLAN
How can anyone who enjoys the quality of life in Martin County not want to save green space in perpetuity? Or not want to preserve agricultural land. Or not want to improve water quality. Or not have development pay for itself. We are essentially unanimous in aspiring to these goals. That’s the attractive, but not specific, caviar in which the poison pill of sprawl is being sown.
A month ago, Commissioner Valliere was so enchanted with the Atlantic Ridge Preserve project that she thought the County should encourage “similar” projects. She pushed a directive to staff to come up with options. Good-bye “similar.” Option 1 was a Comp Plan Amendment that articulates “a policy that is beyond the limited parameters of the Atlantic Ridge” by “establishing a set of principles upon which the new policy would be based.” [Emphasis added.]
The other two choices include a Glatting-Jackson workshop (Option 2), or consideration of proposals as they come up because the Amendment is not needed (Option 3). On June 5, 2007, Commissioners Valliere, Smith and DiTerlizzi chose Option 1, in effect directing that the Comp Plan Amendment be guided by principles that include specific risks for browardized growth:
- Mandate, not just allow, clustering on lands proposed for private development.
- Allow increases in existing densities if there are “specific benefits.” Of course, these same commissioners will decide what the benefits are … and who should get them.
The principles that guide the making of the Amendment contain little or no specific protections to assure the offered caviar of preservation and revenue neutral character of development would result. This Amendment-in-the-making is the backdoor entry of the Glatting-Jackson pro-cluster report so widely condemned by citizens; a poison pill for the County.
Skeptics may think that only environmentalists believe this Amendment is either not needed, or a plain threat to our quality of life. Not so. Those opposed to Option 1 include Commissioners Sarah Heard and Lee Weberman, the Stuart News and the Palm Beach Post, as well as most civic minded people.
County staff was honest in preparing available options. It recognized that the Commission has the power to do again what it more wisely did with Atlantic Ridge (Option 3). One may assume that Valliere, Smith and DiTerlizzi are well intended, but we know where the road of good intentions can lead.
The Amendment proposal is so far reaching, important and dangerous, that the Commission decision should reflect the public will. It can only do so by holding a referendum on this Comp Plan change.
The truth about growth
DEVELOPER PROPAGANDA TRIES TO CREATE MYTHS ABOUT CRIME, TAXES, WAGES, EDUCATION,
On Earth Day, April 14, Maggy Hurchalla delivered a talk entitled: “Our Piece of Earth: Martin County.” Her speech was both poetic and moving, but not lacking in hard statistics that debunk concocted claims that extended growth is good for the community. It isn’t. Here are a few of her hard statistics.
There are 5.4 million people in the three counties south of us; 230,000 people in St. Lucie County, and 140,000 in Martin County. How irresistible it must be to developers to want to fill us in, pave over paradise.
THE MYTH: Crime is everywhere whether urban or rural.
True, but the rate of crime increases with the growth in population. In Martin County, there are 2,855 crimes per 100,000 people. In Palm Beach County the rate is 4,886 crimes per 100,000 people.
THE MYTH: More industry provides a larger base to lower resident tax.
No true. Out of 67 Florida counties, limited industry Martin has a lower millage rate than the next 57 counties.
THE MYTH: The increasing tax base in fast-growth areas provides more funds for better schools.
Where do developers come up with such fantasies? 68% of Martin County high school students passed the FCAT reading test. Only 53% passed in Palm Beach, and 44% in St. Lucie County, two fast-growth counties.
THE MYTH: For counties of our size, we have the lowest wages.
Not true. Of the 15 counties in the 100,000 to 300,000 population range, only four have higher per capita wages than Martin County.
What happened at the “Consensus” meeting?
In Defender Issue No. 12, we urged readers to attend the first Forum on “Preserving Quality of Life in Martin County,” sponsored by The Martin County Consensus. It brought out throngs of citizens, networking with one another, determined to preserve what we’ve got. The 170 people just about filled up the big Blake Library Armstrong Room. Those attending so enjoyed the lively, informative talks given by Maggy Hurchalla and Virginia Sherlock that they gave the speakers standing ovations. Next Forum will be on July 2.
For excellent reports on the Consensus and the Forum, go to these websites:
Palm Beach Post column by writer Sally Swartz -
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2007/06/06/m
12a_swartzcol_0606.html
Stuart News column by writer Rich Campbell -
http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/opinion_columnists/article/0,2821,TCP_24463_5573703,00.html
*****
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve our quality of life in Martin County
*****
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send e-mail with “Subscribe” in the subject head, to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
If you received this issue directly (not forwarded), you are already subscribed.
Al