The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 16a
CALL TO ACTION!
On Wednesday, June 20, Martin County Growth Management and its consultant will receive public input at 2:00 pm at the Blake Library. It is part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process. Please be there to tell them how the Comp Plan should be strengthened, not weakened by cluster development in rural lands.
If you can not attend – the County chose 2:00 pm when working people often can not be there to have their voices heard – then e-mail or phone the County planner and the consultant to state your opposition to increased population density:
David Quigley, 221-2360 or dquigley@martin.fl.us
Lorraine Tappen, 954-921-7811 or ltappen@calvin-giordano.com
What’s missing from proposed County cuts?
Read the newspapers, watch local TV news, listen to pronouncements from the Commission bench and County administrator, and you learn which County services may be cut because of state driven tax cuts. Civic centers may go. Parks may go. Boat ramps may go. Deputies may go. Firefighters may go. Library programs may go. Lifeguards may go. School maintenance may go. Administrative positions may go. Public transportation may go. At least that’s what is threatened.
Mysteriously missing from the cut list are consultants. Those are the outsiders employed by the County to make studies that have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars during the past year. It is curious that key consultant report recommendations have turned out to be exactly what the Commission majority want … and also what are wanted by the developer interests that contribute so generously to political campaigns.
Excellent legal advice Commission does not want
HIGHLIGHTS OF REVIEW OF WESTERN LANDS STUDY
At the request of the Sierra Club, Martin County Conservation Alliance, and Guardians of Martin County, Richard Grosso, General Counsel, and Jason Totois, Staff Counsel, for the Everglades Law Center, Inc., are filing a 19-page advisory with the Martin County Board of County Commissioners. Here are a few brief quotes from their statement:
GROWTH OBLIGATIONS
“The [Glatting-Jackson] study’s recommendations are based on the mistaken belief local governments must accommodate growth and that population projections justify urbanizing additional lands. However, Florida’s Growth Management Act does not require comprehensive plans to accommodate projected population estimates regardless of the impacts …. Land uses are subject to natural resource considerations, the suitability of the land for various uses, and the availability of facilities, services, and infrastructure.”
THE RIGHT TO DENSITY INCREASES
“Property owners have no legal right to density increases. The idea suggested by Glatting Jackson, that local government must grant landowners increased densities
has been rejected by the Florida Supreme Court. The Glatting Jackson recommendations do not reflect an understanding of the law where it concludes, that increased regulation/development standards in the County’s rural areas ‘would reduce existing property rights.’ That statement is completely contrary to law.”
COST OF RURAL URBANIZATION
“Not urbanizing these lands protects the County budget. In studies of land use development in Minnesota and Massachusetts, the relative revenue contribution of farmland to the cost of servicing farmland results in a surplus to county governments, whereas, the cost of delivering services to expanded residential development (e.g. roads, sewers, parking lots, schools, police and fire departments) outweighs the increase in revenue produced.”
Demonstration
Jensen Beach Roundabout
10:00 a.m ~ Saturday
Support Protection of the Aquatic Preserve
&
Protest plans for Seawalls along the Indian River Lagoon
A demonstration is being planned for the Jensen Beach roundabout at 10:00 a.m. Saturday to support protection of the aquatic preserve and protest plans for seawalls along the Indian River Lagoon at the Reily (Pitchford's Landing) and Poor Bob's (Dutcher's Cove) properties.
Ringleader is Jackie Trancynger at realsquack@aol.com
Come lend a hand to carry a sign or wave at passing cars. Let’s fight for the environment!
30 years of attacking anti-sprawl rules
From 1977 to 2007, developer/landowner interests, and the politicians who do their bidding, have fought restrictions on urbanizing Martin’s western lands.
Just before and after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1982, they claimed that the County had no right to limit what they do on their private property. The courts said they were wrong.
Then they said that if you restrict, it is a “taking” and the County must compensate them. The courts said that as long as there was a reasonable use for the land, it was not a taking.
So developer/landowners got together with publicity minded lawyers and lobbyists to work up a positive position that citizens might swallow: Higher density is worth it because we will protect a little of the land. So rural cluster development is supposedly wonderful. The great majority of citizens don’t buy this con, even if the Commission majority has swallowed it hook, line and stinker.
*****
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. 17
Commissioners fail to comply with reporting law
Florida Statute 286.0115 allows local public officials to speak with, and receive communications from, individuals who have quasi-judicial action pending before that official, provided that the substance of what is called an ex-part communication is made part of the public record before final action on the matter. In other words, it’s OK for interested parties to lobby commissioners to approve their requested zoning changes (as developers and their lawyers and planners frequently do), as long as the official reports it.
The wording of the statute states that such disclosure “must be made before or during the public meeting at which a vote is taken on such matters, so that persons who have opinion contrary to those expressed in the ex parte communication are given a reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication.”
To implement this requirement, Martin County has an Ex-Parte Communications Disclosure Form, which commissioners complete. It requires that the Item/Issue, name of the person, group or entity with whom communication took place, and the subject matter of the communication be filled in. The form specifies that the subject matter be stated “with sufficient specificity so that persons who have opinions contrary to those expressed in the ex parte communication are given a reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication.”
Some of the commissioners comply. For example, on one form Commissioner Diterlizzi stated: “Discussed CWHIP – requested expedited Development Review and stated their displeasure of the Natural Gas Company tying to locate across the street.” Commissioner Heard stated on another subject: “Isssues regarding Meadows at Martin Downs – Maintenance Building.” Such descriptions are in compliance.
However, Commissioners Smith and Valliere have not been in compliance with the law. Time and again Valliere simply states: “General comments re: Issue.” Smith repeatedly states: “Discussion” and nothing more. This is inadequate disclosure. We are bringing this matter to the attention of Valliere and Smith, and hope they will bring their ex parte disclosure forms into compliance so that no further action will be required on our part.
Speaking out gets results
Reader Andy Treacy reports an inspiring story about how citizen protests persuaded a developer to scale back his plans. The developer, Celebrity Associates of Miami, planned to build a four-story building and three-story garage in Stuart, next to Kingswood Condominiums, across the street from Cedar Pointe. About 100 local residents showed up at the April Planning Board meeting to protest the character of the project, and to encourage the developer to scale back. The developer listened, and responded constructively. The revised plan eliminates the parking garage, and the building will be less than four stories. We hope that the idea of working with residents as the Micha and Doss families did elsewhere, instead of fighting them, will catch on. It benefits everyone.
A lively e-mail exchange about growth
The following is a series of spontaneous back-and-forth e-mails between the Defender editor and a senior attorney from a major Stuart law firm. Text has been edited for space and privacy considerations, while retaining each person’s viewpoints. This e-mail exchange is published here to offer two representative, opposing views in the ongoing debate on growth. We allow this reader to have the first and last words.
FIRST E-MAIL TO DEFENDER EDITOR FROM READER
I suppose your group is the one who, through the likes of [two individuals] has improved the quality of life in Martin County by delaying the Indian Street Bridge in Martin County, thereby contributing to pollution (i.e. traffic waiting to cross the Palm City Bridge), and endangerment of citizens (i.e. blocking ambulance, fire, sheriff, and rescue vehicles.) If that is one of the goals of your organization (and please advise me if I am not correct), then your organization is of the same "stick your head in the sand" no-growth advocate (as opposed to reasonably controlled growth) which has, at times, comprised the majority of the county commission for my many years in Martin County, all to the detriment of its citizens. I have always believed that Martin County politics is not a contest between the developers and those who favor reasonably controlled growth but between those who favor reasonably controlled growth and the no-growthers.
FIRST E-MAIL TO DEFENDER READER FROM EDITOR
You asked me to advise you if you are not correct about assuming that the Martin County Consensus, which I do not speak for, is opposed to the Indian Street Bridge. Well, you are not correct. Nowhere in the publicly released 15-point summary of Consensus positions is there any statement about the bridge. As an aside, I personally favor the bridge.
More important, your allegation that the Consensus is a no-growth stick your head in the sand organization makes one wonder about what motivates you to make such an unfounded accusation. Fast growth advocates attempt to falsely label the Consensus as no-growth. Just read the Consensus Mission Statement: "We will work to maintain controlled, responsible non-sprawl growth." I trust that you do not support uncontrolled, irresponsible sprawl growth.
SECOND E-MAIL TO DEFENDER EDITOR FROM READER
I certainly do not support uncontrolled irresponsible sprawl growth. We have never had it here, and we never will. The very fact that you suggest that I am a "fast growth advocate" shows the nature of your group. Anyone who wants reasonably limited and controlled growth is labeled a "fast growther." No one in Martin County is a fast-growth advocate, and no one on the Martin County Commission feels that way. The debate at election time has always been between the no-growthers and those who believe in both reasonably controlled growth and the constitutional rights of property owners to be told what they can do with their property.
I am only thankful that the Consensus is in the minority at the present. It is not truly a "Martin County Consensus" as the name suggests. Now, if you want to see a county which is growth-oriented, you need only look to St. Lucie County and Port St. Lucie in particular. No one in Martin County wants that.
SECOND E-MAIL TO DEFENDER READER FROM EDITOR
When I read your words – “No one in Martin County is a fast-growth advocate, and no one on the Martin County Commission feels that way” - I am puzzled. How can a savvy, worldly attorney like you say that? Take just three current issues: Renar (resistance to the developer's own plan for lower density); Tuscawilla (eroding the primary USB solely to give a developer the gift of utility sewer/water); one commissioner’s proposed pro-cluster amendment (bringing sprawl to rural areas). Those are the seeds of fast growth. Years ago, people in Broward failed to recognize that such seemingly small cracks in the dike would bring an irreversible flood of harmful overdevelopment. Now it is too late for them.
This being Sunday, I can only repeat the statement based on Jeremiah 5:21: There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Our current Comprehensive Plan, and the Martin County Consensus mission statement, allow for "controlled, responsible non-sprawl growth."
As for your comment that you are "thankful that your group is in the minority at the present," that is wishful thinking contrary to objective fact; namely, the Community Foundation's Princeton Survey which found that 82% of Martin residents want to reign in growth. This number is further substantiated by the collected comments in the Glatting Jackson Land Patterns Study report: 84.5% of growth comments favored less growth.
THIRD E-MAIL TO DEFENDER EDITOR FROM READER
I really don't think our exchange serves any useful purpose for either of us. Obviously, you have your viewpoint, and I have mine. Let's vow instead to have a nice remainder of the weekend. I respect your right to voice your opinions, but I think it best if we did not communicate further.
*****
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. 18
The 2007 Goebbeldygook* Award
* Editor’s word for unclear and bureaucratic statements intended to mislead or propagandize
The Martin County Defender is proud to announce that its 2007 Goebbeldygook Award goes to Martin County staff spinmeisters, and to their commissioner bosses Valliere, DiTerlizzi and Smith, for naming the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, widely known as the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment, as the “Land Protection Incentives Amendment.”
It is expected that fast-growth and developer interests will enthusiastically support both the amendment and its new name. It is also expected that environmentalists and slow-growth advocates will condemn the amendment and its label because it leapfrogs the Urban Services Boundary (USB) to promote western sprawl.
Supporters of the amendment claim that it merely validates the principles established by the Atlantic Ridge project, whereby the county, the developer, and conservationists all agreed that extending the primary USB to adjacent land in exchange for over 2,000 acres of environmentally sensitive land was worth the quid pro quo. The new amendment fails to include the special circumstances of the Atlantic Ridge project that made the trade-off a sensible exchange.
The Local Planning Agency (LPA) will hold a hearing on this matter at 7:00 pm on July 19. It will be followed by a hearing before the County Commission in August in anticipation of transmittal to the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in September. Defender readers will be notified so they can voice their opinions.
A CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTION
This amendment is so controversial, so likely to affect the quality of life in Martin County for years to come, that both sides recognize its passage will foment anger and divisive dispute for years to come if it becomes law. There is one way to settle the matter amicably. It is the way that all can accept a decision as the will of the citizens, not the corrupting influence of money. It is the same way that the city of Stuart is settling its contentious dispute about fluoridation:
REFERENDUM
Let all of the people’s views of clustering be heard!
Sarah Heard to address “Consensus” forum
TOPIC IS “WESTERN LANDS CLUSTERING AMENDMENT”
The July 9 meeting of the Martin County Consensus will feature Commissioner Heard speaking about the newly named Land Protection Incentives Amendment to the Comp Plan noted above. Ms. Heard had previously voted against the measure. The three commissioners who voted for it (Valliere, DiTerlizzi and Smith) were all invited, but declined to attend. The forum will be held at the Blake Library at 6:00 pm. Audience questions will be allowed.
What do large landowners really want?
In public, large landowners and their supporters state their views on development in reasonable terms. They want to preserve agriculture. They want to save the environment. They want us to be prepared for the inevitable influx of new residents. They want a thriving local economy. No one can argue against such moderate desires, and the publicity savvy ranchers know that. However, if they want a lot more than that, they are usually prudent enough not so say so.
Down in Miami-Dade County, a $4 million consultant’s study recommended that their Urban Development Boundary be maintained at least until 2025. The consultant recognized that restoration of the Everglades and healthy survival of Biscayne Bay depend on retention of their UDB. Land interests were furious. In reacting to this preservationist recommendation, landowners let the cat out of the bag and imprudently said what they really want.
According to Katie Edwards, Executive Director of the Dade County Farm Bureau, they want “market forces should determine where development occurs in Miami-Dade County.” Forget zoning and Comp Plan restrictions, long upheld in the courts. In effect, those who profit are willing for all of us to live with sprawl, pollution, heavy traffic, environmental destruction, water supply problems and all the other woes seen in over-crowded South Florida so that landowners can get the highest prices that “market forces” will bring for their land. Do Martin County landowners want anything less than their Dade County brethren?
We should keep in mind what is the real intent of developers, large landowners, and their supportive officials when they say that it’s in any county’s best interest to allow greater population density in rural areas.
Commission approves revised Renar plan
BARE MAJORITY OVERCOMES MANEUVERS BY BUSINESS GROUPS THAT IGNORE RESIDENTS
Commissioners DiTerlizzi, Heard and Valliere overcame strong lobbying by business organizations, approving 3-to-2 the scaled back, reduced density plan for Phase 2 of Renar Riverplace in Jensen Beach. They did so by omitting the deal-killer added requirements that neither the Doss family – or any developer – could accept. Groups that unsuccessfully supported the imposition of onerous add-on conditions, and ignored the wishes of both residents and developer, included: Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce, Jensen Beach Neighborhood Advisory Committee, the Economic Council, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
School performance report card – 2007 ratings
Schools in slow-growth Martin County: 18 A; 1 B
Schools in fast-growth St. Lucie County: 10 A; 5 B; 8 C; 7 D; 2 F
*****
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. 19
Recap of events driving cluster-sprawl fiasco
* Martin County Commission majority, intent on encouraging development in rural lands, spends $523,000.00 to hire Glatting-Jackson consulting firm known to promote cluster development.
* Much citizen opposition to Glatting-Jackson report, which fails to note that its own public input showed that 87.9% of cluster comments opposed clusters; 84.5% favored less growth.
* Commissioner Valliere offers directive that staff prepare a Comp Plan amendment that allows clustering in rural lands, and other developer benefits. Commissioners DiTerlizzi and Smith support move. All three have received generous campaign contributions from developer interests.
* Growth Management asks for more time to prepare amendment. Workshops would be desirable. Fast-growth commissioners insist on getting draft in August 2007 so it can go to Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in September. Otherwise amendment transmittal to DCA would have to wait until April 2008. That would put it too close to the next election.
* Amendment’s popular name, the “Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment” given official designation as the “Land Protection Incentives Amendment.”
* County staff prepares amendment draft in full compliance with Commission directive.
* Big uproar when public sees draft. Valliere disavows amendment, saying it is not what she intended because development rights transfer could increase urban density. Commission makes cowardly attempt to blame staff.
* Commission majority directs staff to revise draft so Valliere will provide needed third vote to approve amendment.
* Some developers and landowners breathe easier … for the moment.
Heard dissects Valliere rural cluster amendment
Commissioner Sarah Heard addressed a well-attended meeting of the Martin County Consensus at the Blake Library. She was peppered with questions from the polite, attentive audience. In a masterful display of careful analysis, she showed that the draft of the Land Protection Incentives Amendment, previously supported by Commissioners Valliere, DiTerlizz and Smith, is deeply flawed. Among the amendment’s shortcomings are:
* Allowing 2-acre lots in all agricultural areas.
* Encouraging urban development throughout the county.
* No rivers or environmental benefit required.
* Land will be sold to undefined “public entity.”
…. And much more that is not good for most Martin County citizens.
|
-----Alert-----
CALL TO ACTION!
On July 19, LPA will vote on Comp Plan Amendments to (1) add cluster-sprawl to rural lands, and (2) provide public utilities outside the USB. Let’s speak up to prevent it.
The Martin County Local Planning Agency (LPA) will conduct hearings on Thursday, July 19, 2007, 7:00 pm at the Commission room. This is preparatory to sending its recommendations to the Commission on August 21. Two items are Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) that are of great concern to people who want to preserve the primary Urban Services Boundary (USB), and to people who do not want cluster-sprawl in our rural lands.
CPA #07-20 is the Rural Cluster Amendment [See above], now known officially as the “Land Protection Incentives Amendment.” Here are two draft guidelines [emphasis added]:
“ Mandate clustering of units on any targeted lands proposed for private development.”
“Allow no increase in existing densities, or increases only for specific benefits.” [Guess who decides which benefits … and for whom!]
This will lead to cluster-sprawl, a great benefit to developers, but a costly tax and discomfort burden to the rest of Martin’s citizens. This must be opposed.
CPA #07-22 is the Tuscawilla development outside the primary USB. After getting well and septic approved, the developers changed their minds and want water and sewer utility service for their upscale community. This CPA also includes other lands inside the secondary USB. The Comp Plan now prohibits providing such sprawl inducing extended utility services, so this amendment to change the Comp Plan is really a giveaway to the developers. This must be opposed.
YOUR EFFORTS WILL MATTER. Come to the LPA hearing early (6:40 pm) as a show of solidarity. Either come to the speak, or come as a show of citizen concern. Or phone. Or e-mail. Please, just communicate with the following LPA members and related officials by July 19:
District 1: Frank Wacha
772-225-0330
frank@ahooo.com
---
District 2:
ames Moir
283-3687
benchcat@aol.com
---
District 3: Resigned 6/1/07
---
District 4: Sandy W. Zweben
781-3722
zweben@bellsouth.net
---
District 5: George Hine
283-4542
signedoff@msn.com
- - - - -
School Board: Rodger Osborne
219-1200
osborner@martin.k12.fl.us
---
Growth Management: Nicki Van Vonno
288-5520
Nikkiv.@martin.fl.us
Let’s tell them why we don’t want sprawl-inducing clusters in rural land. Tell them why extending public water and sewer utilities outside of the USB violates both the letter and spirit of the Comp Plan.
*****
NOTE: A NEWSFLASH and Alert on the above topics were sent to GRASSROOTS ACTION TEAM subscribers several days in advance of this issue. See below.
*****
Yes! You can do something about current issues
FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE Defender’s NEW
“GRASSROOTS ACTION TEAM” alerts
WILL HELP YOU PARTICIPATE
We have been searching for a solution to two vexing challenges. One is the question about acting to preserve our quality of life. Readers ask: “How can I do something that will help?” The second challenge is: How do we let readers know, immediately, about the need to send a message to officials? We have the solution.
Because our circulation has grown so much, it takes us several days to distribute each issue in batch mailings, as required by internet providers. [We looked into mass e-mail distributors. Forget it.] It also takes a few days to research and write each issue. So if an important meeting is scheduled – one where citizens should contribute their views – we normally have to know well over a week ahead of time to notify all of our readers. That’s too much lead time.
We are realistic that most readers want to be informed, but do not necessarily want to be active in the public marketplace of ideas. Presumably the information gained will be helpful to them at election time.
Our new undertaking, the Grassroots Action Team, is for those who do want to participate. It is for those who want to join with comrades in arms to speak up in person or from the comfort of your computer. It needs to be a fast-moving cadre, limited in numbers so we can provide rapid alert notification of down-to-the-wire events. It is also limited to people whose outlook is reflected in these pages. Grassroots Action Team is a two-way information pipeline that also allows us to respond quickly to reports sent to us by Team members.
If that suits you, join the Grassroots Action Team simply by sending your name in an e-mail, with “Grassrooots” typed in the Subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
You will receive alert notifications in advance of the regular Defender issue. Then it is up to you whether to phone or e-mail an official, what to tell him, whether to speak at a Board hearing, whether to just show up at some meeting or not. It’s free and there is no cost or obligation. We quickly provide the information that enables you to act if you want to. Your effort will benefit all who live in Martin County.
*****
Update on Dutcher development
Sometimes government officials are negligent in carrying out their duties to enforce permit requirements. It’s not a you-can’t-fight-city-hall situation if a determined citizen persists in demanding appropriate government action. Thanks to reader Virginia Sherlock (A.K.A. Scourge of Non-Complying Developers), the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Martin County’s Growth Management Department were pushed to do what they should have done without being pushed.
Concerning the Dutcher shoreline development near the Jensen Beach circle [See Defender No. 14], on July 2 DEP cited five potential violations of the DEP-issued rip-rap permit conditions. Property owner has 15 days to address issues. On July 5, Dutcher filed an application with the DEP for a new permit to construct a seawall and rip-rap and to install a stormwater management system for a mixed-use building to be constructed 25 feet from the mean high water line (without the seawall, the building would have to be set back 75 feet from mean high water).
If the new application is approved, it would authorize Dutcher to build a seawall on the mean high water line and bring in tons of back fill to fill in the sloping area between the road (Indian River Drive) and the wall -- covering native plants and possible coastal wetlands -- to "extend" the buildable portion of his property closer to the water.
Such construction probably violates the Martin County Shoreline Protection Ordinance, regardless of DEP regulations.
The County previously determined that Dutcher is in violation of the County rip-rap permit -- since the rip-rap can be installed only in conjunction with a seawall. Since a seawall is not authorized by DEP, it is impossible for Dutcher to comply with the County rip-rap permit. What is the County doing to enforce its permit?
Martin County ordinances give the Building Official specific authority to revoke a permit which has been issued in error or when there are violations of the provisions of the permit. Instead of revoking the Martin County permit, however, the Building Department Director, Larry Massing, actually authorized a 90-day extension of the County's permit (which would have expired if the work had not commenced by July 12) regardless of the fact that the project is in violation of the existing County permit, and no new DEP permit has been issued. For more information, Mr. Massing’s phone is 288-5491.
Kathy FitzPatrick, the County's coastal engineer, told commissioners that the DEP permit does not authorize a seawall but does authorize rip-rap and a "retaining wall" 20 or 30 feet behind the rip-rap. This is untrue. The DEP permit does not authorize any kind of wall. Can we trust government to do what it is entrusted to do?
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, or to subscribe to Early Alerts from the GRASSROOTS ACTION TEAM, send e-mail with “Subscribe” or “Grassroots” 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
Al Forman, Editor 7/14/07
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 20
Rural Clusters vs. No Rural Clusters
LPA HEARING REFLECTS OPPOSITION TO CLUSTERS
On July 19, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) held a hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment #07-20 Land Protection Incentives, widely known as the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment. In a 2-to-1 decision, Board members Moir and Zweben voted to return the draft to staff, Wacha dissenting.
The most heartening aspect of the meeting was the large attendance of aware citizens who had come to protest the deeply flawed amendment draft, and the Commissioners’ rush job, even opposed by both daily newspapers. [A salute to the good turnout of GRASSROOTS ACTION TEAM members.] There were numerous protesters at the building entrance, with large signs opposing the sprawl promoting Valliere amendment.
An added kudo goes to the citizens who stepped up to the podium to address LPA members. I want to praise all speakers who presented their cogent anti-amendment arguments, but my memory isn’t as good as it used to be (whose is?). Here are the well applauded folks I do remember, in alphabetical order; sincere apologies to those I missed. Let me know if I missed you so I can amend:
Antonia Barnes, Peg Beck, Pauline Becker, Henry Copeland, Ed Fielding, Al Forman, Tom Fullman, Giovanna Gallottini, Patrick Hayes, Jay Honan, Marge Ketter, Dorothy Lanci, Donna Melzer, Sally O’Connell, Paul Shidel, Bill Summers, Bill Thornton, Pat Thornton, Eve Tillman, Richard Towne, Jackie Trancynger. Well done!
Poor showing by pro-cluster advocates
Supporters of the Valliere amendment were not plentiful. Only four spoke. A landowner representative identified his affiliation; Tammy Simmoneau, a spokesperson for the Economic Council, which lobbies in favor of developers; Linda Hake, an attorney with developer clients; and Mary Dawson of Sustaining Community Lands and the Friends of Martin County. [See below.]
The last three speakers seemed to focus their speeches more on attacking anti-amendment arguments than clarifying the benefit of rural clusters. Each was listened to politely by the attentive audience, but no one applauded. The silence greeting the end of each of their addresses was a potent silent rebuke.
The Inquiring Defender wants to know:
Are vested interests funding pro- and anti-cluster advocates who do not make public their financial sources?
To find out, we have started to ask leaders on both sides of the cluster argument if they are getting money from their supporters. We sent the following explanation to both anti-cluster advocate Tom Fullman and pro-cluster advocate Mary Dawson:
The Defender is working on a report on the role of money given by contributors to outspoken prominent residents in the public debate over slower-growth/development* versus faster-growth/development**. We are posing three easily answered specific questions to advocates on both sides in order to clarify this issue. The sole difference in our questions to each side is the reference to slower or faster growth contributors (Question 1) and the names of advocacy organizations (Question 2). I would appreciate your reply by our deadline of July 25, 2007, three days hence. Thank you for your cooperation.
Al Forman, Editor
The Martin County Defender
* We define slower-growth/development contributors here as organizations and individuals, their attorneys, publicists, families, employers and employees who have supported slower growth policies, including opposition to rural clustering, or who stand to benefit financially from the positions they take.
** We define faster-growth/development contributors here as organizations and individuals, their attorneys, publicists, families, employers and employees who have supported faster growth policies, including support for rural clustering, or who stand to benefit financially from the positions they take. These include, but are not limited to, developers, builders, contractors, large landowners, real estate and financial companies.
-------------
QUESTIONS FOR MARY DAWSON
1 – Have you received any donations, payments for services or loans from faster-growth/development contributors since January 2006?
____Yes ____No
2 – Has any organization in which you play a key leadership role, including but not limited to Sustaining Community Lands and Friends of Martin County, received donations, payments for services or loans from faster-growth/development contributors since January 2006?
____Yes ____No
3 – Do you own land, other than your primary residence, either directly or beneficially through a trust or family affiliation, in Martin County outside the Urban Services Boundary?
____Yes ____No
----------------------
QUESTIONS FOR TOM FULLMAN
1 – Have you received any donations, payments for services or loans from slower-growth/development contributors since January 2006?
____Yes ____No
2 – Has any organization in which you play a key leadership role, including but not limited to The Martin County Consensus, received donations, payments for services or loans from faster-growth/development contributors since January 2006?
____Yes ____No
3 – Do you own land, other than your primary residence, either directly or beneficially through a trust or family affiliation, in Martin County outside the Urban Services Boundary?
____Yes ____No
--------------------
HOW FULLMAN AND DAWSON RESPONDED
Fullman responded with clearcut answers: NO to Question 1 (he’s received no payments), and NO to Question 3 (he owns no land outside the USB). Regarding Question 2 concerning funding for The Martin County Consensus, he said that the only funds received were $150 start-up seed money loaned by several Board members, plus the standard $25 fee from individual memberships. No other funds have been requested or received.
Dawson’s reply contained much more than simple Yes or No. Her response to the specific questions is printed in its entirety below:
1. I receive no income from the development community. Although I am sure this is not what Al is trying to get at, I do work for a branch of the State of Florida which has adopted a policy favoring clustering in the form of Rural Land Stewardship. As an attorney for the state, I am obligated to interpret the law in favor of implementing that policy when doing the state’s business. Other than that, I believe that the father in a young family to whom I have rented the same house for 12 years works in construction, and I received a loan from a bank to finance a car.
2. I volunteer as Chair of the Board of Sustaining Community Lands, a 501(c)(3) charity. SCL is supported by individuals who have a reputation for supporting slow growth, but I have no knowledge of their position on clustering, because we do not query contributors about such things. On the other hand, SCL promotes an approach to land preservation that works very well with clustering. See www.SCLands.org.
I am also a volunteer director of another 501(c)(3 Studies. CUES has supported clustering. I have no knowledge of individual contributors and their proclivities. Friends of Martin County has accepted no contributions.
3. I own property inside the Urban Service District. My family and I have also owned three pieces of property totaling approximately 21 acres in the 5-acre ranchette area west of Palm City for decades. We own no land that would be affected by a change in the rules governing clustering in the 20-acre ag land. None of our property is restricted from clustering today, although the likelihood that we would ever do so is remote due to the small size of the parcels.) charity, Sustainable Treasure Coast, Inc., which is an offshoot of the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast. It is affiliated with Florida Atlantic University and the Center for Urban and Environmental
Full disclosure: The Martin County Defender has received no funding of any kind from anyone, except from its editor.
Commission keeps chipping away at zoning to accommodate developers
Consider the Aug. 7, 2007 agenda being placed before the Board of County Commissioners. It includes 19 ordinances that change Zoning designations, Future Land Use Map, or Comp Plan provisions in ways that benefit development.
“Consensus” sponsors Concurrency roundtable
Concurrency, as applied to growth management, is a most important word that carries with it serious implications. One definition that works is: "The timing and costs related to providing infrastructure support for added development." A real world example might include issues that arise from a situation like this: A large developer plans to build a1,000-home community. When should new infrastructure such as schools and roads be started and completed to serve that community? How much should the developer contribute, and how much should be paid through taxes?
On Monday, Aug. 6, The Martin County Consensus plans to present a roundtable at the Blake Library at 6:00 pm. Four prominent participants will discuss various aspects of Concurrency, raising the level of public discourse. Audience questions will be welcome.
Commissioners get credit they deserve
We have often criticized Commissioners Valliere and Weberman for taking positions we believe to be contrary to the best interests of county residents. However, when they stand up for what’s right, we want to be among those who do not spare the praise. Specifically, Weberman’s view of budget cuts is that highest salaries should be capped, and that cutbacks should be borne by mid and high level county staff – not just those at a low level. This is just and sensible. Valliere’s strong support for a special court for mentally ill inmates is both humane and cost-effective.
Latest Dutcher Cove update
On July 23, the county’s Code Enforcement Magistrate decided to allow Stephen Dutcher until Oct. 4, 2007 to bring the shoreline near the Jensen Beach traffic circle into compliance, or to restore it to its original condition, which has been degraded since the project’s start in January 2007. Judgment on investigation costs and violation fines to be levied are held in reserve. Meanwhile, until permit matters are cleared up, the rip-rap will be moved again – back to the concrete parking slab.
***
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, or to subscribe to Early Alerts from the GRASSROOTS ACTION TEAM, send e-mail with “Subscribe” or “Grassroots” 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