The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 21
The EMPIRE* vs. The PEOPLE
* From Kenric Ward’s incisive Stuart News column, “Florida ballot wars: The empire strikes back”
WHAT IS THE EMPIRE?
The Empire is a coalition of rich business and government organizations that have joined forces to impose their will on the citizens of Florida. Its initial goal is to defeat the Hometown Democracy constitutional amendment that would require voter approval of changes to the Comprehensive Plan. In Martin County, the Empire partners with pro-clustering advocates who would open western rural lands to sprawling development. Clusters are opposed by 87.9% of citizens commenting on clusters. If the Empire prevails, it will adversely affect our quality of life. Furthermore, since growth does not pay for itself, especially when infrastructure and public services must be provided to remote locations, a substantial additional tax burden will fall on ordinary residents. Aggressive developers, their agents and stooges would be the financial beneficiaries.
The key player: The Florida Chamber of Commerce is the primary driver in asserting money power, using its Smarter Growth coalition to mislead voters into supporting a petition meant to confuse, a petition that prevents voters from controlling growth. Their paid collectors from National Voter Outreach are reported to be circulating a green petition, falsely telling people that the Florida Hometown Democracy petition is finished, and to sign the “new” petition.
A top Florida Chamber executive reportedly said that “If Florida Hometown Democracy (FHT) spends $10 million, we’ll invest $20 million.” Imagine the slick TV commercials and flashing billboards. The grim irony is that some of that money comes from local merchants who are Chamber members and would not benefit from defeating FHD. Simply stated, small business, from art galleries to window cleaners, are being used by the big money guys. The money should be spent to promote local business.
Politicians: The business organizations contributing millions to this ballot war, also have the deep pockets to contribute generously to the campaigns of officials seeking re-election, as well as wannabe candidates sucking up to the big money sources by opposing FHD. Government associations, such as the Florida League of Cities, are fighting FHD because they want to retain the power for growth decisions. And there is linkage: a past president of the state Chamber is a top executive of a national development consultant.
Local cluster-sprawl linkage: The Martin County dispute over radical change in the Comp Plan to allow rural clusters goes hand in hand with the efforts to stop citizens from controlling growth. Recently, determined pro-cluster advocates were guest speakers at a local $25/plate Chamber lunch. They seem to have dropped for now the preposterous claim that clusters will slow growth. Now they focus on fanciful land preservation claims to convince the gullible.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Download the FHD petition, make copies, complete the form if you have not done so already. Make copies for friends and relatives. Over 400,000 petition have been filed of the 611,000 needed. Get your copy at:
www.FloridaHometownDemocracy.com
Valliere cluster amendment revised – again
The Valliere rural cluster amendment to the Comp Plan (aka Land Protection Incentives Amendment) has been altered once again in order to look like it corrects the serious flaws and vagueness in previous versions. The Local Planning Agency has previously voted against it. Both daily newspapers, in a rare case of mutual agreement, have opposed it. Most Martin residents oppose it.
Yet the County Commission may want to vote on it at their August 21 meeting without adequate public input or time for study. WHY THE RUSH? Forcing a favorable vote is a sure invitation to litigation and a demand for recision in 2008. If you care what happens to our county, speak up – or at least attend – that meeting. Meanwhile, let commissioners hear from you at: commissioners@martin.fl.us
Pitchford approved, legal questions remain
The Pitchford’s Landing development in Jensen Beach was approved by the Commission on Aug. 7 by a vote of 4-to-1. This accommodation for developer Bill Reily was expected. However, serious questions about legal violations remain. These include: Prohibited mixed use outside the CRA; erroneous land calculations; violation of PUD tiering (buffer) policy; parking on IR Drive and character of parking space provided; inadequate open space; lack of firm public benefits. These and other legal issues are being challenged, which may tie up the project for years. After the Pinecrest Lakes decision, where buildings in violation had to be torn down, the developer may be wise enough not to build until all legal hurdles have been cleared. How much better off everyone would be if the developer had worked with the residents instead of fighting and suing them.
A salute to two more stand-up citizens
In Defender Issue No. 20, we mentioned dozens of our readers who spoke against the Valliere amendment. Our apologies to two of our stalwarts we missed: Ken Haines and Dolores Panaro.
South Florida Water Management summit
One of our intrepid reader-reporters attended the July 30 SFWMD summit, reportedly set up after prodding by Governor Crist. Standing room only. Some key meeting highlights: Attendees included representatives of media, utilities, legislators, businesses and environmentalists. The panelists and public want Lake O water sent south in a floway. SFWMD opposes that, claiming they do not have enough canal capacity or upstream treatment capacity, and a lawsuit prevents pumping it into the Everglades. Since they do not have the same standards for estuaries, they can release dirty water east and west. There was a big clash between SFWMD engineers and users. Not enough said about water quality or growth demands.
Concurrency roundtable was informative
The Aug. 6 Concurrency roundtable, sponsored by the Martin County Consensus, was covered by another reader-reporter while we were on vacation. Attendance was good, but less than previous forums. Most impressive participant was Don Santos, representing the Treasure Coast Builders Association. He stated that developers were not against impact fees, though such fees can not pay entirely for schools no matter how high they are. He also observed that they need to do a better job talking to neighbors. Moderator Tom Fullman did a good job keeping the discussion moving.
***
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 request with “Subscribe” in the subject line 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. 22
A CRITICAL CALL TO ACTION
Tuesday, Aug. 21, County Commission will consider the Valliere amendment to bring cluster-sprawl to western lands. Preset time is 1:30 pm. One of the most important things you can do this year for Martin County is to be there to speak against this sellout to developers.
***
It’s sheer arrogance! It’s an outrage!
3 Commissioners defy widespread citizen opposition to revised Valliere cluster plan
Publicity-conscious advisors to Commissioner Valliere have come up with cosmetic changes in a revised Comp Plan amendment that would still allow cluster-sprawl in rural areas. It would adversely affect our quality of life, and add a heavy tax burden on all residents for added infrastructure to serve these outlying areas. They can dress up a skunk with lipstick and a fancy hat, but nothing essentially would change.
The people have spoken loud and clear: NO to the Valliere amendment. The Local Planning Agency (LPA) has said NO. Both daily newspapers have said NO (see below). It is primarily developer-related interests that want it – the money guys who contribute so generously to political campaigns.
The three pro-cluster commissioners – Valliere, DiTerlizzi & Smith - have never explained why there is a supposed need to rush this through without enough time to study it fully. Why are they preventing the public from providing workshop input over a period of time? Why are they reluctant to try to develop a broad favorable consensus? Why will they not consider a referendum on such a divisive issue? Why are they overrriding the LPA decision? Something does not smell right!
Such relentless determination by these three commissioners to rush a radical change in the Comp Plan to boost rural sprawl development, despite widespread public opposition, makes one wonder: Does it merit investigative attention?
Newspaper editorials oppose Valliere amendment
To restate key issues, we are reprinting editorials from the Stuart News and the Palm Beach Post. These two papers rarely see eye-to-eye, but on this issue both agree: The Valliere amendment should not pass.
But where are the details of proposed Land Protection Incentives Amendment
July 29, 2007 – Stuart News editorial
Scared.
That’s how Martin County residents should feel about the proposed Land Protection Incentives Amendment. And they should lobby commissioners now to derail it even before it heads to an August public hearing.
Also known as the “Valliere Amendment” — named after County Commissioner Susan Valliere, who has been sponsoring the proposal — the amendment would give commissioners too much discretion to approve clustering homes together out west, supposedly in exchange for the donation of land to the county.Giving three people the power to change the face of the county should give residents the willies.
But there are other reasons for concern — the biggest being the glaring absence of details.
The stated objective of the amendment is “to preserve natural open space and the use of a clustering tool to encourage the donation of tracts of land for the public benefit.”
That sounds great — in principle. However, the proposed amendment fails to spell out specific details needed to ensure this groundbreaking approach to land preservation achieves its desired objective.There’s a dearth of specifics — and a whole lot of ambiguity — in the brief, three-paragraph Valliere Amendment.
As former Martin County Commissioner Maggy Hurchalla duly noted last week in a videotaped editorial board meeting, the proposal does not specifically require the donation of open space, nor does it require the preservation of land that is donated. It also does not say how much land should be donated.
“It does require that the land be donated to two governmental agencies,” Hurchalla said. “(But) that could be the state Department of Transportation and any other government agency.”
The strength of Martin County’s award-winning comprehensive plan has always been its clearly delineated requirements and restrictions: four-story height limit, one unit per 20 acres in rural parts of the county, the requirement that growth pay for itself, among many others.Martin County is unique because Hurchalla and other prescient leaders crafted specific details in the comprehensive plan — details that are measurable and enforceable.
These details are lacking in the Valliere Amendment, which leaves too many big issues open to the interpretation of county commissioners.
Moreover, the proposed amendment includes the following statement:
“The clustering of dwellings may be allowed when, after full and adequate public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall have determined that the public benefit ... shall be greater than the public detriment associated with the increase of intensity of the use of land to which the clustering prinicple is being applied.”
Full and adequate public hearing?
The commission already has violated this very principle in its efforts to gain approval for the amendment.Martin County residents were denied adequate opportunity to scrutinize the proposed draft, which underwent a hasty revision just prior to the July 19 meeting of the Local Planning Agency (which rejected the proposal, 2-1). And yet the commission remains committed to bringing the amendment up for a vote — for possible transmittal to the state — on Aug. 21.
In the absence of specific language that would eliminate the seething ambiguity in the proposal, the commission should shelve the amendment until next year and, between now and then, conduct a series of public workshops to elicit input from residents.
***
For Valliere, third time no charm
By Sally Swartz
Palm Beach Post editorial writer
August 08, 2007
The setting seemed perfect: a sellout crowd of more than 200 from Martin County's chambers of commerce - Stuart, Palm City, Indiantown and Hobe Sound - including some nice people I hadn't seen in a while. The pleasant, upscale ambience of Martin Downs Country Club. Cloth napkins with a lunch of chicken breast and crunchy cooked veggies; iced brownies on the dessert plate.
The food was good. But the program made me sick.
I wanted to hear County Commissioner Susan Valliere talk about her amendment, which comes before the Martin commission on Aug. 21. The proposal could open western farmlands to clusters of urban development. Commissioner Valliere had refused to speak to members of the Martin County Consensus; they might have made her answer tough questions. But she was willing to talk to the chambers of commerce, and with good reason. Facts were irrelevant; this was a rally to make business people support her amendment.
The amendment Commissioner Valliere described on Monday is different from the first vague draft that the county staff prepared. It's different from the second draft, which added flowery language. In fact, she sent the third draft to the county staff just before her noontime talk.
That is a problem. With a new version appearing every week or so - in the dog days of July and August, when many county residents are on vacation - the public can't keep up. The latest version has a new name, the Land Preservation Amendment, though the county is calling it "Land Protection Incentives." Planning officials can't say whether the latest document is a new amendment or an addition to its vague predecessors. If they don't know, what chance does the public have?
Commissioner Valliere said her amendment isn't being rushed, because the community has been talking about clustering for "well over a year." She's wrong. The conversation has gone on that long, but the new document has been on the table for only two days.
This latest requires that a project be at least 500 acres and set aside at least 50 percent of the land for preservation, open space or agriculture. If it did, the commission could approve an urban-style project on rural land. But again, the amendment is too vague. A developer could consider yards, sidewalks, drainage swales and space on private land as "open space." It could allow urban development far from the existing urban service boundary, undercutting the idea of preservation.
And instead of the 20-acre ranchettes now allowed on rural land, the amendment would allow 2.01-acre ranchettes in clusters throughout the county. In Broward and Palm Beach counties, 2-acre ranchettes have invited sprawl. Protection remains inadequate for lands needed to restore the Everglades and help the rivers. The amendment would give title to the public lands to three environmental organizations, government agencies, land trusts or others, which could allow a developer to organize three land trusts to control land he donates.
The amendment includes feel-good language about what developers could do, such as setting aside more than the minimum amount of land, restoring land and connecting natural systems and wildlife corridors. But they wouldn't be required to do any of those things.
Mary Dawson, whose Friends of Martin County group is financed by people she refuses to name, wrote some of the latest amendment, confirmed in an e-mail Tuesday. She told the chambers that she had "answered problems raised by citizens" and referred people to the Friends Web site and that of her other group, Sustaining Community Lands Inc., to see the new version before the county had it.
Commissioner Valliere said the "critters" on land and in "our polluted rivers" are cheering for her amendment. Treasure Coast Wildlife Hospital director Dan Martinelli, who told me several years ago that he accepted a large endowment for the hospital from a major Martin developer, brought a crested cara cara and a barred owl to underscore his support for the Valliere amendment. The owl hooted.
As a former wildlife hospital volunteer who worked with the hospital's founder, the late Jean Henry, I know that owls are more interested in juicy little rats than growth management. But that hoot is right on.
***
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line 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. 23
3-to-2, commssioners sell out to developers
RURAL CLUSTERS APPROVED IN LAST MINUTE RUSH.
OBSERVATIONS NOT REPORTED ELSEWHERE
It was a foregone conclusion that Commissioners Valliere, DiTerlizzi and Smith would approve the rural cluster amendment to the Comp Plan. The Aug. 21 Commission meeting saw an unprecedented number of speakers. After the poor showing of fast-growth advocates at the July 19 Local Planning Agency (LPA) meeting – nine times as many slow-growth advocates spoke – Chamber of Commerce, Economic Council and allied organizations did everything possible to muster a better showing. However, they were still outnumbered by ordinary citizens without financial interest in rural clustering.
INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS ….
…. After thousands of going-through-the-motions words were spoken on details of the amendment, Commissioner Weberman summed up the amendment’s value in two words: Not Necessary.
…. Growth Management Director Nicki Van Vonno was stumbling over evasive words to respond to Commissioner Heard’s probing questions.
…. Economic Council director showed her ignorance of statistical based scientific polling. She claimed that the Community Foundation’s study showing 82% of Martin residents wanted to rein in growth was wrong because it only surveyed 1,000 residents instead of all.
…. Popular anger was expressed by only a few people using words like “Masilotti” and “suspicious,” but more folks may have been thinking it.
…. The resident overcome with frustration who shouted “shut up” at commissioners was wrong to disrupt the hearing, but his parting shot before exiting resonated. He yelled: “Sham!”
…. One real estate broker reported a large commission loss on a million dollar house sale when the buyer backed out because he said “the Commission is at war with residents.”
The war isn’t over yet. These are early battles. The pro-cluster people have the money, but residents who want to preserve quality of life have the votes, a key point repeatedly stated at the hearing. A Commission not dominated by developer money can rescind the amendment. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) can reject the amendment. And there is always litigation based on the improper procedures forced by the slim commission majority.
The people shall prevail. Stay tuned on how you can help.
Salute to anti-cluster speakers
Here is the honor roll of thoughtful citizens who had the welfare of our county at heart in speaking up against the Valliere Rural Cluster amendment that radically changes the Comp Plan, which has served us so well for so many years:
Carla Bambi, Pauline Becker, Richard Berzian, Greg Braun, Robert Conrad, Henry Copeland, Keith Copp, Louise Cunha, Joanne Davis, Jay Dawly, Julie Dunwood, Ed Fielding, Joe Florio, Al Forman, Stan Forman, Tom Fullman, Giovanna Gallotini,Myra Galoci, Richard Grosso, Ken Haines, Marguerite Hess, Jay Honan, Kevin Hurtell, Marge Ketter, Isaac Love, Jr., Bob Matheson, Donna Melzer, Sally O’Connell, John Patteson, Dolores Pinero, Ian Pollack, Bill Summers, Bill Thornton, Patricia Thornton, Eve Tillman, Jackie Trancynger.
Our apologies for any omissions and misspelling. We listened to the announcement of names as carefully as possible.
Dawson seen coaching commissioners during hearing
BUSTED! Commissioner Valliere had much to say in defending her amendment. It was a small surprise to see Mary Dawson in the audience coaching Valliere with hand signals on what to say. Even more surprising, Chairman DiTerlizzi, sitting up on the dais, and Dawson near the front of the audience, were seen communicating one-to-one via facial expressions during the time that speakers were addressing the commission.
It’s amazing!
ST. LUCIE COUNTY HAS BETTER CLUSTER RULES THAN THE VALLIERE AMENDMENT PASSED BY MARTIN COMMISSION
St. Lucie County – NOT the city of Port St. Lucie – has far better requirements for agricultural Planned Unit Development (PUD) than that required in the Valliere Rural Cluster amendment passed by the Deaf-to-Residents Trio on the Martin County Commission. St. Lucie requires that 80% of land must be in open space, with only 20% allotted to cluster development. Martin’s requirement is only 50%.
Of course, landowner/developers are landowner/developers wherever they are. In St. Lucie County, they want yards around houses to be considered open land in order to greatly reduce true open space. Higher density is always the name of their game.
***
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line 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. 24
LPA to vote on bad laws on Sept. 6
EAR WORKSHOP VITAL TO OUR FUTURE
The Local Planning Agency (LPA) will hold its next meeting on Thursday, Sept. 6 at 7:00 pm in the Commission chamber. LPA will vote on a variety of Ordinances relating to Pitchford’s Landing, changed zoning for various parcels, and Project Request to build facilities to further commercialize the airport. Two other agenda items may be of equal or greater interest.
Item 3A1 concerns Comp Plan Amendment #07-22, Secondary Urban Service District. This amendment allows the extension of centralized water and sewer services to the lands in the Secondary Urban Service District, a change that seriously undercuts the Primary USB which has contained sprawl so well for so long. The scope of #07-22 includes the Tuscawilla development in Western Palm City on Rt. 714 [See Defender No. 13]. This is a giveaway to the developers who already had plan approval with septics.
Item 4B1 on the LPA agenda is a Public Workshop to consider the list of “Major Issues” for the 2008 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which is required by law. LPA will focus on whether the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Growth Plan are being met, and if not what changes should be made. EAR states that the top 5 of 17 issues of public concern are: (1) Land Use; (2) Environmental Issues; (3) Conservation; (4) Residential Density; (5) Development Issues.
Our citizens have made it clear that we are satisfied with how our Comp Plan has been working, and that we do not want radical changes that promote sprawl and faster growth.Your presence and comments at the workshop will help keep the county on track in the years ahead.
ANALYSIS OF EAR PUBLIC COMMENTS
One hopes that Calvin, Giordano, the consultants hired to prepare this roughly $100,000.00 report, have listened to the extensive public input from residents. We do not need another Glatting Jackson fiasco, where public input was taken, but never analyzed statistically because it ran counter to the consultant’s recommendations. [Note: A Defender analysis of Glatting Jackson’s reported public input comments showed: 84.5% of all growth comments specifically favored less growth; 87.9% of all cluster comments specifically opposed clusters.]
So in case Calvin, Giordano fails to make a statistical analysis, we have made it. The consultant reported that “over 220 comments were submitted by the residents of Martin County.” We counted exactly 721 comments in 325 comment statements recorded by the consultant. For example, one comment statement (“Concern with changes to the Urban Service Boundary”) was actually expressed a total of 11 times by citizens.
We divided the total comments into three groups: (1) Comments that conveyed preference for slower growth or reflected anti-developer attitude; (2) Very diverse neutral comments that did not clearly relate to growth and development preferences; (3) Comments that favored faster growth or pro-developer attitude.
EXAMPLES OF COMMENTS IN EACH GROUP:
(1) “Dislike uncontrolled development”
“Like 20-acre lot minimums”
“Clustering would lead to large scale development”
(2) “Traffic patterns”
“Variety of jobs needed”
“Stormwater runoff”
“Hybrid cars for County workers”
“Overpaid consultants”
(3) “Need reasonable growth”
“Density increase needed for affordable housing”
“Clustering may achieve long term growth management goals”
RESULTS: Out of 721 total comments,
351 (48.7% of total) fell in Group (1) Slow development, anti-developer sentiment.
321 (44.5% of total) fell in Group (2) Neutral, not directly related to development.
49 (6.8% of total) fell in Group (3) Faster development, pro-developer sentiment.
However, if we just compare Groups (1) and (3) – how many of comments favored slow growth versus those for fast growth – the consultant’s public input records show some compelling results:
87.8% of growth comments favored slower growth, or were anti-developer!
This is perfectly consistent with the 82% in the Community Foundation’s Princeton Study, and the public input comments made in Glatting Jackson workshops [See above]. It’s primarily the three Deaf-to-Residents commissioners, and those who benefit from development, who refuse to hear these comments.
Commission meeting on Sept. 4
Despite the Labor Day weekend, the Commission will hold its regular meeting on Sept. 4. The agenda includes issues such as Impact Fees, which affect both development and taxes for added infrastructure.
Commission meeting on Sept. 18
VALLIERE “FINAL” IN SET GOING TO DCA
The three pro-developer commissioners (Valliere, DiTerlizzi and Smith) will have the votes to ram through the Rural Cluster Amendment they approved on Aug. 21, which is part of a larger set of amendment transmittals. It is not an agenda discussion item.
We have to build a case of public opposition that will be meaningful to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) which must approve all amendments. Give yourself the standing of a citizen objector. If you have not done so already, send a letter or an e-mail to the Commission (commissioners@martin.fl.us) telling them why you oppose “Land Preservation Incentive Amendment #07-20.”
The next issue of the Defender will cover this matter in greater detail. It will include easy-to-understand explanations that show why the Valliere amendment is a loophole-larded fraud that will benefit developer/landowner interests at the expense of most residents. That issue will also tell what you can do to convince the DCA to reject the Valliere amendment.
The Commission will also vote on #07-22, the Tuscawilla giveaway discussed above re the Sept. 6 LPA meeting.
Rumor mill
Though we are reluctant to spread rumors, when rumors are as widespread as the following, with numerous spontaneous “have you heard” comments by residents, that in itself becomes news. With that in mind, we pose these rumor-related questions:
“Will Commissioners DiTerlizzi and Smith, faced with growing opposition for steamrollering the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment, look at new political opportunities in 2008? And will their rejection of resident anti-cluster pleas haunt them?” [Note: There are open Republican candidate opportunities to face Congressman Mahoney, and a state representative slot to fill timed-out Rep. Gayle Harrell.]
“Will Mary Dawson run in the primary, with DiTerlizzi’s blessing, for his District 5 commission seat?”
“Did the unusual meeting between Commissioner Valliere, County Attorney Frey, Assistant County Administrator Sherman, Growth Management Director Van Vonno, and non-staff amendment-writer Mary Dawson discuss ways to disguise the loopholes in the Valliere amendment, loopholes that allow higher rural density than they claim?”
***
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line 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. 25
Commission bows to developers – again – delaying school funding agreement
PROSPECTS INCREASE FOR MORE CROWDED CLASSROOMS AND LONGER BUS RIDES
BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Florida legislature mandated that certain authorities within a county come to an agreement on how they will plan and fund schools. Here it means the Martin County and Stuart Commissions, and the District School Board. After discussions primarily with business organizations, and a workshop presentation to their two government partners, the School Board came up with a draft of an Interlocal Agreement.
Two important concurrency issues are covered by such an Interlocal Agreement. One is Level Of Service (LOS). The other is Impact Fees, which developers pay as part of the County’s increased cost for infrastructure to serve new home owners. School Impact Fees cover a small fraction of the added $42,000 per student construction costs; County taxpayers pay for most of it.
Current LOS specifies the permanent capacity of schools: 750 students for elementary, 1,200 for middle, and 1,800 for high schools. Looking ahead, when the School Board sees that students will exceed these numbers, it plans to build another school. So the new school would be in place concurrent with the need for it.
According to School Board attorney Doug Griffin, to recognize the special development needs of Indiantown, they sort of negotiated a compromise with Indiantown business interests: In exchange for developers accepting higher Impact Fees, the Board would reduce LOS. This reduction – they call it “loosening” – is a radical 60%! That is, in addition to the permanent capacity noted above, the Board does not have to build a new school until there is an additional “temporary” student capacity load of 450 for elementary, 720 for middle, and 1,080 for high school. Just imagine a middle school with 1,920 students crammed into it. Now developers want to retain the lower LOS, while blocking any Impact Fee increase. In other words, keep the LOS gain, but eliminate the Impact Fee given in exchange. Failing to increase Impact Fees at a time when the state is slated to cut over $400 million from school aid simply adds to the tax burden of all taxpayers.
Lower Level Of Service is a Devil’s bargain that will mean crowded schools, and longer bus trips to try to minimize the overcrowding. It’s good for developers, bad for children.
IT GETS WORSE!
In one of the most cynical acts by the several developer-dominated Chambers of Commerce and the Economic Council, East-County business leaders lobbied to delay approval of the proposed Interlocal Agreement, even though the state-imposed June 1, 2008 deadline will be a tight schedule because of usual long procedural delays. Developer interests are more than glad to accept the reduced LOS, but they don’t want higher and fairer Impact Fees … and they want Indiantown’s special development needs (which need to be addressed as an area that needs help, but as a separate issue) to serve as a lever to force this sellout to developers across the entire County.
THE COUNTY COMMISSION (EXCEPT FOR COMMISSIONER HEARD) WENT ALONG WITH DELAYING THE AGREEMENT AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 4 MEETING. THEY EVEN SET ONE WORKSHOP IN INDIANTOWN TO DISCUSS IT, THEREBY MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE MAJORITY OF CITIZENS TO ATTEND.
To make matters still worse, pro-developer advocates want the six Concurrency Service Areas (CSA), wisely conceived by the School Board to minimize long bus trips, changed to a County-wide unitary system. Do we want a Hobe Sound student bussed to Jensen Beach? Here again, the gain of the developers is the burden of our students.
The biased thinking of the pro-developer commissioners and their campaign contributors is prominently displayed by their ramming through the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment, which had no deadline. No one had the opportunity to discuss the final sprawl inducing version. In contrast, Commissioners granted a 30-day delay for the Interlocal after having ignored it for two years.
You can prevent this educational disaster!
Send e-mails to the following government and school officials, letting them know that you do not want the reduced Level Of Service for schools as proposed in the Interlocal Agreement. Also, tell them that you do want developers to pay their fair share for development infrastructure, instead of burdening all taxpayers by keeping low Impact Fees.
Commissioners@martin.fl.us
Commissioners@ci.stuart.fl.us
d.hudson@ci.stuart.fl.us
wilcoxs@martin.k12.fl.us
shekail@martin.k12.fl.us
klinen@martin.k12.fl.us
taylorr@martin.k12.fl.us
P.S. It’s just a matter of time before we will need to hire more teachers. Where will they live? Probably not in Martin County because the same pro-developer commissioners will not lift the hold on the 2005 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requiring a 12% set-aside for affordable housing in new subdivisions. Here again, developers objected to the affordable inclusion, so the Commission majority did as they were told.
A CHEERING THOUGHT: Voters can remember the long string of sellout decisions by commissioners when they run for office next year.
***
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line 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