Martin County Defender

The Martin County
Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 36

PACKED HOUSE AT HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY FORUM

Standing ovation for co-author Blackner

The Dec. 3 Hometown Democracy Amendment Forum, sponsored by the Martin County Consensus at the Blake Library, featured Lesley Blackner, co-author of the petition drive. Her talk explained how the amendment would return control of growth to residents by requiring voters to approve Comprehensive Plan changes. This voter veto power would not affect such routine development decisions such as variances and zoning.

Ms. Blackner also described the lies and sneaky efforts by worried developers and their business allies to mislead the public about the amendment. It will be a close call whether 611,000 approved petitions are received by January, and whether 13 regions of the state have fulfilled petition requirements. What Martin County does may be the tipping point. Additional funds are urgently needed.

Petition forms may be downloaded at: www.floridahometowndemocracy.com

Time is running out. Signed petitions and contributions should be sent promptly to:

Florida Hometown Democracy, Inc.
P.O. Box 636
New Smyrna, FL 32170-0636

*****

DID COUNTY DELEGATION FIX A DEAL WITH DCA?

Citizen concerns about Valliere Amendment get short shrift in Tallahassee (as well as in Martin)

THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY

Recently three prominent Martin County residents drove to Tallahassee – a six-hour road trip each way – to meet with representatives of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) regarding the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment. They were met by two DCA planners: One was so new and junior she did not even have a state e-mail address. The senior planner with her had no interest in anything the trio of people’s representatives had to say. That they had traveled at their own expense because they cared so deeply about the community meant nothing to him.

Just a few weeks later, an “official” delegation of Martin County staff and the commissioner who proposed the amendment went to Tallahassee … at taxpayer expense, of course. They were given a personal audience with DCA Secretary Tom Pelham. The public was not filled in on what occurred at this meeting. In fact, when later asked in a public meeting to disclose details of the conversation with Pelham, county staff refused to lift the veil of secrecy.

Shortly thereafter, DCA came out with no objections to the Valliere Amendment, despite the extremely strong objections by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). [See Defender No. 34.] Then the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) found the Valliere Amendment inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. [See Defender No. 35.]

The DCA decision followed the hundreds of objections by Martin residents who pointed out how that clustering plan would promote sprawl, gravely undermine our excellent Comp Plan, and lead to higher taxes, crowded schools and more traffic jams. And now the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) has serious doubts about the Valliere Amendment as well. [See below.]

Clearly too many Martin County officials are not to be trusted. Future issues may explore how voters can muck out the local political stables.

DOT expresses concerns about rural clustering

On Nov. 26, 2007, the Department of Transportation had this to say about Comprehensive Plan Amendment #07-20, the Valliere Amendment:

“The proposed amendment is silent on potential short- and long-term impacts, including how allowing clustering through residential PUDs on lands with an Agriculture future land use designation might impact SIS [Strategic Intermodal System] and other regionally significant transportation facilites and prospects for increased modal options, particularly on SR 710 and CR 609 that cross the subject area and multiple county lines. The distribution and ultimate number of possible clustered developments are unknown. Martin County should identify potential transportation impacts from the proposed amendment and ensure that they will be addressed in an appropriate and timely manner.”

Never before has there been a greater need for the HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY AMENDMENT, which returns control of growth to the voters. For a summary of some of the dirty work by its opponents, see the excellent article by Opinion Writer Kenric Ward in the Dec. 2 Stuart News.

Commissioners: Why are you giving away free rental of County property for private use when we need every dollar?

Martin County owns a structure at 1900 NE Ricou Terrace in Jensen Beach. It’s the old library building, 4,536 sq. ft. with loading dock. If it rented it out to a commercial tenant, it would bring in roughly $50,000.00/yr. The County Commission always should have wanted to help unburden taxpayers, but in this period of reduced tax revenues, anticipated cuts in public services, and imposition of new fees on residents, the need is even more pressing.

Instead, the Commission gives the space away free to two tenants. One tenant is the School Board, using it for their Adult Vocational Education efforts. This is a reasonable public use.

The Commission has also extended the building’s lease term from 2004 to Jan. 1, 2010 for this building to be used without rent by a private enterprise, the Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce. In effect, taxpayers are paying the rent. This sweetheart deal with a favored party is a breach of Commission fiduciary obligations. Did Commissioners approve this giveaway in anticipation of political campaign contributions? [Editor’s Note: Please say it isn’t so. I believe in fairy tales.]

The Commission is urged to exercise immediately the following provision of the lease with the Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce: “County reserves the right to terminate this agreement without cause upon three (3) days written notice.”

PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR

Dec. 10, 2007 – Attend the WAAM meeting, 6:30 pm at the Blake Library. Among important topics to be discussed is the threat to remove many trees on the 80-acre preserve at the airport’s north end to make way for more buildings.

Dec. 11, 2007 – Speak at the County Commission meeting, which intends to adopt the Valliere Amendment. Also, voice your opposition via e-mail to:

commissioners@martin.fl.us
nikkiv@martin.fl.us
+++

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

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al

Al Forman, Editor 12/6/07

The Martin County
Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 37

THEY SHOW CONTEMPT FOR RESIDENTS … AGAIN

Pro-sprawl commissioners adopt rural clusters

Despite another outpouring of Martin County citizens opposing the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment, Commissioners Valliere, DiTerlizzi and Smith voted to adopt it at their Dec. 11, 2007 meeting. Some modest changes were made, ostensibly in response to comments by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

This amendment had been severely criticized by most state agencies involved in the process. [See Defender Issues 33, 34, 35 and 36.] The changes did not respond to the objections made by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Department of Transportation (DOT), or numerous individual environmentalists.

A memorable segment of the proceedings were the blank, confused faces when Commissioner Heard asked some simple questions for clarification. The pro-sprawl trio and county staff planners were like deer caught in the headlights, avoiding the questions or stumbling over non-answers. Here are some of Heard’s reasonable inquiries, which should be clearly described in the amendment text, but will not be:

-- What are the cluster PUD’s boundaries? (Text does not say clustered or total area.)

-- Why are all lands, from agriculture for sugar fields and mining, treated equally with sensitive conservation land?

-- Why was the provision for donation of land for CERP removed? How is that land to be acquired? And at higher price?

-- What is the definition of ag easements?

The Hypocrisy Award of the Year goes to Chairman Doug Smith. He went on and on how it was necessary for both sides to come together, to set aside differences, we all want the same thing, blah, blah, blah. Sure, after the amendment has been jammed through, public input ignored, now let’s sit down and work things out. He must think residents are fools.

The appeals process, which provides for opposition to this amendment, will carry through the 2008 elections. This is just the end of the beginning. Starting today, it is the beginning of the end of this battle to save our county from the overdevelopment sprawl that has ruined others in South Florida. The Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment must be rescinded.

RESIDENTS DETERMINED TO PRESERVE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE – NOT DEVELOPERS - WILL PREVAIL!

Defender editor’s statement at
Dec. 3 Commission hearing

Good morning, commissioners. I’m Al Forman. I’ve been reflecting on the pro-cluster history in Martin County. It didn’t just crop up. There has been a long-term concerted effort to foist it on residents. The pattern of this current effort started about three years ago, when Tim Jackson was invited to the stage of the Blake Library, where he touted the cluster concept. A year or so later, his consulting firm was given a $528,000 contract – basically to tell us again what he’d told us earlier, that clustering is great.

At every step along the way, residents objected to plopping developments all over our western lands, but Commissioners Valliere, Diterlizzi and Smith persisted. They jammed this radical Amendment down our throats, without any workshops, ignoring the objections of hundreds of residents. We objectors were called a noisy minority, but you refused to settle the matter in a way that everyone could accept peaceably - by referendum. You refused because in your heart you knew it would be soundly defeated.

There is no pressing need for clustering. Every applicable state agency has criticized this Amendment. One said it was legal; others objected. None said it was good. Both daily newspapers have criticized it. Yet you persist, cheered on by developers.

If you adopt this Amendment today, you know that this county will be in for a year of anger and divisiveness. Yet you persist. WHY?

You say you want to protect the lands by sprouting developments all over an area without the infrastructure to support them. That is ridiculous on the face of it. So the great majority of residents do not believe you. They believe that you are forcing this western clustering on us to appeal to developer/landowner/business interests who support you so generously with campaign contributions. Even without intent, you would harm our quality of life by turning us into another St. Lucie or Broward. You are selling us out.

That is the double legacy you will leave us: That you ignored the wishes of most residents, and that you betrayed us to gain political contributions. The grim irony is it will all have been in vain. The people are aroused now, and this Amendment will not stand. You know that every legal and political avenue will be pursued to overturn this rural cluster fiasco. One way or another it will be rescinded.

We will not forget who was irresponsible enough to put us through this ordeal.
Boatyard developers scorn resident concerns

On Dec. 6, 2007, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) heard pro and con statements about expanding a football-field sized boat storage, the Hurricane Harbor Project. The expansion would bring the 40-ft high building within 32 ft. of a long established senior condo community, de la Bahia. Speakers representing hundreds of residents showed photos of how the present structure, about 100 ft. away, already looms over their homes. Expanding the building almost to their property line would all but blot out the sky.

The representative of the Marine Industries Association displayed a “tough s _ _ _” attitude toward the residents, many of whom are old war vets who have lived there for decades. He said: “Someone has to pay the price for such progress.” Outrageous!

Then a representative of the Martin County Economic Council spoke in favor of the expansion. She chided the residents for their opposition. She said: “Quality of life is more than an open view of the sky.” Both stupid and outrageous!

The four LPA members appointed by the faster growth commissioners approved the project 4-to-1. Hearing for a somewhat similar boatyard expansion by Hinckley Yachts in Rocky Point was postponed to January.

Never before have developers been as openly bold in displaying their scorn and uncaring attitude toward residents. It’s time to bring them to heel!

+++

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:

mc-defender@comcast.net

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al

Al Forman, Editor 12/14/07

The Martin County
Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 38

How ignorant are most Martin commissioners?

JUDGE FOR YOURSELF FROM WHAT THREE OF THEM HAVE SAID AT COMMISSION MEETINGS

Give someone enough time to shoot his mouth off, and he’ll eventually reveal how little he does know. After public comment at Commission meetings, the public is not allowed to correct foolish and erroneous statements pronounced by the commissioners. Here is how three of them reveal themselves in the context of discussing agenda items to be voted on.

Commissioner Michael DiTerlizzi

On Dec. 18, 2007, the Commission approved 3-to-2 (DiTerlizzi, Smith and Weberman in the majority) the proposal by Lake Point Ranches to operate a stone mine on 70 acres one mile east of Lake Okeechobee. The developer would excavate and sell 2 million cubic yards of material. Though mining is an allowed use, adequate rules to govern it, and information to understand it, are sadly lacking. Problems created by mining have forced some south Florida counties to stop mining.

Among the concerns expressed by the public are the particulate injected into the air, the effect on the water supply, the road damage from trucks hauling large multi-ton loads, and the harm to protected species.

There is evidence that a bald eagle is living in the proposed mine area. Since the mining would be done by blasting 20-ft. deep craters with dynamite, citizens expressed concern about the eagle.

Mr. DiTerlizzi pooh-poohed the concern. He showed his environmental credentials by saying these exact words: “Blasting could frighten the eagle. But the eagle could find a mate and fly away.”

At the Commission meeting a week earlier, when Mr. DiTerlizzi voted in favor of the Rural Clustering Amendment, he said he supported it because it helped restore to some fictional farmer the property rights taken away “in the middle of the night.” He was referring to the planning a zoning laws approved by the Supreme Court that keep western Martin County from becoming a free-for-all mess. So much for Mr. DiTerlizzi as planner, protecting our quality of life.

Commissioner Doug Smith

The Dec. 18 Commission meeting included a workshop on Impact Fees. These fees are paid by developers when they construct a residence or a commercial building. The fee pays for the added infrastructure (such as schools, roads, fire stations, libraries, etc.) needed to service the new facility. The amount of the Impact Fee is determined by how much of a load that facility places on specific infrastructure services. For example, a supermarket generates car travel, so the road Impact Fee for it is high, but the supermarket does not send children to school, so there is no school Impact Fee.

In essence, the Impact Fee for a house pays for a tiny piece of the school, a little bit of the library, and so on, as if it were a wing of the house. The typical cost is about that of a small walk-in closet. Impact Fees have nothing to do with property taxes … unless an insufficient amount of such fees are charged to the developer. Then either taxes on everybody must make up the difference, or we must live with a lower level of service. County consultant Dr. James Nicholas made that clear.

Apparently not clear enough for Mr. Smith, who repeated: “I can’t understand how growth doesn’t pay for itself.” It’s the cost of infrastructure, you #%@$! Incidentally, studies have shown that those Florida counties with the fastest population growth also had the greatest increase in taxes.

To please developers, the Impact Fee workshop was tabled until after budget hearings later in 2008. The vote was 4-to-1 (Heard dissenting).

Commissioner Lee Weberman

Throughout the Commission discussions of the mining and Impact issues noted above, Mr. Weberman contributed little of substance. However, he did not spare the verbage in attacking citizens who spoke about the dangers and unknowns involved in the mining proposal. He also disparaged citizens who wanted developers to pay their fair share of Impact Fees. We hereby award Mr. Weberman what his performance deserved: Nastiest Commissioner of the Day.

+++

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:

mc-defender@comcast.net

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al

Al Forman, Editor 12/21/07

The Martin County
Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 39

Dear Reader:

To the many who have written to me, thank you so much for your welcome comments and questions. Your e-letters often ask what you can do to effect necessary change on the Board of County Commissioners. I am so proud of my readers and their determination.

The answer is that in 2008 we must elect commissioners who listen to the residents, who are not in the pocket of developers and their henchmen, who are determined not to allow Martin County to become a degraded, sprawl-infested county like too many others. Achieving this, like sinking a 15 ft. putt on the golf green, is simple but difficult. Presented below are a brief backgrounder and a plan for success.

This plan can succeed only if you participate with your ideas and your actions. I am confident that you will want to join the many other concerned citizens who are working to keep Martin County the special place we deeply care about. Please tell me what you think of the election plan.

Sincerely,

Al Forman, Editor
•••NO MORE 2004•••
+++

BACKGROUNDER

In 2004, Commission candidates included the present incumbents, who almost always listen to the developer network and the business organizations they control, rather than the majority of residents. There were also some candidates – I’ll call them the good guys – who opposed fast growth and neighborhood encroachment, who spoke up to protect the environment. The good guys lost because they split the slow growth vote. The present commissioners from Districts 1,3 and 5 were all elected with less than 50% of the vote.

This must not happen again. As a reminder to correspondents, I’ve started appending the following line to all of my e-mails:

•••NO MORE 2004•••

Please feel free to copy this line and use it (or any version you come up with) at the end of all your e-mails. People may be curious, and you can explain its meaning. Or else it will serve as a reminder that we can not allow uncaring people to continue representing us.

THE CHALLENGE

Getting back to that simple-but-difficult concept, it is apparent that attracting enough slow growth voters is relatively simple. Residents are just waiting to vote for good guys. Sure, it will take work and money to get the vote out, but we know the straightforward steps that must be taken to accomplish this – developer-paid billboards notwithstanding. As always, candidates are divided by district, but all county residents vote for all of them.

The difficult part is to prevent the split good guy vote that put the incumbents on the Commission in 2004. At this writing, it is clear that in at least two of the three districts which will be open in 2008, there will be more than one good guy candidate. I know almost all of the present and prospective desirable candidates. Some are friends. I hold all of them in the highest regard, yet if they all run we will have a disastrous repeat of 2004. Here is the plan for preventing the split vote.

THE SOLUTION

I have been talking seriously to a number of good guy leaders who will not be candidates themselves. They also do not want a 2004-style split vote. I am hopeful that we can carefully examine the positions, history and abilities of the various candidates and come to a general consensus as to who is the single best good guy candidate in each district. This may mean research, interviews, observations and polling to see whom the voters are most willing to support. A decision would be based on the amassed information and the opinions and preferences of many ordinary citizens. It can not be the preference of any one would-be kingmaker.

It may take a little while for such a preference consensus to develop. In the interim, we can continue to speak before Boards, e-mail officials, and write letters to the newspaper editors on issues that arise.

When the consensus develops – and this is the painful and difficult part – we must ask the weaker candidate(s) to step aside. If they do, then we know that they have placed the welfare of Martin County ahead of their private ambitions. If their ego prevents them from bowing out, we must simply ignore them and work for victory by the one best good guy candidate in each of the three districts. It is for the good of the community.

From that point on, the process plays out in traditional style with ads, debates, etc. But with aware residents united behind a single best candidate, we can be assured that Martin County can continue to be the special, desirable place we call home.

Let’s make 2008 the year Martin residents regain control from politicians who obey developers!

+++

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:

mc-defender@comcast.net

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.

Please e-mail your thoughts to us about rallying behind a single good guy candidate in each district. Whose opinion do you trust?
Al
Al Forman, Editor 12/30/07

The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2007 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.

•••NO MORE 2004•••

The Martin County
Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 39

Dear Reader:

Sincerely,

Al Forman, Editor
•••NO MORE 2004•••
+++

BACKGROUNDER

This must not happen again. As a reminder to correspondents, I’ve started appending the following line to all of my e-mails:

•••NO MORE 2004•••

THE CHALLENGE

THE SOLUTION

Let’s make 2008 the year Martin residents regain control from politicians who obey developers!

+++

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:

mc-defender@comcast.net

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.

Please e-mail your thoughts to us about rallying behind a single good guy candidate in each district. Whose opinion do you trust?
Al
Al Forman, Editor 12/30/07

•••NO MORE 2004•••

The Martin County
Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 40

Many Martin County residents embrace proposal to focus support on one candidate per district

DELUGE OF E-MAILS FROM DEFENDER READERS OVERWHELMINGLY FAVOR EFFORTS TO AVOID SPLIT “GOOD-GUY” VOTE

Here it is over three years later, and still slow-growth/pro-environment advocates are smarting over the results of the 2004 election. The pro-developer candidates won with less than 50% of the vote because multiple slow-growth candidates split the vote. This has not been good for our quality of life. In last week’s Defender issue No. 39, we asked readers for comments about efforts to rally slow-growth support for just the three best commission candidates – one from each district. Leaders are working to develop a broad consensus for specific individuals. They are listening to what residents are saying.

We received more responsive mail than from any other Defender issue. It was 98% favorable for preventing a split good guy vote. Admittedly, the great majority of Defender readers do not like the accommodation of developer wants at the expense of all residents. More than just saying yes, there were offers of volunteer work, money and home availability. And there was anger at the voting patterns of some commissioners.

The Stuart News top prediction for 2008 is that “Martin County’s slow-growth faction will divide and conquer itself during the elections just as it did in 2004. Too many slow-growth candidates will split the vote and allow the re-election of criticized incumbent commissioners such as Doug Smith.” That sounds like the vain hope of the least informed and most biased columnist on the News staff.

“PRUITT’S PROFITS”

FRONT PAGE HEADLINE OF DEC. 30, 2007 PB POST .

Exposé by staff writer Tom Dubocq states: “Florida’s most powerful state senator collected nearly $400,000 for behind-the scenes assistance to a real estate company that included a central figure in Palm Beach County’s unfolding political corruption scandal …. Pruitt won’t talk about what he did for the money.”

The report goes on to clarify that the $400,000 was not a commission, since Ken Pruitt did not find the buyer for a big land deal in St. Lucie County. Rather, to quote the words of the developer/land speculator who paid, Pruitt “was hired as an expert, our GPS to show us around St. Lucie County.” Hmmmmm.

Question for readers with inquiring minds:

Do you feel confident that none of this stuff goes on in Martin County between some politicians and their favored developers?

Why worry about growth when there’s so little of it now?

This is a fair question, and deserves a straight answer. Briefly, the drop in construction and sales of homes did not happen by magic. It followed the most basic concept of economics 101: SUPPLY AND DEMAND. It was caused by the number of homes built exceeding the demand for them. For that the blame lies at the feet of developers, builders, landowners, banks, and their cousins, all abetted by campaign-fund hungry politicians. The short-term lure of more fast profit fosters a “build it and they will come” mentality.

So while the market readjusts itself in the next year or two, the developers and their partners want to position themselves for the next boom-and-bust cycle. That is why they want to change the rules to allow clusters in rural lands. That is why they want water/sewer services extended beyond the Urban Services Boundary. That is why they don’t want to pay their fair share of impact fees that cover new infrastructure needs. They do want urban zoning changes. They do want more mining. They do want to develop new industrial zones near residential communities. And especially, they want aware citizens to shut up.

+++

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:

mc-defender@comcast.net

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 1/6/08

The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE: All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.