The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 41
Noted author applauds slowdown in Florida population growth
IN JAN. 13, 2008 MIAMI HERALD, CARL HIAASEN EXPLAINS WHY SLOWER GROWTH “IS A CAUSE FOR RELIEF, NOT PANIC.” HIS VIEW CONTRADICTS POSITION OF THE DEVELOPER/BUSINESS NETWORK. [Reprinted below.]
The mad stampede of new residents into Florida is finally slowing down, the inevitable result of high taxes, miserable traffic, overcrowded classrooms and other unappealing urban problems.
According to the Census Bureau, the state's population grew by only 1.1 percent during the 12-month span ending last July 1. That's a significant dip from the 1.8 percent increase recorded the previous year, and it drops Florida's growth rate to 19th in the nation.
This is a cause for relief, not panic. Any lull in the avalanche of incoming humanity should be eagerly welcomed by the 18.3 million souls already living here. The last thing we need is more warm bodies clogging the roads, schools, courts, jails and hospitals.
A break is long overdue. It's not a crisis but rather an opportunity.
At long last, state and community leaders might be forced to intelligently confront the economic blowback from decades of inept planning and greed-fueled runaway growth.
With each passing day, Florida is becoming a less desirable place to live. For the first time in modern memory, moving companies report that they're transporting more families out of the Sunshine State than into it.
The disenchantment is widespread and deep-seated, judging by a new Mason-Dixon survey that was released by Leadership Florida, a group founded by the state Chamber of Commerce.
Of more than 1,100 residents interviewed by telephone in November, 43 percent said their quality of life has declined over the last five years. That's an eye-popping number, up 7 percent from 2006.
More evidence that lots of people see their Florida dream dissolving: Of those surveyed, only 24 percent said they think things will get better during the next five years. Thirty-seven percent believe the state will become a worse place to live during that time.
The increasingly glum outlook of many Floridians isn't just a reaction to off-the-chart property taxes and insurance rates, as politicians want us to believe.
More and more folks are figuring out what serious urban planners have known for a long time: Run-amok growth doesn't pay for itself. Taxpayers always get stuck with the bill for sprawl and also with the hometown ills it brings. By an overwhelming margin of nearly three-to-one,
Floridians polled in the Leadership Florida survey oppose higher population densities in their neighborhoods -- a view that resonates fairly evenly among registered Democrats, Republicans and independents.
A majority of residents, 52 percent, believe local governments are ''not effectively managing growth'' in their communities. The figure is unchanged from 2006, and the Mason-Dixon pollsters describe the sentiment as ``strong and consistent among all groups and across the state.''
Respondents were divided evenly when asked whether new people moving into Florida was good or bad. The question is rarely even whispered among politicians, many of whom live in fear of antagonizing the developers, bankers and road builders who bankroll election campaigns.
The beleaguered sense among many Floridians -- that they're not only being overtaxed but overrun -- will not soon go away. Politicians who resist calls for strict land-use reforms and continue to shill for special interests risk being dumped from office by those whom they've ignored.
It's happened already in scores of municipalities where voters got fed up watching their green spaces malled and paved while the waterfronts went condo.
The social equation isn't complicated. The more people you cram into a place, even a place as vast and geographically diverse as Florida, the more stressful life becomes for everybody. It also becomes more expensive. Ask anyone in New York or California what happened to their taxes as the populations of those states swelled.
A bipartisan group that advocates semi-sane growth policies, 1000 Friends of Florida, last year predicted that the state's population would double to 36 million by 2060, and that seven million acres of agricultural land and wilderness would be converted to concrete and asphalt.
That was before the real-estate market tanked and the subprime mortgage racket imploded, but there's no denying that even an overcrowded Florida continues to hold some mythical allure, whether you live in Dubuque or Port-au-Prince.
Despite their rising disillusionment, about 62 percent of those interviewed for the Leadership Florida poll said they'd still recommend the state as a place for friends or relatives to live.
For strangers? Maybe not. Because growth is an exalted industry unto itself, rather than the natural result of a broadening economic base, lawmakers have always focused on attracting hordes of new residents at all costs. The first casualty of such a fast-buck mentality is the quality of life.
One out of five Floridians surveyed in November say they are ''seriously considering'' moving elsewhere.
This is what's known as a message. And, for those who've sold out Florida's future to enrich their campaign coffers, it breaks down like this:
Enough.
The property tax amendment – a tale of grim irony
Constitutional Amendment No. 1 on the Jan. 29 ballot is a take-home example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. A few years ago, real estate interests determined to restrict the voice of the people (as they are trying to do now with the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment petition) cleverly convinced voters that for an amendment to pass, 60% of the vote would be required for adoption instead of 50%.
Now these same real estate promoters and their business allies, who support the property tax amendment, are quite worried that it will not pass because of the 60% requirement. Local governments and unions are strongly opposed to this amendment.
“Hoist by their own petard!*”
* petard, n. A small bell-shaped bomb.
+++
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 1/17/08
•••NO MORE 2004•••
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 42
Airport poll results:
I’m dissatisfied with how Witham Field is run. It would be better with a shorter runway, no construction expansion, and legal certainty that the public golf course and YMCA land are not part of the airport. The County leases with Fixed Base Operators are too generous, too. I’ve written and spoken these views before.
There is a major obstacle. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exercises control over the airport, based on federal law and the millions it has contributed. There are certain decisions FAA may defer to Martin County. However, FAA adamantly opposes shortening runways, and will fight aggressively against such attempts by local governments.
Most residents want Witham to be a community airport, not a scheduled commercial airport. So the Martin County Commission authorized Commissioner Sarah Heard to go to Washington with counsel to negotiate the controversy with the FAA. She brought back a proposed compromise, which the Commission will consider on Feb. 5, 2008. [See Heard letter below.]
As in most negotiations, neither party gets everything it wants. The compromise offers concrete pad buffers at the runway ends, paid by Federal funds. It will continue to pay for house buyouts, and agree that airport boundaries don’t include the public golf course or YMCA land.
However, the FAA will not agree to shorten the runway. It’s their national policy. The longer runway could someday accommodate larger aircraft.
The Commission can accept or reject the proposed FAA agreement. If the County rejects, it can either live with the status quo and its risks, or sue the FAA to shorten the runway. If the County sues, it may cost millions of dollars, and drag on for years, with the outcome uncertain at best.
Left out of the equation is what residents think, especially those who have not spoken up on the issue. So we conducted a pilot survey of a randomly chosen sampling of regular Defender readers. 700 were selected, plus 300 from a secondary list of occasional business readers. We ignore the latter here because of the inadequate 2.3% returns, which did favor a commercial airport. The 700 sample of regular readers, whose responses of 16.4% are presented here, represent mostly slow-growth residents, not necessarily a scientific population cross-section.
A few people have disparaged this survey because they claim that final contract details are not yet stated. This is nonsense because the Commission will be considering the highlights of a proposed agreement – explained in Commissioner Heard’s letter below - not a final contract that attorneys would work out.
With my lifetime belief as an editor that the public has a right to know, and that zealotry is no substitute for the truth, here are the responses to the four questions we posed. Please don’t shoot the messenger.
115 of 700 readers (16.4%) returned questionnaire forms.
If your word were law, would you decree that Witham Field be a community airport or grow to be a scheduled commercial airport?
88.7% prefer community airport
6.1% prefer commercial airport
5.2% not sure
For Witham Field to remain a community airport, do you believe the runway must be shortened, or can other safeguards keep the airport from going commercial?
45.0% say other safeguards can be OK
40.5% say must shorten runway
14.4% not sure
Should the County approve or reject the proposed agreement with the FAA?
50.0% say approve
35.2% say reject
14.8% not sure
If the Commission rejects the agreement, should the County sue the FAA?
54.7% say do not sue
23.6% say sue
21.7% not sure
A sworn affidavit has been filed attesting to the truth and accuracy of these poll results.
The poll results suggest that most residents, in this case people who have generally been critical of airport operations, want to put the quixotic battle with the FAA behind us. We should be realists and take the worthwhile concessions offered so we can concentrate on exercising the powers that the County does have to keep Witham Field a community airport.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: A concerted and irresponsible effort has been made by some “friends” of the editor to suppress the results of this survey – called “spiking the piece” in journalistic lingo – without their having seen its contents. The presidents of WAAM and the Consensus have colluded in their unsuccessful effort to bury this objective poll report. We take seriously the public’s right to learn the facts, so we are not deterred by arm twisting to prevent publication. The poll results are as stated above. Disregarding the pressure from friends was instilled many years ago by the advice of a mentor to this young editor. He said: “Make as many friends as you can, but always remember who your best friend is: Your Typewriter.”]
A couple of follow-up questions, if you please
Here is an invitation to readers to contribute wise and viable suggestions. We now pose these questions to two response segments of the survey groups, and to those who agree with their views.
To those who believe that the agreement should be rejected if shortening the runway is not included:
What plan do you propose Martin County implement to get the FAA ever to change its no-shortening position?
To those who would sue the FAA:
With public funds already being reduced, what other county services would you propose to cut in order to pay for a costly lawsuit against the FAA?
To advocates of continuing a near-hopeless conflict with the FAA, we commend last week’s words by the brilliant columnist, Peggy Noonan: “It’s not human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn’t work.”
Heard’s letter to newspaper clarifies airport stance
I do have a settlement proposal ready for our February 5 meeting. I'm very pleased with it. I don't like to be ambushed any more than anyone else does, so I think it's important to get this proposal out as far as possible in advance of our Board discussion so that the public and my Board have lots of time to debate, discuss, contemplate my proposal.
Last week the FAA released one letter concerning the runway issue. That is only part of the story.
The BCC appointed me last October to work with staff to negotiate the best possible settlement with the FAA on two key issues:
The property map. The FAA and the County have been disputing for several years the appropriate boundary of the airport. At issue is whether the golf course, the YMCA, Monterey Road, Monterey Commons and several other properties are part of the airport and can be used for airport purposes. The FAA has insisted that these properties ae part of the airport. We disagreed.
The Runway. The FAA directed the County to prepare a plan to improve the safety areas at the ends of Runways 12/ 30. The current safety areas (RPZ and RSA) do not comply with FAA design standards. The BCC approved a proposal to resolve the safety areas last summer. Local FAA officials rejected our proposal.
I have led intense negotiations with the FAA at all levels. I have completed these negotiations. I am prepared to present to the BCC a comprehensive package that resolves the outstanding problems. The result improves the safety of Runways 12/ 30. And, it sets a certain limit on the boundary of the airport which will, once and for all, prevent the threat of expansion of the airport.
Here is the proposed comprehensive settlement.
The FAA rejected our request to shorten the runway (ANAC 3) to bring the safety areas into compliance with FAA design standards. Instead, the FAA has agreed to pay for the installation of an EMAS (Engineered Materials Arresting System) bed at both ends of this runway. This is a new technology that is being used very effectively at many airports throughout the country.
(How EMAS works. It's a system of interlinked engineered materials in an area covering the width of the runway by 450 feet. If an aircraft should skid or roll off either runway end, the EMAS will stop it, embed it in its tracks.)
I believe this is a reasonable compromise. The FAA originally refused to pay for the EMAS (which is expensive: $ 8 to 10 million for our project) and insisted that we extend the safety area into the golf course. This was unacceptable to me and to the BCC. It always begged the question, if the FAA can force us to expand into our golf course now, what of the future? What might they force into our golf course? Which leads to....
The second, and most important, component of the deal is that the FAA has agreed on a permanent boundary for the airport. Essentially, the boundary will be the existing airport boundary. This is exactly what the County proposed in our negotiations. The FAA has agreed that the golf course, YMCA, and all the other areas where jurisdiction was absolutely unknown will not be part of the airport, and will not be subject to federal law that limits how airport property can be used. This is a huge victory for the county. Most importantly, the County property outside the agreed upon boundary will not be available for airport expansion. Not now. Not ever. I believe that this is a critically important insurance policy for Martin County.
This comprehensive settlement achieves the two critically important goals of this whole effort.
It improves the safety of Runways 12/ 30 at no cost to Martin County taxpayers. In my view, and in that of aviation technical experts, EMAS is a tremendous safety enhancement. Improved safety for our residents was a top goal. This settlement crafts a better solution for safety than our proposal dubbed ANAC 3.
Most important, this guarantees that the airport will not be expanded beyond its present boundaries. Though this component didn't receive the public attention that the runway part did, this was the issue that kept negotiators up at night. The map had to be part of the settlement. It is the key to peace. The titles to the land underneath the golf course, YMCA, etc. were so clouded no one had any idea who had jurisdiction. This was the issue that goaded us all. Given the uncertainty of the clouded titles, could and might the FAA at some future date try to force us to expand the airport? This settlement makes that impossible. It puts the County in control.
I'm hoping for my Board's support on Feb 5.
The alternatives - litigation with the FAA, users, or property owners - would have been very expensive and uncertain. It would have required the use of tax revenues to defend or pursue litigation, an approach that I found highly undesirable.
Once the BCC approves the deal, we will make it an amendment to our Comprehensive Plan and thereby make it law.
I think we're done here. I hope that this proposal makes clear and certain that we have regained the safety for our residents and ownership of this County asset.
Naturally, we will continue to work to improve noise impacts at the airport, and we, along with the FAA, agree to continue the home acquisition program. Thanks!
Sarah Heard
+++
Commissioner Heard has consistently shown her devotion to the welfare of all Martin residents – unlike special interests with their self-serving agendas. She deserves our support now!
+++
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
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 43
Commission postpones airport decision
Witham Field status is a bone in the county’s throat…
To sign the compromise airport agreement with the FAA, or not to sign [see issue No. 42]. That was the question before the Feb. 5 County Commission meeting. Commissioners unanimously decided not to decide for 30 days. This is a good thing because it allows time for two public workshops to inform and be informed by citizens …. an 0pportunity that was denied to residents when the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment was being steamrollered.
Two commissioners, Weberman and Valliere, made a mockery of holding the workshops by declaring that they absolutely would vote against the FAA agreement. In other words, Mr. & Mrs. Citizen, they are going through the motions. They have made up their minds and it does not matter what you tell them at the workshop.
A number of speakers against the deal, including Valliere, spoke bravely about regaining control of Witham by not taking any more FAA grants. They looked thunderstruck when they learned that the county is obligated for the next 20 years for the grants we have taken. And no opponent of the agreement even suggested a workable idea for raising the money for a costly lawsuit against FAA.
Weberman put forth what he seemed to think was a brilliant idea before he sat back in his usual self-satisfied style. He proposed that the county go back to its own mistakes of 1998, and get state court backing to just go out and shorten the runway – something FAA would oppose strenuously and punitively. He was quite chagrined when aviation attorney/consultant Peter Kirsch explained to him what any high school civics student knows: Federal law trumps state and county law.
Kirsch presented an illustrated, easy to understand, explanation of the proposed agreement. Basically, he detailed what was a take-it-or-leave-it package deal: Gain the benefit of a fixed airport boundary that excludes the golf course and YMCA, plus gaining buyout funds and runway buffer, but give up a shortened runway.
In the process of clearing up various misconceptions about the proposed agreement, Kirsch made two vital points that undermine the scare tactics of anti-agreement advocates.
IT IS THE LAW THAT IF THE COUNTY DOES NOT WANT COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICE, FAA CAN NOT COMPEL US TO HAVE COMMERCIAL SERVICE. WITHAM IS NOT A RELIEVER FOR PASSENGER TRAFFIC.
Roughly 400 acres have been cut as airport property from the FAA’s claimed boundary to the area in the agreement. This is great news for environmentalists, as well as nearby condo residents:
THE CURRENT PRESERVE AREAS INSIDE THE AIRPORT BOUNDARY ARE SUBJECT TO BEING CLAIMED FOR AIRPORT USE. THE AGREEMENT PUTS THEM OUTSIDE THE AIRPORT, SO CONTROL REVERTS TO THE COMMISSION.
Tilting at the Federal windmill will not get that bone out of our throat. Only the reasonable, but imperfect, agreement with the FAA will accomplish that.
+++
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
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 44
WAAM leads Pickett’s Charge*
against FAA agreement
* Civil War Confederacy General George Pickett led the hopeless uphill attack on Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg against far more powerful and entrenched Union troops. Pickett’s forces were destroyed.
On Friday, Feb. 29, 2008, the Martin County Commission will hold two public workshops on the proposed airport agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) [see Defender issues No. 42 & 43]. Times are 3 to 5 pm, and 6:30 to 8:30 pm. Location is the Commission chambers.
The Witham Airport Action Majority (WAAM) is expected to muster some supporters there to urge the Commission to reject the agreement, and to continue the costly battle with the FAA, with no end in sight. There is no viable, coherent plan to force the FAA to comply with our wishes.
The FAA agreement provides some important benefits to Martin County, even though it does not permit shortening of the runway, which many of us hoped to achieve. In the words of the Stuart News editorial, the agreement does “appear to be the best deal Martin County will be able to negotiate with the FAA.” FAA is not the good guy, but reality trumps wishes.
In brief, the proposed agreement Commissioner Heard brought back after difficult negotiations includes the following concessions by the FAA:
REDUCED AIRPORT BOUNDARIES – A mutually agreed boundary reduces airport size by about 400 acres. FAA agrees to give up its claim that the public golf course and the YMCA land are part of the airport. This solves a vexing legal problem, places major obstacles against airport expansion, and locates preserve areas outside the reach of airport use.
FAA INSTALLS CONCRETE SAFETY BUFFERS AT RUNWAY ENDS - FAA pays for the multi-million dollar Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) to enhance safety. The airy concrete allows the runway to collapse and stop planes that overshoot. Annual upkeep cost by the County is only a few thousand dollars.
FAA FUNDING FOR HOME BUYOUTS – If, and only if, the County decides to buy the seven homes in the revised safety areas (so-called crash zones outside the airport proper), FAA will provide the funds.
Primary opposition to the FAA agreement is promoted by WAAM, a usually credible citizen action group that has justifiably held the airport’s feet to the fire. The Defender has supported many WAAM positions in the past. For a long time the airport has not been sufficiently responsive to resident complaints, such as the round-the-clock noise, too favorable leases, and various compliance and planning issues.
However, WAAM has gone off the track more than once in the past, and appears to be off track again. They once fought for closing the airport, and for moving the airport, and until recently, suing the FAA with funds we don’t have.
To be a WAAM member, one just pays a $15/yr membership fee. On that basis, we question the unsupported claim that WAAM has 2,000 members. Whatever fraction of that inflated number they do have, they have the right to oppose the FAA agreement. We must be free to recognize differing viewpoints.
What they do not have the right to do is to use fear mongering tactics about what will happen if their view does not prevail. WAAM’s principal complaint is that failure to shorten the runway will end up with commercial service like that at PBIA. This is simply a wild speculation designed to scare people.
Such a terrible scenario is contradicted by the County’s very savvy aviation attorney/consultant Peter Kirsch. He has made clear that Federal law does not allow the FAA to compel Martin County to have commercial service, or be a reliever for passenger traffic, if we do not want it – and we clearly don’t. The FAA agreement reinforces this with on-the-ground protections.
BASED ON A SURVEY OF DEFENDER READERS, EXTENSIVE E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS WITH RESIDENTS, AND DISCUSSIONS WITH VARIOUS COMMUNITY LEADERS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF MARTIN COUNTY RESIDENTS WANT THE COUNTY TO APPROVE THE FAA AGREEMENT.
The fight to shorten the runway was a worthy one. Now it’s time to end this divisive war with the FAA, a war that we can not win. An intransigent minority should not be allowed to block the agreement. Let’s take FAA’s reluctant concessions, noted above, and move on to using the power that the County does have to make the airport a better neighbor. In such a post-agreement era, WAAM can continue to function constructively as airport watchdog.
If you want to express your views on this subject, please attend the Feb. 29 workshops at the County Administrative Building. If you can not attend, you can state your opinion on approving the FAA agreement by e-mailing the County commissioners:
It’s your county, so let’s speak up.
+++
EAR to guide County’s plan for future
DEFENDER ANALYZES PUBLIC INPUT COMMENTS
Florida statute requires local governments to examine the overall performance of their Comprehensive Plans at least every seven years. This Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) is being prepared by consultant Calvin, Giordano. The current draft is 492 pages, posted on the County’s website. EAR’s purpose includes:
The EAR process requires public input so residents can state their likes, dislikes and concerns about the Comp Plan. Toward the end of the draft report, there are several pages listing citizen comments in broad categories. Unfortunately, the report does not summarize these comments in a statistical way. The following breakdown, done by the Defender, provides a summary to assist both readers and officials in understanding the thrust and general intent of public input. The issues noted here reflect the focus of resident comments, divided broadly along slower growth and faster growth attitudes.
Land Use Issues
37 comments are supportive of slower growth, 9 for faster growth.
Specific slower topics include preserving the Urban Services Boundary (11), 4-story height limit (9), retaining agricultural land (6), and maintaining neighborhood compatibility (4). Faster growth advocates support mixed use zoning (5).
Environmental Issues
There were 51 comments, all with a conservationist orientation that inclines toward slower growth, but does not necessarily exclude the faster growth viewpoint.
Wetlands (21) was the primary concern, followed by river and lagoon concerns (13), water and natural resources (9), and saving gopher tortoises (6).
Residential Density Issues
64 comments are supportive of slower growth, 15 for faster growth.
Specific slower topics include favoring low density (28), limited growth outside the Urban Services Boundary (11), retaining 20-acre lots (10), and opposing cluster housing (8). Faster growth advocates focus on the need for more diversity to allow affordable housing (11), and the general need for more growth (3).
Development Issues
61 comments are supportive of slower growth, 8 for faster growth.
Of the 61 slower comments, overall slower growth (16), limited western development (10), financial impact concerns (8), and smaller, limited development (8) topped the slower growth issues. Controlling development (5), clustering concerns (4), CRAs (1) and the airport (1) were also among the slower growth comments. Faster growth comments included support for clustering (4), and Indiantown needs (2).
It is clear that the overwhelming majority of Martin County residents want to rein in growth, not just today, but for years to come. In the past, neither commissioners or consultants have given this viewpoint sufficient weight.
EAR Meeting Schedule
Several additional meetings and workshops are scheduled, where the public can express its views. The next one coming up will be held by the Local Planning Agency (LPA) on Feb. 21, starting at 6:00 pm. The Commission will hold a workshop on March 18 to draft EAR for preliminary comments by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
There will be two public workshops on the EAR draft in late May. On July 15, 2008, the Commission will hold a public hearing to adopt EAR.
IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO REMIND BOTH THE CONSULTANT AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS THAT THE PEOPLE OF MARTIN COUNTY WANT S-L-O-W GROWTH TO PRESERVE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.
+++
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
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 45
FAA airport agreement workshop
This Friday, Feb. 29, 2008, the County Commission will hold two workshops, one from 3:00 to 5:00 pm, and one from 6:30 to 8;00 pm. Location is the Commission’s chambers on Monterey Road. Attend if you can, or watch both workshops live on MCTV (Comcast channel 20). The workshops video will be rerun later. We believe that open-minded citizens will support approval of the proposed FAA agreement. Five key reasons, among others, to approve include:
1 – The certainty of a smaller airport boundary, and FAA-paid runway safety buffers. This benefits the County, limiting commercial growth.
2 – There is no viable plan that will force the FAA to agree to reduce runway length.
3 – The agreement saves the public golf course, the YMCA land, and preserve areas from future airport use.
4 - Approving the agreement eliminates future costly battles with our tax money. Approval also enables Martin to focus on other serious county-wide problems.
5 – By law, the FAA can not force commercial air service on the County.
With that understood, one can recognize that predictions of Witham becoming another PBIA are unfounded scare tactics.
If you can not attend either workshop, you can let commissioners know what you think by e-mailing to:
Stuart News tells it like it is
On Feb. 17, 2008, the Stuart News included the following realistic viewpoint in the conclusion to its editorial, “Witham Field: Focus on facts.”
“The county can’t get everything it wants from the FAA. But it can get enough to make this deal a worthwhile endeavor. It can get enough to end the waste of effort that good people on all sides of this issue have made to obtain the same goal; keeping the airport a good community facility.
“County commissioners, who will revisit the proposal in March, should move ahead with the settlement. And they should ignore the boisterous bluster of those bent on derailing the proposal.”
More “realists” favor approval of FAA agreement, outnumbering “wishful thinkers”
There is a strong resident consensus – 88.7% to 6.1% according to a Defender poll – that favors Witham Field remaining a community airport instead of becoming a commercial airport.
The airport’s status is, in great measure controlled by the FAA, which derives its power both from Federal law, and from its financial grants which obligate Martin County for the next 20 years. This is where we encounter a mishmash of wishful thinking, not just from local zealots, but from two commissioners who should know better.
Commissioner Susan Valliere says we must become independent of the FAA. That would be nice, but neither she or anyone else has a coherent idea on how to accomplish that. And Commission Lee Weberman thinks we can use state/county law to beat the FAA. Hello? Doesn’t he know that Federal law trumps local law?
Fortunately, Commissioner Sarah Heard is a realist. She and aviation attorney/consultant Peter Kirsch brought back a reasonable proposed compromise agreement that gives the County most of what it wants, primarily lacking runway shortening. Most Martin County residents support the agreement. About a month ago, Defender conducted a poll among mostly slow growth advocates. It found that by 50.0% to 35.2%, residents approve of the agreement. In the business community, even higher percentages voted in favor of the agreement.
In the interim, as more realistic Martin citizens have learned the facts, many have come to support the agreement, even reluctantly, according to numerous e-mails received.
We hope the County Commission is listening. It does not make sense to allow an intransigent tail to wag the County dog. [Editor’s Note: We indulge ourselves one bad metaphor per month. J]
Cluster Amendment poll results
THE FOLLOWING LETTER WAS PUBLISHED IN THE FEB. 23, 2008 ISSUE OF THE STUART NEWS
Overwhelming percentage of residents say scrap Valliere amendment
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) recently rejected the Land Protection Incentives Amendment, aka the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment. The next step is for the County Commission to decide if it wants to scrap this Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, or to undertake a major effort to try to make it acceptable.
To find out what Martin County citizens think about this issue, we sent a simple questionnaire to the Martin County Defender’s thousands of readers. They include many slow-growth advocates, plus a sizable four-figure number of business owners and managers. After explaining the reasons for the DCA’s rejection, we asked: “Should the Martin County Commission now scrap the Amendment?”
We opted for the same kind of snapshot poll widely used by TV broadcasters. This allows the poll findings to be brought to public attention promptly. We tabulated all of the responses received during the first 24 hours after readers received the questionnaire. The results were remarkable, beyond anything we might have anticipated:
If all commissioners would only reach out to constituents, including those who never appear at hearings, they would find that this is what county residents want. In particular, Commissioner Doug Smith should want to do so because he promised that he would not support the amendment if the state rejected it. We hope he is a man of his word. We hope that the will of the great majority of residents will prevail.
Al Forman, Editor
Martin County Defender
+++++
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