Defender NO.46-60

The Feb. 29, 2008 workshop on the proposed FAA airport agreement offered clear explanations of what the agreement would and would not do. Despite unfounded complaints that the session would just be a dog-and-pony show, it turned out to be an excellent informative workshop.

After a basic presentation, aviation attorney/consultant Peter Kirsch fielded dozens of aggressive and incisive questions from a group of diehard opponents of the agreement. There were lively back-and-forth exchanges. With patience and good humor in his replies, he used his wealth of knowledge to demonstrate why the agreement was both a good deal for Martin County, and the best possible deal it could attain.

Key take-home highlights of the workshop covered four of the numerous important issues discussed: Commercial use; timing; costs and prospects of litigation; and alternative options.

Despite scary predictions that leaving the runway at its present length would lead to commercial air service, the law and practical considerations prevent this. By law, the FAA can not require Witham Field to provide commercial service. Even if Martin County wanted commercial – which we definitely do not – it would take years and a fortune in capital upgrades to meet the strict FAA requirements for a Commercial Certificate.

How long is the FAA offer of a smaller airport boundary, runway safety buffers and home buyout funds good for? The FAA has not set a deadline. However, Kirsch advises that the County position will not get stronger over time, and the FAA can withdraw its concessions if concluding the agreement is delayed. Leaving the status quo puts the public golf course and YMCA in jeopardy, and the larger current boundary would allow for more expansion. It is clearly in the County’s best interest to finalize the agreement.

According to Kirsch, the County would have a strong case if it sued the FAA over the boundary issue. Legal costs would run about $500,000 + or – 50%. Even if we win, we would not recover these costs. Of course, signing the agreement provides this benefit at no additional cost.

If we sue to shorten the runway, the outcome would be uncertain, and the cost of this more complicated effort would run about $1.5 million + or – 50%. None of the agreement’s opponents have any idea how we would obtain such funds.

Here wishful thinking comes into play, trying to develop schemes that would leave the runway physically at its current length, but shorten it operationally. One such idea requires “declared distances” that shorten runway usage. This would require the FAA to re-open negotiations (which they will refuse to do) for a scheme that they have already said “No” to.

In light of the above, it is definitely in the best interest of all residents of Martin County to approve the agreement and put the costly, divisive war with the FAA behind us.

[FOOTNOTE: Port St. Lucie has expressed favorable interest in having a commercial airport, either a new one out west, or expanding the county airport. This would be consistent with the fast growth philosophy shown by our neighbor to the north. Go for it, PSL!]

This is the foremost meeting on vital development issues. It is open to residents at no charge. Our previous attendance proved it to be most interesting and informative. It is jointly sponsored by the Martin County Conservation Alliance, 1000 Friends of Florida, and the Everglades Law Center.

The star-studded speaker list includes Maggy Hurchalla, Richard Grosso, Charles Pattison, Greg Braun, and Virginia Sherlock. The theme is “Martin County at the Crossroads.” The experts will analyze the arguments of developers, land speculators, and special interest groups pushing proposals that undermine the urban boundary, and promote higher densities, PUDs, clustering and extending urban utilities outside the USB.

LOCATION: Morgade Library on Salerno Road, east of Willoughby, next to Martin Memorial South.

Handouts and refreshments will be provided. So be a thoughtful neighbor and confirm your planned attendance by e-mailing to:

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

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 3/3/08

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.

Charter government allows Florida counties to establish True Home Rule. It gives the Board of County Commissioners greater independence from the Florida Legislature. At the same time, it empowers voters to have a greater say in how their counties operate. Charters, which function like a County Constitution, provide initiative procedures that allow voters to create and amend local laws. Charters also provide voters with a process to recall county commissioners. The charter for each county is customized to carry out the governmental needs and desires of that county, consistent with state law.

The citizens of Florida have been disenfranchised by the nonfeasance and connivance of officials throughout the state. [See “Anti-Democracy Officials Beat Hometown Democracy” below.]

The citizens of Martin County have been disenfranchised by the arrogant determination of three commissioners – Valliere, Smith and DiTerlizzi – to defy the public will because they have the power to do so. We refer to their refusal to allow even a non-binding referendum on the radical change instituted by the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment to our Comprehensive Plan – a refusal that suits the developer interests that fund their political campaigns.

The City of Stuart, roiled by a bitter controversy over fluoridation, settled the issue by referendum. Even though polls, supported by thousands of citizen letters, e-mails, phone calls and personal appearances before county boards, prove that the great majority of residents oppose western clustering, the bare 3-to-2 majority on the County Commission refuses to listen to the voices of those who elected them.

In a charter government, the voters would have the final say. The issue is greater than just clusters, however. Other issues will come up in the coming years, and we should trust the collective wisdom of the people over that of indebted politicians.

There are 19 charter counties in Florida. Collectively, these counties are home to more than 75% of the state’s residents. They range from Columbia County, with 61,466 residents in 2006, to Miami-Dade with 2,422,075.

The charters are not cookie cutter products. Each is tailored to what that county wants. Some affect the status of constitutional officers; most do not. Some make certain elections non-partisan. Some provide for recall, others do not. Comparing two nearby counties, for example, indicates a few differences. In Brevard, an ordinance can be proposed by petition of 5% of voters; in Palm Beach it’s 7%. If the commission does not approve, the proposal goes to referendum.

To adopt a charter form of government requires approval of a majority of voters. To get to that point, pro-charter advocates have difficult obstacles to overcome. First, a Charter Commission must be established via one of two possible routes. Either the County Commission may appoint such a body by resolution, or it may be required by the petition of 15% of the county’s voters.

Martin County has 48,679 Republican voters, 27,294 Democrats, and 19,941 other. So 15% of the 95,914 total would require petitions by 14,387 voters. Or else it would require the courage and foresight of elected commissioners to trust residents enough to give up some power to them. That rules out the present commission.

After the Charter Commission studies what is best for the county, it submits a charter draft to the County Commission, which must then call a special election. If approved, the charter can be amended only by the voters. If the voters disapprove, no new referendum may be held for two years.

2 – Will you vote to rescind the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment if elected?

Some 814,000 Florida residents signed petitions to put the Hometown Democracy Constitutional Amendment on the ballot. The State Division of Elections will not update their website to show how many valid petitions were submitted before the Feb. 1, 2008 deadline until it has certifications from the 67 Supervisors of Elections with the latest counts. There are no plans to ask for those certifications anytime soon.

Florida is virtually the only state where the deadline for filing petitions is the same as the date that they have to be certified. Some petitions were counted as late as Feb. 1, while others submitted as early as Jan. 2 were not counted. The legislature created a signature revocation process that the state made retroactive for 150 days. It directed that revocation petitions be counted first.

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

This is the county-owned old library building at 1900 NE Ricou Terrace in Jensen Beach, 4,536 sq. ft. with loading dock. As noted in Defender No. 36, if it rented out to a commercial tenant, it would bring in roughly $50,000.00/yr. However, the County Commission extended its lease term for most of the building to 2010 for the Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce, a private organization … with free rent! Do Chamber members contribute to commissioner political campaigns? Do bears live in the woods?

During the current period of reduced public services, likely layoffs, tax cuts and increasing fees, every Martin County citizen should be outraged at this waste of public funds. The lease allows for county cancellation. If commissioners continue with this sweetheart deal, and do not cancel, folks may well wonder if commissioners and the County Administrator are breaching their fiduciary responsibility.

DEVELOPERS THREATEN:
Give us time extension … or else we’ll build!

The construction industry is in bad shape. Sometimes we forget why. It’s Economics 101: Supply and demand. When too many houses are offered to too few buyers, the market collapses. In time, housing demand will increase again, and developers will go on to the next construction binge. Say hello to another boom and bust cycle.

The question is what to do in the interim about the projects in the pipeline. It is for good reason that growth rules set a deadline on completion. Developments do not exist apart from their dependence on infrastructure. It takes years to achieve effective forward planning, gaining funds from taxes and impact fees, and finally building roads, schools, police, fire rescue, recreation and library facilities. So allowing projects to drag on and on is no way to run a county. If there is a long delay, the developer should re-apply to make the project compatible with conditions then in effect.

But that is not what has happened. On March 11, developers persuaded the County Commission (except for clear-eyed Commissioner Sarah Heard) to extend required completion dates by three years. The twin argument by developers for time extension is astoundingly self-contradictory:

Yeah, right. Who is gullible enough to believe that a sane developer would borrow money to build even more spec houses that can not be sold? The four unthinking commissioners, that’s who! They buckled under the pressure to, well, do something that pleases their campaign contributors in the year ahead. Bad planning at the top.

The theme of the Eighth Annual Growth Management Forum held on March 15 was “Martin County at the Crossroad.” Slow-growth speakers covered a wide range of topics for a receptive audience.

Environmental Attorney Richard Grosso advised that activists be portrayed as community leaders, not persecuted outsiders, and that they focus as a team to communicate and document their positions.

Charles Pattison, President of 1,000 Friends of Florida, said there was a 60-40 favorable chance that the Citizen Bill of Rights would pass the legislature because Department of Community Affairs Secretary Tom Pelham was pushing it. Also, there was concern that if legislators failed to do so, the Hometown Democracy Amendment so feared by developers would pass in 2010.

Former Commissioner Maggy Hurchalla pointed to statistics that, contrary to negative comments by some faster-growth business leaders, Martin County is better off than other counties in many important ways. This includes low population density, top schools, low crime, high per capita income, low taxes and high wages.

Attorney Virginia Sherlock pointed up the need for transparency in county dealings with development applicants. Presently, the name of a trust or attorney is used to hide who is really behind the application. This omission works to the advantage of Pay-to-Play officials seeking political contributions. She also reported that proposed anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation had not yet gained a sponsor, so it will go over to the next session.

Two words: BUY LOW. Yes, now is a good time for public funds, such as the $300 million annual environmental land buying program, Florida Forever, to step up its purchases. The 16-year old program expires in two years. Many prices are down, and bond rates are highly favorable.

In Martin County, Florida Forever funds the Save Our Rivers program, and provides matching funds for parks under the Florida Communities Trust. These state programs have helped pay for the Savannas, beach strips, Pal-Mar, Atlantic Ridge, Three Rivers Park and Loblolly Park.

Why not drop The Guv a note to encourage his efforts to continue this most valuable Florida Forever program. And send copies to the legislature leaders:

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

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 3/18/08

The FAA’s concession of an airport boundary smaller than their original claim is a valuable benefit for the County. It would have been nice for the FAA to allow runway shortening, but we know that simply will not happen … and we can not force them to allow it.

A careful examination of claims and warnings put forth by opponents of the FAA agreement shows them to be flimsy or false. It’s easy to concoct anti-agreement arguments, but when the facts disprove them, perpetual one-note anti-airport complainers simply refuse to recognize the truth.

COMMERCIAL SERVICE: The big scare tactic was that failure to shorten the runway would lead to PBIA-style commercial service. As we learned that, by law, the FAA can not force commercial service on us, that bugaboo has vanished. Besides, FAA would never grant Witham a Commercial Certificate without massive and costly upgrades, and only 6.1% of residents want that. But some hardliners still shout the commercial threat in opposing the FAA agreement.

LAWSUIT: Another unreasonable proposal by opponents of the proposed FAA agreement was to sue the FAA to force runway shortening. We learned that it would cost between one and two million dollars to pursue such a probably losing lawsuit. Well we don’t have the money. As this became clearly evident, most – but not all -- anti-agreement diehards grudgingly accepted the economic facts.

NO MORE GRANTS: Still another bold, but meaningless, proposal was not to accept any more FAA grants so we can become independent. We then learned that even if we turn down future federal money, we are still obligated for the next twenty years for grants already accepted. But this bit of wishful thinking about refusing grants still persists with a small band of stubborn protesters who ignore the realities in trying to obstruct the FAA agreement.

We can count on the naysayers to concoct other unconvincing arguments to mislead us into delays that they hope will lead the FAA to withdraw the proposed agreement.

Folks who ignore facts to hew relentlessly to a party line remind us of Winston Churchill’s observation: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

It’s not that some airport operations don’t deserve criticism. They do. For example, noisy take-offs at unreasonable late and early hours should not be tolerated. Nor should sweetheart rentals below market rates be accepted. However, that has nothing to do with the FAA agreement covering a welcome reduced boundary, runway safety buffers, and home buyout funds.

The bottom line is that the great majority of Martin County residents approve of the agreement brought back from Washington by Commissioner Heard and Attorney Kirsch. The County Commission will vote on it at their April 1, 2008 meeting.

Even though we did not get runway shortening, the FAA agreement is highly beneficial and the best we can hope for. Commissioners should listen to what most residents want, and not be swayed by a loud and unreasonable Witham Airport Active Minority. The County Commission should do what is best for the entire county when it meets on April 1 – approve the agreement.

If you want Martin County to nail down a deal that safeguards our interests ….

If you are fed up with an implacable little group of angry people constantly trying to demonize the airport and those who work there ….

Better yet, if you can, speak up in person at the County Commission meeting next Tuesday, April 1 (Agenda Item 8A).

Whether by e-mail or in person, it would be thoughtful to thank Commissioner Heard for her hard work in successfully negotiating the FAA agreement.
+++++

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

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 3/29/08

Permission is granted to all readers to forward, post and copy this Defender Issue No. 49.

VOTE IS A STINGING REBUKE TO OPPONENTS WHO RESORTED TO FALSE CLAIMS, PERSONAL SMEAR

By vote of 3-to-2 on April 1, the Martin County Commission voted to approve the FAA agreement for Witham Airport. Commissioners Heard, DiTerlizzi and Smith voted in favor. Heard displayed admirable courage in resisting immense pressure on her to reverse herself on the compromise she negotiated for the good of the county.

Opponents of the agreement were so desperate to convince everyone that the deal was terrible that they resorted to false claims both at the meeting and in prior ads and e-mails. We have previously reported on the untrue scare tactic that the agreement without shortening the runway would lead to PBIA-style commercial traffic. FACT: By law that can not happen unless the county requests it and spends a great deal in upgrades to qualify for a Commercial Certificate. Almost no one wants that.

Additional phony claims were presented at the commission meeting by a leader of the Witham Airport Action Majority (WAAM). The most ludicrous one of all ran as follows:

FALSE CLAIM: The new airport boundary specified in the agreement, significantly smaller than the FAA’s original boundary claim, would allow the FAA to take over the YMCA and public golf course.

FACT: The truth is exactly the opposite, as confirmed by aviation attorney/consultant Peter Kirsch. By defining the airport perimeter, with the YMCA and public golf course outside the boundary, these two venerable institutions are placed beyond the reach of the FAA.

Still another false claim was that the 70-acre preserve on the airport grounds could be wiped out for airport expansion. The fact is that the area is noted as preserve in the airport plan, and it would take joint agreement by the county and FAA to change that; nearly impossible for that to happen.

With these and other fear mongering claims, it was no wonder that a number of ordinary citizens spoke up to express their (unfounded) fears that the agreement would produce more noise and pollution.. The agreement does not address those issues. There was also the (totally untrue) statement before the commission that the agreement would mean that the FAA owns the airport.

The worst thing was not said at the commission meeting. It was some person-to-person smearing that the reason Heard supported the agreement was that she did it to please her rich contributors on Jupiter Island. In a sense the charge meant that she was selling her vote. This outrageous bit of character assassination was the low point of all the anti-agreement blather.

It is unfortunate that, led by a small group of leaders, some slow-growth advocates took to parroting the WAAM line with all its non-sequiturs and false premises in opposing the agreement. Our survey of mostly slow-growthers showed that a large majority favor the agreement.

There is grim irony in this inasmuch as when there is a commission dispute over such slow growth issues as rural clusters and developer favoritism, WAAM people are rarely at the forefront. As a WAAM leader told us: We don’t want to alienate commissioners [Weberman and Valliere] who are with us on airport issues. But Commissioner Heard can be counted on voting for slow, controlled growth.

This is an election year, and slow-growth people must unify to be successful at the polls. To achieve this, the leaders of the WAAM-influenced slow-growth faction must assert independence from WAAM, and stop trying to dictate policy to everyone. Unity requires consultation and collaboration.

The above quote by former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan would be a good guide for the writers of the Palm Beach Post editorial page. Unlike the excellent job done by the Post’s field reporter, the editorial column reeks of erroneous opinion stated as fact. In its March 30, 2008 issue, the Post ran the editorial: “Accommodate the FAA? No, get going on lawsuit.”

We’ll refrain from asking where the two million dollars for the lawsuit would come from, and which vital services the county should cut to provide the funds. We doubt that the Post has a clue. But that is the least of their remarkably incompetent journalism.

The editorial parrots the WAAM line [see above] that the “airport property boundary agreement … could allow FAA takeover of golf course and YMCA land for airport use.” Reading the source material, or even placing the right phone call, would have shown that quite the opposite is true. Quality newspapers call it fact checking.

Far worse is the wrong statement – and implied smear – that “Commissioner Heard may be under pressure from Jupiter Island constituents who want to land their jets at Witham Field.” Jupiter Island constituents are code words for rich contributors. A phone call to Commissioner Heard would have revealed that she had not received a single call from her Jupiter Island constituents.

The Post should clean up its editorial page act. And while they are doing that (don’t hold your breath), they can improve significantly by allowing guest op-ed columns from informed citizens with opposing views …. just like the Stuart News.

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

3-TO-2 VOTE BY PRO-DEVELOPER COMMISSIONERS ALLOWS INDUSTRIAL TO REPLACE RESIDENTIAL USE

We’ll try to decipher the governmental mumbo-jumbo related to a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on April 8 concerning the transmittal to DCA of CPA 08-12, the Quillen DRI, EDO overlay in Indiantown.

What this means in plain English is that the commission will send for approval to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) about a parcel of land known as the Quillen Development of Regional Impact (DRI). This Economic Development Opportunity (EDO) would then go on an overlay map. Another time we’ll define other acronyms bandied about by commissioners and planners, including LDR, LOS, FLUM, CRA, PUD, PUSD, DOT, and CGMP – all included in the report on CPA 08-12.

More important than adding alphabet soup to our vocabulary is understanding that the staff specialists in the Growth Management Department carefully studied county regulations, evaluated the proposal for the Quillen property, and concluded that the proposal was out of compliance. Staff recommended that the commission should reject it.

Three of the commissioners (Weberman leading the fiasco, with Smith and DiTerlizzi in agreement) were more interested in keeping a rich developer happy than doing what is right for the county. That the zoning change from residential to industrial was incompatible with neighbors meant nothing to them. Adding 331 industrial acres, when there was already 2,167 industrial acres in Indiantown that have not been developed did not phase the commissioners. And the fact that it would lower the transportation Level Of Service (more traffic jams) was fine and dandy with the three blind mice.

Only the applicant’s lawyer and engineer spoke for the proposed change. No one from Indiantown, pro or con, was there. In a flash of brilliant insight, Commission Chairman Doug Smith interpreted that as proof that Indiantown residents supported the project.

What would a fiasco be without some minor idiocy to top it off? After making the senseless decision to approve the project, the commission heard the request of the applicant’s lawyer to send an accompanying letter to the DCA asking that the DCA expedite their approval process for CPA 08-12. Of course, the three mis-representatives of the people readily agreed.

To get a better sense of what went into the professional staff’s recommendation to reject, here is a small sampling of Comp Plan requirements and how staff explains that the Quiillen proposal fails to comply:

9J-5.006.5.1: Promotes, allows, or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need.

“The proposed development would not be low-intensity, low-density or single use. Designating more land for industrial development could be considered in excess of demonstrated need.”

9J-5.006.5.5: Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services.
“The current land use designation would maximize existing public facilities and services. The proposed land use designation could require additional public facilities and services that are not programmed.”

9J-5.006.5.8: Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads ….
“Traffic analysis submitted on March 14, 2008 indicates State Road 710 Level of Service would need to be lowered from ‘C’ to ‘D’, even without worst-case scenario.”

9J-5.006.5.13: Results in loss of significant amounts of functional open space.
“The Low Density Residential future land use requires a minimum of 50 percent open space. Industrial development requires a minimum of 20 percent open space.”

The county staff report contains many pages of similar information. Perhaps the developer-influenced commission trio is reading challenged.

Another Comp Plan change to allow clusters
IF THE WORD DOESN’T FIT, CHANGE THE DICTIONARY

In Defender Issue No. 27, we pointed out 20 things that were wrong with the Land Preservation Incentive Amendment, better known as the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment. DCA ignored those objections, but found one point worthy of objection: The amendment conflicted with our Comp Plan’s definition of Institutional Public Conservation land.

Quite reasonably, the Comp Plan required public ownership of public conservation land. This conflicted with the Valliere amendment’s private ownership of Institutional Public Conservation land. Solution: Just change the Comp Plan definition to allow private ownership.

However, the amendment to change the definition does not clarify public access or public projects on the land. We know all too well how public agencies are ready to build roads on conservation land (eg., Green River Parkway). The only thing that stops that abuse is that public funds were used to buy publicly-owned land exclusively for conservation. With the new definition, the public funds protection vanishes.

The pro-sprawl Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment has opened a hornet’s nest of problems, some easily recognized in advance, others we can not anticipate. So it is good news that a legal challenge has been filed against this offense to sensible thought. Perhaps a judge will toss out the amendment. In any case, it will cause delays, bringing us closer to election day.

As we see candidate debates over the coming months, each candidate should be made to state his or her position on the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment -- whether or not they favor ….

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

“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session”- from N.Y. court decision in 1866

While citizens try to maintain a good quality of life, and local governments try to cope with reduced tax revenues, the politicians in the state capital are busy over-riding local controls to appease – you guessed it – big campaign contributors. A case in point is Senate Bill SB2406, which among other things, pre-empts Comp Plans that limit mining.

There is the House bill that would strip administration of the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) grant program from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which is the state’s growth management agency. FCT would shift to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which knows less about growth management than some Martin County commissioners.

While the legislature works on unfunded mandates to impose on counties, a House panel still found time to approve House Bill HB903 that would make it more difficult for citizens to change the Florida Constitution by petition. Last year Gov. Crist vetoed a bill that would have required signatures to be turned in within 30 days. The new bill also reduces from four to two years the time that signatures are valid, and adds a background check requirement for signature collectors – one more impediment to solve a non-existent problem.

As the election season heats up, there are plenty of questions that candidates for state office should answer.

On April 14, the Witham Airport Action Majority (WAAM) ran a full page ad in the Stuart News. It made the following claim: “The vote to accept the FAA proposals require that Martin County do so under the terms of the 1947 Was Surplus Act. This then recognizes the contested FAA claim of ownership which permanently relinquishes any claim of county ownership and control.”

FACT: At a meeting of the County Commission, which was attended by WAAM leaders, Commissioner Sarah Heard asked a question of Peter Kirsch that was specifically intended to clarify the issue of airport ownership. Mr. Kirsch is the highly regarded aviation lawyer/consultant who knows more about the FAA agreement than anyone. The question by Commissioner Heard was: Does this agreement in any way change the ownership status of Witham Field?

Mr. Kirsch answered with an unqualified NO. He went on to explain that the FAA and Martin County have opposing views concerning ownership, and that we continue to agree to disagree. The agreement does not deal with ownership issues. Further, Mr. Kirsch stated that if the FAA ever tried to assert ownership, our view would prevail in court.

Many names were listed as WAAM supporters in the ad, alphabetically sorted by first name, thereby masking family group listings and duplicates to puff up the number. One wonders if all those people understood that the ownership claim they signed their name to was false.

THINKING OUT LOUD…..
With the impending gloom of reduced library hours and other service cuts looming over us, how nice it would be for the county to have in its bank account the $578,000.00 it wasted on the Glatting-Jackson and Urbanomics consulting fiascos.

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

“To promote the free exchange of ideas and opinions” is the mission of our Martin County Consensus. With that in mind, the Consensus conducted an opinion poll of 1,500 Martin County residents to find out how satisfied they are with the County Commission.

Much effort was directed toward making this cohort of 1,500 people representative of the county. To minimize bias, we excluded recognizable e-mail addresses of officials and high profile critics and supporters of the Commission. We made sure that several hundred business owners and managers were included.

We stated to questionnaire recipients that we seek “your opinion concerning how satisfied you are overall with the Commission’s decisions most important to you.” We encouraged respondents to “let your rating reflect how well their decisions represent your views.” Any duplicate or forwarded responses would be filtered out.

The question we posed read: “How good a job has the Commission been doing?” and provided multiple choices. 165 responses were received:

40.6% said Very Poor Job
37.6% said Poor Job
12.7% said Fair Job
5.5% said Good Job
1.8% said Excellent Job
1.8% said Not Sure

The extreme negativity of the response was startling. It prompted us to go back to the 129 respondents who gave Poor or Very Poor ratings. We asked them to state, in their own words, which issues convinced them to give such negative assessments. 101 responded, providing their reasons as follows:

28% - Commission ignores or disrespects public
27% - Too accommodating to developers
21% - Bad zoning and Comp Plan changes
20% - Growth poorly controlled
18% - Wasteful spending
10% - Western clustering
7% - Airport concerns
6% - Fire rescue salaries
5% - Delayed infrastructure work
5% - High property taxes

We asked respondents only to state issues that prompted negative ratings. Nevertheless, 13% also volunteered that their negative rating for the Commission did not apply to Commissioner Sarah Heard.

Out of 13 pages of packed comments by residents, let’s look at just two that express the disappointment with the Commission, and appreciation of the citizens who stand up at Commission meetings to express their views:

“I have observed that the commission members are not influenced by any facts, petitions, comments or thoughts given by those who speak on specific issues at the commission meetings. It appears to me that the commissioners have already decided how to vote on a specific issue prior to the commission meeting. The speakers do serve to educate and provide other perspectives to those who attend or watch the commission meetings on TV.”

“With the exception of ONE commissioner, the rest completely IGNORE the wishes of their constituents, they are arrogant to the people that elected them and are only looking out for the developers!”

It is tempting this election year to conclude the obvious or speculate on the implications of the survey results. We’ll resist that temptation. Instead, we will embrace a venerable adage that recognizes the intelligence of residents: Res ipso loquitur – It speaks for itself.

FULL DISCLOSURE: The Martin County Consensus is a “fictitious name” created by and registered with the Florida Department of State (Reg. No. G07012900353) in the name of Al Forman. It is not connected in any way with a corporation which adopted a similar name at a later date.

Note: The many comments by poll respondents may be read, in pdf format, at the following Stuart News website:

http://web.tcpalm.com/2008/04/23/comments.pdf

In a rebuff to the Florida Legislature, and its allies at the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the First District Court of Appeal has sided with Hometown Democracy. The court on Wednesday ruled that the law that created the process that allows the revocation of petition signatures is unconstitutional and that rules used by the state to implement the process are also not allowed.
The ruling raises fresh questions about the decision to deny Hometown Democracy a place on the ballot since thousands of the signatures gathered by the group were in fact revoked. The opinion states that the law "are unconstitutional because they do not ensure ballot integrity. They do not serve to confirm compliance with constitutionally-specified requirements for submission of proposed amendments through the initiative process...Instead they serve to burden the initiative process with requirements that are not prescribed in the constitution." Thanks to Laura Goodhue and Susie Caplowe for the info.
A touch of insanity at the legislature

The following blow-by-blow account is reprinted verbatim from a section of the FLEnviroActionNews Capitol Watchdog Report. Itprovides a revealing insight into how our state representatives go about making laws. With thanks to the sharp eyed Susie Caplowe for the info.

“Did you read about the major melt down the House Chamber experienced on Friday, 4-18-08? Representative Bogdanoff called the question on an Education bill, she/the Republican leaders, didn't want any amendments brought up on this particular bill. The House Republican leadership already had limited debate to 3 minutes per person on bills but calling the question on a bill meant there could be no debate…So, Representative Gelber, the Democrat leader, responded with the other Democrats, and thru parliamentary procedures, required every bill remaining on the Friday calendar, read WORD FOR WORD…So a session that was supposed to end by 1pm, went to Saturday morning, 2:17 am. Speaker Rubio countered the Democrats move on the chess board, with another by moving all of the Democrats bills that had made it to the floor calendar, back into committees for review.

“Representative Gelber and his fellow Democrats have responded with their next move, that they will make the motion again, that all bills be read in their entirety…WORD FOR WORD, if the D's bills don't get put back on the House Floor Calendar. The good thing about all this is BILLS are dying every day. So take all the time you want!!!”

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

“Concurrency” is one of the guiding legal principles for achieving growth that does not ruin our quality of life. Concurrency requires that for any development to be approved, the public infrastructure needed to support that development must be in place or scheduled to be in place when the development occurs.

“Level Of Service” or LOS, is a measure of when the required public service is concurrent. This story relates to automobile traffic, so there are numbers, like cars per hour, that define the LOS. Reducing the LOS, or exceeding the traffic load, means that there are more cars than the road was supposed to handle.

“Community Redevelopment Area (CRA)” is a selected area in which some normal development and zoning rules are changed to allow greater density and intensity, thereby encouraging development. Tax gains are plowed back into the CRA. Originally, the concept was to revive blighted areas. Then it was broadened to include older neighborhoods in decline, or in need of revitalization. In each CRA, there is a Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) appointed by the commission to represent the CRA residents. Often NACs are dominated by pro-developer people who own businesses and property in the CRA.

We admire CRA goals. It was good to hear NAC chairmen and Countywide Committee director Jeff Oris discuss the following subjects at their 4/30/08 meeting: sewer lines; landscaping; parking spaces; sidewalks, building improvement, cleanup; road resurfacing; stormwater retention; and affordable housing. Such urban infill upgrades that revitalize neighborhoods make much more sense than rural clusters or extending utilities beyond the primary urban services boundary.

HOWEVER …..
….. when CRA development objectives over-ride quality of life considerations for residents both in and out of the CRA, it’s time to say STOP!

What happens when the traffic load on roadways in the CRA is greater than the LOS allowed? Common sense would tell you that you can keep building if you cut back on development density or the type of development. However, that would not please the developers enjoying more accommodating rules in the CRA. So, as the old joke goes, you don’t have to raise the bridge; just lower the river.

In essence, that is the kind of thinking that the Martin County Commission did on April 29, 2008. They approved a “TCEA” – Transportation Concurrency Exception Area comp plan amendment (CPA #08-11) for the 800-acre Port Salerno CRA. This essentially wipes out concurrency requirements for road LOS, taking a limit off the maximum amount of homes, stores and factories that can be built in the CRA. And there is no sunset or time limit on this abandonment of sensible transportation planning.

They put a little lipstick on that pig, with vague requirements about monitoring, seeking alternative transportation modes, and identifying traffic issues at some future date. However, TCEA still means traffic jams. So the greater opportunities for developers in the CRA is bought at the price of reduced quality of life for drivers. To Commissioner Valliere, who voted for TCEA along with DiTerlizzi, Smith and Weberman, “It’s a sacrifice we all have to make.” Really!

DiTerlizzi demonstrated his sympathy for the motorists stuck in traffic when he said: “If you don’t want to sit in traffic, then don’t go downtown.” But what about the many residents who must pass through downtown? There are about 16,000 vehicles on Dixie Highway passing through Port Salerno every day. Not only will even greater traffic caused by development be a Port Salerno bottleneck, but it will adversely impact feeder roads inside and outside the CRA.

Commissioner Heard, who voted against the TCEA, pointed out several serious shortcomings with this CPA. A couple of them were addressed by modifying the proposal, but most were ignored. Why these flaws were not recognized by county staff, the consultant or the other commissioners is a puzzle worth pondering.

If the traffic problem were limited to Port Salerno, it would be bad enough. However, based on Florida Statute 163, Part III, the Martin County Commission set up the Countywide Community Redevelopment Plan years ago with the Commissioners sitting as the CRA Board. Seven older neighborhoods were designated as suitable for redevelopment: Port Salerno, Jensen Beach, Hobe Sound, Rio, Golden Gate, Old Palm City and Indiantown.

The county staff report notes that “within the County’s seven CRAs, staff noted that the roads were physically or policy constrained similar to SE Dixie Highway.” So we can expect some or all of the other CRAs to come up with TCEA proposals, causing traffic jams all across the county. Before too long the score will be:

Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce Exec Director Ron Rose sent an e-mail to members concerning your editor’s recent Martin County Consensus poll of 1,500 county residents. Poll results were published in the Stuart News (“Citizen report card flunks County Commission”) on 4/24/08, and in Defender issue No. 53. By design or accident, Mr. Rose failed to send his memo to certain CofC members who oppose Commissioner Doug Smith.

Without a shred of evidence, Mr. Rose erroneously claimed that “the sample does not appear to be representative of the opinions held by Martin County voters at large and may have been skewed to reflect the group’s political agenda.” In addition, Mr. Rose asked members to report to him if they had received our Consensus questionnaire.

To be helpful in case few members responded to his request, I made the following offer to Mr. Rose because his members were fully represented in the poll sample: “If you let me know the e-mails who report that they received my questionnaire, I will give you a batch of addresses of your members who received them, but did not report it to you.”

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

INSIDE STORY:
The whole truth about how two Martin County Consensus entities came to be

In addition to editing this news and advocacy e-newsletter, I have been serving Martin County citizens with my non-advocacy Martin County Consensus. I have been focusing on the future with the intent of leaving the past behind. Unfortunately, some former associates have been spreading false information. So, reluctantly, I am pressed to break my silence by revealing the entire inside history so residents will be honestly informed.

PLANTING THE SEED: Late in 2006, Tom Fullman invited a number of slow-growth advocates to a series of informal meetings. The purpose was to organize an effort to control sprawl and to improve the quality of life in Martin County. We hacked out a list of 15 position summaries that included environmental protection, infrastructure concurrency, airport, and affordable housing, among others. A small leadership group emerged to implement these aims.

BIRTH OF “CONSENSUS” NAME: I conceived the name Martin County Consensus, and told others in the group that I planned to open a post office box and register the name to protect it. On Jan. 12, 2007 I registered it with the Florida Department of State as a “fictitious name,” the legal terminology for such unincorporated businesses as, say, Acme Widgit Company.

THE CORPORATION IS FORMED: The group decided to incorporate as Martin County Consensus, Inc. The paperwork was completed on April 5, 2007, and I was designated in the Articles of Incorporation as the “Incorporator.” The three-person initial Board of Directors included Bill Summers, Lynne Pine and me. Fullman was not included because it was presumed that he would be a District 1 commission candidate, and it would not look good. (Pine, a most principled person, later resigned because she saw the corporation functioning as an election vehicle for Fullman. For good reason, Fullman may not be a candidate.)

FIGHT OVER THE BYLAWS: The first hint of internal tensions came with the adoption of a set of bylaws, a set that would provide for a nine member board. I fought to have all directors elected by the members. Others in the group voted me down by insisting on a self-appointing, self-perpetuating board responsible only to themselves. I thought this elitist, a view not well received in the inner group.

The legally required certification of the bylaws was never completed, opening the current board to questioned legitimacy, but we plunged ahead. Currently, five of the earlier nine directors are no longer with Consensus, Inc. if we are to believe the filing with the state; or four are gone if we are to believe the website of Consensus, Inc.

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: The final membership application form not only required applicants to pay a $25 fee, it also required them to answer if they “support all of the Position Summaries.” On a case by case basis, those who did not affirm this loyalty oath type of inquiry could be rejected – and there was rejection. In 2007, there were only a few dozen members.

A STIFLING ATMOSPHERE EMERGES: By mid-2007, the original bonhomie and enthusiasm was waning. There was the imposition of a gag rule that was intended to prevent board members from repeating anything said or seen at a meeting, even if it had nothing to do with Consensus, Inc. or any individual. President Summers (Fullman was chairman, I was secretary) not only insisted that only he could talk to the press as official Consensus, Inc. representative – which was OK – but he said no one could talk to the press even unofficially. I was not about to give up my free speech rights. Also, I did not like the hateful comments flying around about political foes.

EXTERNAL ISSUES BREED DISCOMFORT. When, at a public meeting of the Martin County Commission, President Summers tore up an ad by Commissioner Valliere, advanced on the dais and threw the scraps down before her, some of us were concerned how that affected our image. Most of the Consensus, Inc. directors exhibited a feckless attitude about reaching out to support other allied groups, one of our key aims. For example, when a Jensen Beach group mounted a protest at the bridge and asked for Consensus, Inc. help, only one director appeared. Me.

INTERNAL IMPROPRIETIES: We were fighting hard against the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment. Dave Shore, WAAM President and Consensus, Inc. Board Member, kept quiet about clustering. Valliere was known to support WAAM’s position.

Shore resigned from the board, but still kept sitting in on the board meetings as if there had been no resignation. He was able to do this because Summers and Fullman kept the resignation secret from the rest of the board! The three of them did not like it when I told them how outrageous and improper that failure to inform was. How could they be trusted again?

COORDINATION SLOWLY VANISHING: Toward the end of 2007, another person, not a board member, and I arranged for Florida Hometown Democracy co-author Leslie Blackner to be the speaker at one of our forums. Summers said he would arrange a press conference, and did not need my help despite my extensive experience with press conferences. Summers set it up. Nobody came. I did the newspaper ad, extensive online promotion, flyers, etc., and we packed in a full house at the Blake Library on Dec.3.

THE FINAL BLOW: Early in 2008, the proposed FAA agreement for Witham Field became a public issue. Independent of Consensus, Inc., I did a survey of Martin County residents to learn resident attitudes toward the agreement. When Shore found out about it, he insisted I not publish it. As a lifetime journalist, I believed that the public had a right to know the survey results, and refused to spike the piece.

Shore contacted Summers, who called for a special meeting at his house, not the attorney office we usually meet in. When I asked Summers what the purpose of the meeting was, he said he did not have to tell me. So within the week that I sent out survey questionnaires, and before anyone knew the results because they had not yet been compiled, Fullman, Summers and Shore rammed through my removal by a slim majority because I did not obey Shore’s demand to suppress the report. If they had wanted to concoct a barely credible excuse, they could have waited until the report was completed.

SINCE THAT DAY: In the half year since the successful Hometown Democracy forum, the only thing of note that Consensus, Inc. has done is a lunch at which a U.S. attorney said that if we have evidence of corruption, to give it to him. There is nothing there that illuminates Martin County’s daily concerns. Consensus, Inc. used to reach out to everyone, but the posted invitation stated that the lunch was being held “at an undisclosed location,” and that attendance was “by invitation only.”

LOOKING AHEAD: It is more in sadness than anger that I look back on the unfulfilled potential and decline of Consensus, Inc. Condemnation of their board is not all-inclusive. There have been some very competent and ethical people, like Paul Shidel and Jay Honan, with whom I have been proud to work.

There is a sense of relief though because it was stifling for me to have to contend regularly with the antics and petty tyranny of a political cell. I look forward to serving the people of Martin County with my Consensus, whose stated mission is “To promote the free exchange of ideas and opinions.” Currently our efforts are directed toward impartial, non-lobbying surveys that reveal to all residents what our neighbors are thinking about important county related issues. No one else, certainly not Consensus, Inc., is doing that.

Separate and apart from the information Consensus will provide, the Martin County Defender will continue to deliver to several thousand of your computers the no-nonsense informed advocacy and news that have served readers for the past 54 issues.

That indomitable organization that fights to preserve our environment, the Martin County Conservation Alliance, will be sponsoring two candidate debates at the Blake Library at 6:00 pm:

Monday, July 21, 2008 – Candidates for county commission, Districts 1, 3 and 5.

Monday, August 11, 2008 – Candidates for two House of Representative districts.

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

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 5/19/08

In 2006, a zoning change was proposed for an Expressway Oriented Research and Biotech zone (EORB) to overlay zones around expressway exits intended to provide such things as food and fuel for transient motorists. The enabling law passed by the Martin County Commission (Ordinance #736, Comp Plan Amendment #06-163) would allow all kinds of biochemical manufacturing, laboratories, offices and related production facilities at places such as the intersection of SR714 and I-95.

EORB development would, in effect, be spot zoning outside the Urban Services Boundary. The Comp Plan does not allow that, hence the CPA #06-163. It would also place industrial facilities with potential pollution issues right next to residential communities. To oppose this radical change, Donna Melzer and I (Al Forman) took legal action as co-plaintiffs for a lawsuit and a petition to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to prevent implementation of EORB.

On May 19, 2008, Sr. Assistant County Attorney David Acton called our attorney, Virginia Sherlock, to inform her that the EORB land use amendment was being rescinded at the request of the applicant, developer planner Houston Cuozzo.

The rescission ordinance will be on the County Commission agenda June 10, 2008. Also, the planned hearing before a Department of Administrative Hearing judge, scheduled for June 25-27, 2008, is likely to be canceled.

We salute Attorney Sherlock for her extraordinary research, strategic planning and effective presentation that made this victory possible.

As we know from a long history of anti-sprawl battles, no victory is necessarily forever. A similar new proposal could be filed anytime. Martin County citizens can not depend on a small handful of determined advocates and attorneys to hold the line. It is up to every citizen to let their officials – and candidates for office – know that we do not want to allow the sprawl that results from eroding our Comp Plan.

YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE YOU PREFER. IT DEPENDS ON PARTY AFFILIATION.

Florida is a closed primary state. So although all county voters may vote for candidates in all commission districts on August 26 (early voting August 11-23), you are allowed to do so only if all of the candidates in that district are from the same political party. The reason is that the primary victor is automatically the person elected. This condition is officially called a Universal Primary Contest.

On the other hand, if there is a candidate competing in a given district from another party, or an independent, then you can vote only for candidates in your party. Independents can’t vote for candidates in that primary district. This rule can seriously affect who gets elected. Let’s see how that works out in practical terms in the three districts where commission candidates are up for election.

All candidates so far are Republicans. However, until noon on June 20, Democrats or independents can still file. The four announced candidates are incumbent Doug Smith, and announced challengers Richard Baron, Henry Copeland, and Bryan McDermott. Baron and McDermott have not at this time submitted petitions to the Supervisor of Elections, and are generally considered far less of a challenge to Smith than Copeland.

There are indications that more Democrats, slow-growthers and independents favor Copeland over Smith, who is heavily financed by developer interests. So it could be a very competitive race, unless a Democrat or independent enters. Then, unless enough voters switch affiliation to Republican (must register for change by July 28), the advantage could possibly shift to Smith.

Incumbent Lee Weberman, well funded by developer interests, faces Republican challenger Patrick Hayes. The winner will face Democrat Martha Bennett In November. Independents are frozen out of this contest. There is little indication that there is particularly strong support from Democrats or independents for either Republican.

Lots of candidates here; no incumbent. Republicans are Daniel Blake, John Born, Edward Ciampi, John Hockey, and Ian Pollack. Blake has not filed petitions, and is not generally considered a factor. Ciampi is considered the business candidate. There is concern in the slow growth movement that the remaining three may split the vote, and in a repeat of 2004, allow Ciampi to win. Pollack appears to have the most support compared to Born and Hockey.

The Republican winner will face Democrat Linda Green in November. Here again, the closed primary system works against such slow growth advocates as Born and Pollack. As with District 3, no independent votes allowed.

+++++
Correction: In issue No. 55, we made the following statement: “After board member Dave Shore received a letter from Jim Valliere that his commissioner wife’s support of the WAAM airport position (Shore is president of WAAM) would be jeopardized, he kept quiet about clustering.” We have reviewed the letter on which that erroneous statement was based, and found that our interpretation was incorrect. There was no inference that support of the WAAM position would be jeopardized. We sincerely apologize to Mr. & Mrs. Valliere, and to Mr. Shore, for our unintentional misunderstanding of the letter.

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

There are only 122 acres of wetlands left in the City of Stuart. Unlike unincorporated Martin County, which preserves its wetlands, Stuart offers little protection. So city officials have finally awakened to the need to preserve their wetlands. Provisions under discussion include barring wetland development, increasing buffers from 25 to 50 feet, delineating wetlands, and requiring mitigation.

There is instant response from such developer interests as the Economic Council and consultants working for developers: Don’t do it! they shout, pulling out the shopworn complaints about property rights, costs and supposed legal obstacles. Those folks should be labeled The Pave Over Paradise Gang.

Help preserve your environment by letting the mayor, city commissioners and the city manager know that you want to save our wetlands. Here are their e-mail addresses in sequence order so you can just wipe the entire group, copy and paste them in an e-mail that tells officials what you expect.

If I were a candidate for Martin County Commissioner, I’d study the issues, reflect on the best solutions for challenges we face, write down my positions, and send it to anyone who may want to know where I stand. And I would welcome any organization, individual or publication that was willing to distribute my answers to important questions – and do so without charge. I’d want voters to hear my replies to what they are asking, not rely on just the spin in my ads.

The Martin County Consensus (the unincorporated one that is actually doing things for residents) surveyed 1,600 residents to find out what they would ask the commission candidates. These questions were compiled and sent by the Consensus to all candidates. The first reply by a candidate has been published, evoking praise and interest from readers. Here are some typical unsolicited comments sent to the Consensus.

From C.S.: “Well done, very informative. Looking forward to more. This is a great service to voters.”

From J.W: “Good stuff. I look forward to reading responses from the other candidates. Thank you for doing this.”

From B.S.: “Thank you for keeping us informed. I look forward to reading the replies of the other candidates.”

From R.S.: “Good work, Al. Much appreciated. Hope we will see the other candidates response.”

It makes me wonder why some candidates are reluctant to answer. Have they been unable to come up with sensible answers? Are they so arrogant that they think they will win without informing voters? Are they so slippery that they are afraid to be pinned down? Are they too lazy to fill out the questionnaire?

There may be some foolish, non-responsive candidates out there. In what could turn out to be a very close race, were I a candidate, I would not pass up the opportunity to get my message out – free – to thousands of interested voters. As the above quoted comments make clear, voters “look forward to reading the replies of the other candidates.”

Many of our readers have received another one of those large, slick postcards from The Committee to Protect Florida’s Natural Environment, Inc. This little façade is run out of Tallahassee by three lobbyists. They put on an environmentalist face in an attempt to persuade you that exploiting our natural environment is good. The recent card talks about land and river protection, and stopping infill. What this group really wants is open season to develop all those rural acres so that developers and large landowners can make a killing.

I was reminded of George Orwell’s book, “1984.” If you don’t remember it, perhaps it’s time for a re-read. “1984” told us about a Ministry of Truth that told lies, of doublethink that propounded such dogma as Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength. Of course, this Committee does not go quite that far.

I don’t know of a single uncompromised environmentalist who believes the sales pitch of this Committee. I trust the intelligence of the people of Martin County to recognize that overdevelopment north and south of us is not what we want here.

If you looked at the agenda for the June 3, 2008 meeting of the County Commission, you would note a seemingly innocuous Item 6A concerning a Site Plan Approval of a 40,497 sq. ft. boat storage building. It’s a development plan by Hinckley Yachts for its facility at Manatee Pocket.

Behind the plan, however, is a long history of disregard of resident concerns by both county staff and Hinckley. This is a plan for a monstrous building to tower over close-by homes. It is a tale of residents being repeatedly misled. It is a story of the county failing to follow its own rules. It reeks of back room dealing that could be a precedent for adverse impact on other residential neighborhoods.

The only decent thing to do is for this approval process to be stopped dead in its tracks – right now. You can help achieve this bit of justice by speaking up at the County Commission meeting at 9:00 am this coming Tuesday. If you can not attend, but want to contribute your thoughts, send an e-mail to all the commissioners letting them know that this travesty should be stopped. Send to:

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

Q – Other than the expressways and U.S. 1, what is the most heavily traveled road in Martin County?

A – According to the Florida Department of Transportation 2007 report, the highest AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) Two-Way vehicle count is for “SR714 / Martin Downs Blvd, W. End of Palm City Bridge” – 49,000. So it’s no surprise that “SR714 /Monterey Rd., E. of Palm City Rd., Stuart” is third highest with 42,500 vehicles daily. (SR-76 is second with 46,000.)

The Traffic Quiz is my obvious strategy to slide smoothly into a touchy subject: Construction of the Indian Street/Palm City Bridge. It’s become contentious, an issue where both sides should be able to move to more common ground. On one side are opponents who all but claim that the bridge would bring ruin and desolation. Proponents seem ready to say that the economic sky will fall if we don’t build that bridge right now.

Let’s take a saner view. The Traffic Quiz numbers – which are sure to grow - make it clear that in the long run we must build that bridge. It is not only for the convenience of motorists or to promote business, but to provide safe alternate passage in case of accidents or other unforeseeable events.

A couple of years ago, road crews were doing routine maintenance on the Palm City Bridge. They tried not to be too obstructive, but traffic was lined up over a mile at this choke point. The delays were intolerable. In what could be called an I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore burst, I made a sign and stood at the foot of the bridge over a couple of days. My sign read: “We need a 2nd bridge.” We still need it.

We are living in financially difficult times. Just as any family may postpone buying, say, a new car when times are tough, we may have to accept further bridge delay until the economy recycles. We don’t have the money. We’re short on the order of a hundred million dollars, give or take a few fortunes, to pay for the bridge. The bridge has been in the works for many years. Would another couple of years make such a big difference? Besides, we can always hope that Uncle Sam will come up with funding to shorten any delay.

Just as the family that wisely delays its new car purchase until better times, we can delay bridge construction. A family would prefer the postponement option to cutting back on food and clothing. Similarly, we must not sacrifice, as some have proposed, cutting back on vital maintenance and improvements to the rest of the county’s infrastructure, just to push the bridge.

Any further delay in building the bridge would be more acceptable if we spent some money on fixing the terrible traffic mess in the Monterey-Kanner area. Can’t we talk, folks? Can’t we all find reasonable common ground? There are so many other issues still left to fight over.

We’ve been hearing a good bit about how Florida’s closed primary election is being manipulated by write-in candidates – really faux candidates without any chance of winning. Even without manipulation, if both Democrats and Republicans are running in the same Commission district, Independents are frozen out, and party members can not cross the party line. We’re talking about local candidates concerned with local issues. Party affiliation should not matter that much.

In many jurisdictions around the U.S., the primaries are open. Everyone can vote for anyone. I once lived in a place where you could change your party at the polling place, vote, and then dis-enroll on the way out. If we choose, we can easily switch parties in Martin County. We have until July 28 to do the simple party switch paperwork for the August 2008 primaries.

EXAMPLE: Suppose you are a Democrat or Independent, but would really like to vote for particular Republican candidates. All you have to do is get a Voter Application Form and fill it in. The Form is available from any library, government annex, Tax Collector office, Health Department, or from the helpful folks at Martin County’s Supervisor of Elections Office at 135 SE Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. just off Colorado in Stuart. Their phone is 772-288-5637.

Or you can go online to www.martinvotes.com, click on “Voter Info/Education,” then click on “Update Your Registration.” That gives you the Voter Application Form you need to change party. Click on the easy answers and “Preferred Party” (Republican in the example). That’s all there is to it. Remember, you can always switch back to your original party status after the primary.

MOST IMPORTANT: In the General Election from Oct. 20 to Nov. 1, 2008, you can vote for any candidates in any party. The party switch for the Aug. 11-23 primary is just to help the best candidates get on the final ballot. That can be as important as voting in the general election.

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

COMMISSIONERS VOTE FOR HINCKLEY EXPANSION, REFLECTING A RESIDENTS-BE-DAMNED ATTITUDE

June 3, 2008 was a day of infamy for Martin County. It was the day that three commissioners voted for their financial-political connections instead of the welfare of residents. After eight hours of hearings, in which Rocky Point homeowners showed over and over again that a giant 40-ft high warehouse looming over them was wrong from legal, procedural and quality-of-life viewpoints, the heedless trio approved Hinckley’s expansion.

“Commissioner Heard was the only commissioner who took the many code violations seriously, and if not for her dragging a code enforcement officer out there, with a site plan in hand, I am certain the violations would have continued to go ‘unnoticed’ by the county just like they have for the last six years. It was very disappointing that Commissioners Weberman, Smith and DeTerlizzi, refused to take the violations seriously. Commissioner Heard was even reprimanded by Weberman for having had the ‘audacity’ of demanding that Code Enforcement inspect the property for code violations.

”Code Enforcement claimed it had only one complaint in the last six years even after hearing the sworn testimony of neighbors about how many times they have called over the last six years. The County also must have completely forgotten about all the photos we showed six years ago of the violations. Go ahead and pour a swimming pool size concrete pad, without a permit, in the setback, on YOUR property and see how long it takes code enforcement to find it and cite you for it. Go ahead and try to put up 7 or 8 Quonset huts and see what happens.

“The neighbors who acted as intervenors covered many different aspects and flaws with Hinckley's proposal. I dealt with the setbacks and the promises made to us by the County only six years ago, documenting my claims with transcripts and video of the 2002 hearings. It is hard to believe that Weberman, Smith and DeTerlizzi could watch a video of themselves and their staff explaining to us that a warehouse could not go on the property because of the setbacks, and then proceed to approve the project anyway.

“It is equally hard to believe that we could show them so many photos of Hinckley employees working in the field in hazmet suits and respirators, and then listen to their excuses as to why Hinckley ‘is not an intensive impact industry.’ What a joke. To her credit, Commissioner Valliere mentioned a number of times how morally and ethically wrong it was to ignore promises made to residents as well as the fact that it is obvious to her that Hinckley "is an extensive impact industry".

“Jim Moir covered environmental problems such as the crumbling sea wall and the impact of boatyard chemicals on our water resources. Commissioners Weberman, Smith and DeTerlizzi completely ignored the many photos showing Hinckley employees grinding bottom paint and spray painting marine paint with little, OR NO, ground cover. We showed photos of the collapsed sea walls and explained how close these activities were taking place to the breached sea walls, and pointed out the visible sediment piling up below the collapsed sea walls. The three commissioners showed little, if any, concern.

“Giovanna exposed serious problems with the calculations of the open space requirements, and estimated the direct decline in our property values to be at 15% of the assessed value, or over $ 3 million for the houses immediately adjacent to Hinckley. She gave a very detailed presentation with statistics and data gathered from studies on the decreases in home values with Bahia Condos and the RiverWatch marina. And again the three commissioners seemed to ignore anything she had to say.

“ We did however succeed with two very important goals. Number one, we put on the official record data and issues which can be used in any subsequent legal action. And number two, we exposed major flaws in the process, from the fact that the county staff does not verify the applicants' calculations, to the ‘disappearance’ of code violation reports, to the conflicting county ordinances and records concerning setbacks and buffers for the Hinckley property.

“For me this project is not as much about the warehouse as it is about the process that allowed it to be approved. It's just wrong. Our elected officials no longer represent us and they bend and twist their own rules and promises to accommodate special interests and financial donors. It is beyond the warehouse. It's the principle.”

These three commissioners have a long history of accommodating development requests that burden residents unfairly. In our opinion, their nonfeasance in failing to protect the Rocky Point neighborhood caps this shameful record. So let’s repeat the headline question:

Are DiTerlizzi, Weberman and Smith fit to be public officials? It’s a question that needs a clear answer from you at the primary and general election voting booths.

Florida Hometown Democracy (FHD) gathered and filed 820,034 signatures in a petition to place a Constitutional Amendment proposal on the ballot for the Nov. 2008 election. 611,009 signatures are required, but only 564,558 were accepted. The basic thrust of the Amendment would require voters to approve changes in the Comprehensive Plan. Through nefarious tactics, some business groups and public officials manipulated the situation to block inclusion of the proposal on the ballot, depriving the petitioners of their right to have the voters decide.

FHD has gone to Federal District Court with a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to get the Amendment on the ballot. The complete 24-page court filing may be obtained over the internet at the following website:

This document chronicles the legal and tactical improprieties that should make anyone who values democracy mad. This legal effort is very costly. You can help by donating funds to FHD. Send your contributions to:

In Issue No. 58, we included the following statement in our discussion of the need for the Indian Street / Palm City bridge: “Any further delay in building the bridge would be more acceptable if we spent some money on fixing the terrible traffic mess in the Monterey-Kanner area.”

So here is a bit of promising news. In response to our article, we have been informed by Lisa A. Wichser, P.E., Traffic Engineering / Development Review Administrator, Martin County Engineering Department that the county is “ready to go to bid with construction of additional lanes on SR-714 (SW Monterey Road) between the PC Bridge and SR-76.”

In response to our article on switching political parties for the primary election in order to overcome the exclusionary effect of the county’s closed primary system, Stuart City Commissioner Michael Mortell wrote: “The City of Stuart holds open elections. When Jim Christie was elected there were five other candidates and party affiliation was not an issue. There was no primary and Jim won. That was it.”

The proposal for expedited permit review noted in Alert of 5/31/08 will come before the County Commission on July 1. The postponement is because the county was in such a rush to ram this through that they neglected to do timely public advertising.

A heart-of-the-matter appraisal of the proposal comes from active citizen Jackie Transynger, who told commissioners: "We weren't born yesterday, especially not me. We know exactly what you are trying to do. Under the guise of attracting jobs for our children you are trying to rush through things for your developer friends."

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

There are 15 candidates for the three open Martin County Commission positions – eight Republicans, four Democrats, and three Other. Ten are involved in primaries to be held Aug. 11-23, 2008; two have no competition. They include a mélange of people devoted to public service, people devoted to financial interests, people intent on gaming the system, and people giving themselves an ego boost.

The primaries are limited to Republicans and Democrats competing within the same party in each of the districts. If you are a Republican, you are limited to voting for a Republican. Similarly for Democrats. Residents vote for all districts.

Write-ins move to the general election ballot with the winners of the primaries, together with No Party Affiliate candidates (Independents). For those who did not submit candidacy petitions signed by voters, the qualifying fee for those running under a party was $3,414.60. For those who qualified as a No Party Affiliate, the fee was $2,276.40.

The primary is so important because it may determine who will be elected. And that will seriously affect our quality of life.

YOUR EDITOR’S PERSONAL DISCLOSURE: I don’t believe in endorsing candidates. I’m not the Political Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. However, I have followed the candidates intently as much as possible, and I want to share with readers – especially those who have asked about my candidate preferences - whom I will and will not vote for …. and why. To the extent that it is knowable, I consider candidate position and history. And since this is Martin County, Character Counts.

Doug Smith is the incumbent running for re-election. He rarely encounters a developer proposal that doesn’t earn his support. He voted to plop the monstrous Hinckley warehouse right next to homes in Rocky Point. He is an enthusiastic supporter of the Glatting Jackson report and the pro-sprawl Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment. Smith supported spot zoning biochemical industrial manufacturing next to residences way outside of the Urban Services Boundary (USB). He voted to stretch utility water lines beyond the primary USB to accommodate a developer. An example of Smith’s “understanding” of community economics is his statement: “I don’t understand how growth doesn’t pay for itself.” Hello? Anyone home? It’s the high cost of infrastructure, commissioner. It is no surprise that developer-related interests bestow generous contributions on his campaign. It’s truly time for a change. A vote for Smith is a vote for Browardizing Martin County!.

Henry Copeland is Smith’s political nightmare. Copeland is an eloquent speaker. Year after year he is on the front lines fighting against exploitation of the county by politically connected smart money. He works to preserve the Comprehensive Plan. As an attorney, he will bring special skills to the commission to monitor the shenanigans that go on at both the administration and the commission. Copeland’s answers to the key questions posed by residents in the Martin County Consensus survey (not to be confused with the increasingly irrelevant Consensus Inc.) of 1,600 citizens, show Copeland’s well conceived, constructive responses. I will vote for Copeland because it is a vote for progress and preserving our quality of life.

Tom Fullman , a longtime Republican, switched to Democrat in the hope that he could get on the ballot with little or no opposition. He has said that he is slow growth, but has failed to state his positions on numerous other important matters. Fullman’s publication of scurrilous accusations and false statements in the Stuart News is disquieting. More troubling is his court record (Martin County Clerk of Courts Files #1133746, #0844032, and #1741661). Both the Internal Revenue Service and the Martin County Tax Collector had to drag Fullman into court to collect taxes due. Does that enhance the confidence of citizens who pay their taxes on time that Fullman would make a good steward of public funds controlled by the commission?

Eric Brent has a good background in affordable housing, knowledge much needed on the commission. He kind of came from out of nowhere, so we don’t know much about him. Even so, he is a better choice than Fullman.

BITE THE BULLET! Democrats more concerned with the welfare of the county than their local political party would be better served to register Republican to vote for Henry Copeland in the primary. In the November general local and national election, converts can still vote Democrat … or Green Party, or Possibility Party, or 28 other minor parties if they wish.

Lee Weberman, the incumbent running for re-election, is the commission’s loose cannon. He has earned the reputation of being rude to both citizen and fellow commissioner. Much of what was said about Doug Smith, except for Weberman’s opposition to rural clusters, is also applicable to Weberman. Perhaps more so. When pro-developer commissioners voted to cut added impact fees to a mere $1,000, even that was too much for Weberman, who opposed any increase. Better that taxpayers foot the extra infrastructure cost. Unsurprisingly, he has a big campaign treasury from developer interest contributions.

Patrick Hayes is a rare bird – a water preservationist who supports rural clustering. He has run before for commissioner, and lost. Hayes does not have broad support. We don’t know where he stands on a wide range of issues.

DILEMMA: Since “None of the Above” is not a ballot choice, I may vote for Hayes as the lesser bad, but only in the primary.

No primary contest here. Lone candidate Martha Bennett offers excellent pro-resident positions on the key challenges that face our county. I’ll vote for her in the general election, and hope other Republicans will rise above partisanship to support her, too.

Ian Pollack is, in my view, the best of all 15 commission candidates. A former police commander, he’s tough but sensitive to citizen needs, and focused on public service. Since his defeat four years ago because of the split good-guy vote, he has consistently spoken up in public meetings to oppose exploitation of our county, fighting to preserve the Comprehensive Plan that has made Martin County special. His activities on behalf of good causes has earned him wide support from diverse voter groups. I look forward to voting for Pollack.

Edward Ciampi is the candidate of the developer/business organizations, a DiTerlizzi wannabe, but not as clever. He openly supports Big Sugar, the source of so much of our water pollution. Ciampi also supports rural clusters. He is a poor choice for commissioner in my opinion.

John Hockey has excellent positions on public issues. For example, he supports the 20-acre western rule, would vote to rescind the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment, will not take campaign contributions from developers, and so on. However, he has not been on the battlements fighting regularly for all these and other causes the way that Pollack has year after year.

John Born is a good man. I know him and his family personally. However, other than his general opposition to sprawl, I do not know where he stands on many critical issues. He has not replied to the questions posed to him. Like Hockey, he has rarely been at the lectern trying to convince commissioners to make good decisions.

NO MORE 2004! The problem with reasonably decent candidates like Hockey and Born is that they do not really match up to Pollack in either history or consistent effort. They do not come close to having Pollack’s wide support. The fear is that 2004 can repeat itself if Hockey and Born chip away just enough votes from Pollack to allow Ciampi to slide through with a winning plurality – not a majority - just as DiTerlizzi did in 2004. So I hope that readers will rally with me behind Pollack. It will change the complexion of the Board of County Commissioners for the better.

Linda Green is a sincere person with the best intentions. She is a bit out of her depth in brutally competitive Martin politics. As JFK is reported to have said: Politics ain’t beanbag.

OTHER CANDIDATES: Joan Wilcox and John Patteson have registered as No Party, and will be on the general election ballot. Donald Gleichman has registered as a write-in candidate.

If you want to vote for your preferred County Commission candidates, it’s easy to overcome the obstacles being placed in your way.

Recognize that some voting rules for local officials are questionable, such as our closed primaries that restrict voters to the candidates of the party you registered with. Worse yet, some voting rules are ridiculous, such as write-in faux candidates who will not appear on the ballot, but do force a closed primary. That is the legal, but unsavory tactic being employed by some Republicans calling themselves the Iron Claw.

You can turn the Iron Claw into a pile of rust simply by filling out a form to change party affiliation. Suppose you are a Democrat or Independent who wants to get rid of an incumbent Republican commissioner who always votes for developer proposals at the expense of residents. Just become a Republican – at least for the moment.

As described in the Martin County Defender Issue No. 58, just pick up a Voter Application Form at any library, government annex or Tax Collector office. Or go online to www.martinvotes.com, click on “Voter Info/Education” and “Update Your Registration.” Print out the form, fill it out noting party change, sign and mail before July 28 to:

Presto! Change-o! You can now vote in the primary for good Republicans. Of course, you can vote for whomever you want in the general election in November.

Personal Political Disclosure: I have been an Independent for decades, joining one party or another only rarely when vital primary issues require it. This is such a time. I have become a registered Republican (temporarily) to help preserve our quality of life.

July 21, 2008 at 6:00 pm. County commission candidates. Blake Library. Sponsored by Martin County Conservation Alliance.

July 22, 2008 at 6:00 pm. County commission candidates. Hospice of the Treasure Coast, 1201 SE Indian St., Stuart. Sponsored by Martin county Interagency Coalition.

August 11, 2008 at 6:00 pm. Candidates for two House of Representative districts. Blake Library. Sponsored by Martin County Conservation Alliance.

August 13, 2008 at 6:00 pm. County commission candidates. Blake Library. Sponsored by League of Women Voters.

August 14, 2008 at 6:00 pm. Superintendent of Schools and State Representative District 81 and 82 candidates. Sponsored by League of Women Voters.

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