The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 6
Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment
IT’S THE PEOPLE VERSUS POLITICIANS AND DEVELOPERS
The potential for great change is here, change that can assure a better quality of life in Martin County and throughout Florida. It’s the proposed Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment to the State Constitution. The ballot summary states that “before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice.” In effect, voters will have the final say on Comp Plan changes, not Commissioners seeking developer campaign contributions.
Politicians who do not want their power limited have opposed this Amendment. So have developers, who know how re-zoning puts money in their pocket. Their opposition to the amendment has been pathetic, relying on such foolish arguments as claiming that terms like “local government, comprehensive land use plan and local planning agency” are ambiguous. On June 22, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Amendment may be placed on the November 2008 ballot. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that voters are presumed to be competent about matters of local government. The Court said if voters so choose, they can demand to vote on local land use issues, that power is delegated by the voters to local government, and voters can take that power back if they so choose.
Now the hard work begins. Your help is vital
In order for this Amendment to get on the ballot, about 611,000 verified signatures on petitions by registered voters must be gathered. About 150,000 have already been gathered. Some 70 diverse organizations across Florida have endorsed this Amendment, from Floridians for a Sustainable Population, to Martin County Conservation Alliance, to the Sierra Club of Florida.
HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1 - On the web, go to: www.FloridaHometownDemocracy.com
2 – Download multiple copies of the Petition Form. (If you do not already have the Acrobat reader, download it from here for free.)
3 – You may also download flyers and banners promoting the Amendment.
4 – Fill out the petition – and also urge others to do so – and mail it in. [Note: If you signed a 2005 version of the petition, you must also sign the current court-approved version.]
If you wish to discuss the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment face-to-face with an informed person, come to Memorial Park on East Ocean near the courthouse on Saturday, April 21, from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. A table will be set up to answer all related questions.
Thought for the day: “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” -Thomas Jefferson
Please participate by signing the Amendment petition, and inviting others to sign.
Slap down SLAPP suits that muzzle free speech
Florida Statute 768295 defines SLAPP as “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” In other words, someone sues you, claiming defamation or business interference, when the real purpose of the suit is to prevent your exercise of free speech. Even if the case is weak and not sustainable, the defendant must spend much time and money to defend himself. As stated in the Georgia Code: “The valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and the right to petition government for a redress of grievances should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.”
There are 24 states with anti-SLAPP statutes, 2 with anti-SLAPP judicial doctrine, and 10 with anti-SLAPP bills pending. Mostly these laws crack down on any SLAPP suits, but some are very weak or limited. Florida’s statutes are one of the least effective because they are limited to government (FS 768.295) or parcel owners in homeowner associations (FS 720.304). The laws that really protect free speech are broad enough to apply to any SLAPPs, including those by private parties, including the one launched by a developer in Jensen Beach against citizens who spoke out against bad re-zoning and planning proposals.
California’s anti-SLAPP law (Code Sec. 425.16) provides “a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” The innocent defendant is then “entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs” without trial. Furthermore, in Sec. 425.18, the Code covers SLAPPback suits, and allows them to be treated differently than ordinary malicious prosecution actions.
To protect free speech rights, the Florida statutes should be amended by adding three features found in the California law:
1 – Cover any SLAPP, not just government and homeowner associations.
2 – Provide for special motion to strike by defendant.
3 – Special consideration for SLAPPback counter-suits.
And perhaps something more to cover emotional pain and suffering.
If you believe the Florida anti-SLAPP law should be strengthened as noted, contact the following elected state officials. Ask them to support effective anti-SLAPP legislation.
Sen. Ken Pruitt: pruitt.ken.web@flsenate.gov
Local phone 772-344-1140
Rep. Gayle Harrell: Gayle.harrell@myfloridahouse.gov
Local phone 772-873-6500
Rep. William Snyder: snyder.william@myfloridahouse.gov
Local phone 772-221-4904
Al
Al Forman, Editor mc-defender@comcast.net 4/18/07
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 7
NEWS ITEM: Martin County Commissioners directed staff to prepare Comp Plan Amendment proposals for cluster developments. Critics see this as an end-run attempt to implement Glatting-Jackson pro-cluster recommendations that are widely opposed by residents concerned about sprawl.
Commissioners approve cluster-sprawl directive
In a 3-2 vote on April 17, the County Commission approved the following motion by Commissioner Susan Valliere: "I make a motion that we direct staff to prepare a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that reflects a policy that we put into place by our approval of the Atlantic Ridge project -- to make similar opportunities available, without guarantees, to other landowners who are willing to dedicate significant tracts of land for the public benefit in exchange for the clustering of additional dwelling units or transfer of development rights or other advantages on a portion of their property." [Color emphasis added.]Commissioners Smith and DiTerlizzi voted with Valliere in favor, Weberman and Heard opposed.
A quick scan of the motion seems innocent enough … until you examine the words carefully. "Similar opportunities" are in the eye of the pro-developer commissioners. Words like "same" or "identical" are nowhere to be found.
"Public benefit" is any little thing, not necessarily substantial.
"Additional dwelling units" – that’s the first poison pill. It allows significantly higher density, while Atlantic Ridge actually reduced density. "Additional dwelling units" is the essence of cluster-sprawl.
"Transfer of development rights or other advantages" is the second poison pill because it allows trading of insignificant land for great developer financial benefit.
Commission Sarah Heard saw through the slippery wordage. She said: "If you create a blanket amendment for anybody to cluster in western Martin County … we will have lots of little clusters popping up all over the place with perhaps no environmental benefit … The [Atlantic Ridge] Amendment was very specific. It would not have occurred unless it was in the Secondary Urban Service Boundary … some of it in the Primary. All services are available within a mile. If there are other projects that meet these criteria, they should come in and receive the same sort of scrutiny that Atlantic Ridge did."
"Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing"
Cluster-sprawl advocates disguise
their intent with nice words
CAST OF CHARACTERS WEARING SHEEPSKINS
* Pro-cluster Martin County Commissioners, who received generous campaign contributions from developers and their supporters.
* Too many rapacious developers, with a few notable exceptions such as the generous, public spirited Micha family of Atlantic Ridge fame.
* Those planners, brokers, lawyers, PR flack, contractors and others who feed at the developer trough.
* Large development-oriented landowners who have always paid negligible property taxes, instead of paying tax based on actual land value.
* Business boosting organizations that ignore the common good.
* Charlie McCarthy newspaper writers who sit on ventriloquist developer laps.
* Faux-environmentalists who twist conservation positions to fit in the same mold as those of developers.
WORDS USED AS SHEEPSKINS
The approach of the above cast of characters is to use innocent sounding code words designed to beguile citizens concerned about how cluster-sprawl will adversely affect taxes, traffic, schools and the environment. [See cluster-sprawl directive above.]
FAIRNESS is a favorite sheepskin word, used in the context of inviting other cluster development proposals after Atlantic Ridge. True fairness would require follow-up developers to comply with the same site specific requirements as Atlantic Ridge. That would be truly fair and equal. But the wolves are using "fairness" as cover to plop cluster-sprawl in rural lands, while making it easier for more developers to do so.
TOOLBOX or TOOLKIT sounds like a competent mechanic ready to fix your car. Well, fix it is, but not so helpful. It is the use of Comp Plan amendments as tools to allow developers to do what 82% of Martin County residents do not want – costly sprawl.
ACCOMMODATE GROWTH sounds like just being hospitable. Look under the sheepskin to see that it is the code for encouraging greater population density so Martin County can become as browardized as other counties. Developer thinking: "Build it and they will come."
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Speak up with e-mail! The time may come when we will all have to crowd into County Commission chambers to help those hard of hearing commissioners listen to what our citizens want. Right now, however, we can speak up without leaving the comfort of our keyboards.
E-mail letters to our two daily newspapers, letting all in our community know that any "tool" to implement Glatting-Jackson style clustering is unwelcome. Send copies to the Commissioners. Yes, we can accept limited clusters that follow the same criteria as those established in the Atlantic Ridge arrangement:
* Reduced density.
* Donation to state of a large tract of vitally needed adjacent environmental land (not a transfer right of some marginal distant land).
* Cluster construction next to the Urban Services Boundary.
Anything short of these three requirements is a sellout to developers!
HOW TO DO IT
Write a short e-mail letter, objecting to any clustering in rural lands. You may note any of the three necessary criteria above. You may choose to mention quality of life issues. You may wish to request that other developers do no less than was done for Atlantic Ridge. You may also want to note that citizens overwhelmingly do not want the Commission to follow Glatting-Jackson recommendations.
MOST IMPORTANT: Use your own words. Please do not simply cut and paste our words, though your re-phrasing the above concepts is good. Express your own individualistic view.
Send e-mail letters to:
tcnletters@scripps.com
letters@pbpost.com
Send e-mail copies to:
comish@martin.fl.us
*****
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve our quality of life in Martin County
*****
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send e-mail with "Subscribe" in the subject head, to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Your receipt of this issue indicates that you are already subscribed.
*****
Al
Al Forman, Editor 4/25/07
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 8
Dept. of Community Affairs
invites your comments
Let the state know what you think about Comp Plan changes that adversely affect our quality of life
Here is how the legal procedure works when the Martin County Board of County Commissioners decides to ignore citizens in order to give developers what they want. The County draws up Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and transmits them the Florida’s Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA must approve the amendments before they can take effect. The public is invited to send in their comments during the next 30 days. Then DCA has another 30 days to conduct its review and issue an Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC). To learn more, go to the DCA website: www.dca.state.fl.us. Click on Department Division and then Comprehensive Planning.
On April 19, 2007, Martin County sent DCA its first set of Comp Plan amendments. Two of them promote industrial use of land miles west of the Urban Services Boundary, off Martin Highway:
CPA 06-20 – Palm City Holdings FLUM (Future Land Use Map) amendment
CPA-07-11 – Seven J’s text amendment
The third proposed amendment authorizes construction that adversely affects a residential neighborhood in Jensen Beach:
CPA-06-19 – Pitchford’s Landing FLUM amendment
WHAT TO DO
E-mail! Phone! Fax! Write! Whatever suits your style! Just convey your thoughts to the right person in the right agency. [See below.]
Begin your letter or call with a request to the DCA that it review the amendments specifically noted above, and then issue objections in its ORC Report.
Identify yourself as an “affected person” who is a citizen of Martin County whose community (Palm City, Stuart or Jensen Beach) is directly impacted. You may state such specific reasons as water needs, air pollution near homes, and affecting a planned park when referring to the two industrial amendments.
In commenting on the Pitchford amendment, you may wish to express your views on such matters as change in community character, traffic congestion, and reduction of affordable housing land inventory.
The person to contact is Julie Evans at the Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100. Toll-free phone is 1-877-352-3222. Her supervisor, Bob Dennis, should get a copy. E-mails are:
Julie.evans@dca.state.fl.us
Bob.dennis@dca.state.fl.us
IMPORTANT DEADLINE
Your comments and objections must be received by DCA by May 23, 2007, the earlier the better.
Other agencies may also play a role, and are worth contacting:
Department of Environmental Protection
Attn: Jim Quinn, Environmental Manager
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 47
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Phone: 850-245-2163, FAX: 850-245-2190
e-mail: jim.quinn@dep.state.fl.us
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
Attn: Terry L. Hess, AICP, Planning Director
301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 300
Stuart, FL 34990
Phone: 772-221-4060, FAX: 772-221-4067
e-mail: thess@tcrpc.org
South Florida Water Management District
Attn: P.K. Sharma, Lead Planner
Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680
Phone: 561-682-6779, FAX: 561-681-6265
e-mail: psharma@sfwmd.gov
STATISTICS WORTH PONDERING
If you have ever wondered how slow-growth counties compare in taxes and school quality with fast-growth counties, consider these 2006 statistics:
Taxes
High end of property taxes per $1,000.00 of taxable value:
Slow-growth Martin County - $18.19
Fast-growth St. Lucie County - $26.65
School ratings
Slow-growth Martin County – Mostly A-rated, 6 B-rated
Fast-growth St. Lucie County – Few A-rated, Numerous C’s, few D’s
*****
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve our quality of life in Martin County
*****
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send e-mail with “Subscribe” in the subject head, to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
If you received this issue, you are already subscribed.
*****
Al
Al Forman, Editor 5/2/07
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 9
Development promoters disguised
as environmentalists
In Issue No. 7 of the Defender, we spoke of “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing,” people who put on a preservationist face to hide their pro-developer bias. In particular we noted “Business boosting organizations that ignore the common good [and] Faux-environmentalists who twist conservation positions to fit in the same mold as those of developers.”
No sooner had we noted this ploy than along comes the Economic Council of Martin County with a campaign series of expensive half-page ads in the Stuart News, and perhaps elsewhere as well. The ad calls the proposed Comp Plan Amendment, which would push cluster-sprawl housing into rural areas as – get this – “LAND PRESERVATION AMENDMENT”! The ad goes on to claim erroneously that the Amendment will “Limit growth forever … Save the St. Lucie River … Protect residents and taxpayers from unbridled sprawl and ‘Browardization” … etc.
What the ad does not say is that the Economic Council is a promotion arm of the development industry and other businesses. Membership is very expensive, but it must be worth every penny to members if that organization can pull off this metamorphosis from a sprawl-inducing development booster to fervent environmentalist devoted to “Preserving the Priceless Forever.” Violins …. and fadeout.
Property rights lawyers into the fray
We believe that property rights are one of the fundamental elements in a free society. However, it is not the only basic right. To remain a free society we must have a government that protects our health and safety. That means taxes and fees for police, fire-rescue, roads, utilities and the like. We would have anarchy if some thought they could opt out of funding basic societal needs. Yet that is just what some property rights radicals are claiming.
Take the Coalition for Property Rights out of Orlando. This organization, funded by the development industry, claims that “taxation is the expropriation of private property by government.”
Some extreme property rights advocates even think that government should not hinder a landowner from doing whatever he wants with his property irrespective of the impact to those nearby. The courts think otherwise. See our comment (*) on this subject from Issue No. 2 below.
Recently, a group of lawyers out of California, the Pacific Legal Foundation, opened an office in Stuart. This is a smarter and more formidable group than the one in Orlando. Sometimes they do a lot of good as advocates that stand up for constitutional rights. But they are also a business with a payroll, and if they don’t save their clients money, they will be out of business.
One Pacific endeavor of concern is the Unconstitutional Exactions Project. An exaction may be defined as a charge for a privilege or service. In their words, a primary target is the impact fee “regularly assessed against new residential and commercial development projects, ostensibly [Emphasis added] to cover the cost of providing water and sewer services, roads and bridges, schools and other public services and facilities. When the fees assessed exceed the impact of a particular project, the fees represent an unconstitutional taking of private property.”
So we can expect legal arguments claiming that various fees are excessive. Perhaps we should be looking at fees that are inadequate to cover infrastructure costs caused by development. Any impact fees that Pacific Legal can cut to increase developer profits means higher payments must come from county taxpayers.
* From The Martin County Defender, Issue No. 2:
The property rights flimflam
Look, says the fast-growth developer or his political pal, when you own a piece of property, shouldn’t you have the right to do what you want with it? That’s an argument that resonates … until you think about it more carefully. Suppose I own a lot next to your house. Should I have the right to build a slaughterhouse, or even a gas station, next to where your family lives? Oh, so property rights have their limitations, thankfully. We all live in a county that provides schools, roads, libraries, fire rescue and police protection that our taxes pay for. And that covers my property rights as well as yours.
Property rights limitations have been challenged in court. Inevitably, the courts reject the contention that counties must change their zoning to accommodate more development. In Martin County v. Section 28 Partnership Ltd., the Fourth District Court of Appeals found that “the record contains sufficient evidence establishing that the County’s comprehensive policies are based on rational and sound planning principles, designed to preserve agricultural lands, protect wetlands and environmental resources, ensure the efficient use of public resources and discourage urban sprawl.”
Going even further, in Lee County v. Morales, the Second District Court of Appeals held that substantial reduction of allowable density was legal. A land owner is not guaranteed the most profitable use of his land, but simply some use that can be economically carried out. Similarly, in Glisson v. Alachua County, the First District Court of Appeals held that county mandated density reductions from one unit per acre to one unit per five acres was legal.
Commission and Army Corps get it right
After so many years, with water from Lake Okeechobee polluting the St. Lucie River, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has come up with a viable corrective plan. It is planning a flow-way for the lake water to travel south into the Everglades. The Martin County Board of Commissioners unanimously endorsed the project, known as Plan Six. Rivers Coalition supporters were very pleased. It will still take time, years in fact, to acquire the 140,000 acres needed.
When government and citizens agree on what should be built, there is harmony. A good example was the Atlantic Ridge development, and now Plan Six. When the people and elected officials do not agree – as is the case in the Commission-proposed Comp Plan Amendment to encourage cluster-sprawl in rural lands – then it is best for officials to support what their constituents want. Commissioners were not elected to fight the voters.
*****
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve our quality of life in Martin County
*****
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send e-mail with “Subscribe” in the subject head, to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
If you received this issue, you are already subscribed.
*****
Al
Al Forman, Editor 5/5/07
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 10
Are officials trying to force greater density?
“I’ve never seen that happen before” – Comment by longtime developer
The Renar Riverplace dispute between developer and residents is too well known to rehash all the details. Simply stated, Renar correctly claims it received necessary approvals for what opponents say is a traffic hazard and eyesore out of character for the neighborhood. The Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) that approved the project in the Community Development Area (CRA) is dominated by businesses. Nearby residents are barred from serving on the NAC.
Unlike the nasty antagonism prompted by the Pitchford’s Landing development, developers and neighborhood grassroots groups showed they can work together for the common good. Renar’s Arden Doss and Jensen Beach Group’s Tom Fullman met and worked out a mutually beneficial compromise that is fair to all. The informal agreement stated that density would be cut back by building fewer condos in the still undeveloped north parcel. The community theater would still be built, but the massive parking garage would be replaced by a parking lot.
That is when reports surfaced that some pro-developer county commissioners and NAC and C of C members were opposed to the lower density. They were said to actually want the greater density in the original plan!
So after stating the basic issue, we asked a simple question of four people in authority, Commissioners Doug Smith and Michael DiTerlizzi, Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Ron Rose, and NAC Chairman Ken DeAngelis. We inquired:
“Renar Riverplace executive Arden Doss recently agreed informally with leaders of the Jensen Beach Group to reduce density in the north parcel by replacing the proposed garage building with lot parking, and eliminating other buildings. This is a harmonious outcome for differences between the developer and Jensen Beach residents.
“Do you favor or oppose this change? And why?”
We’ve received no reply. It looks like those four gentlemen oppose the change to lower density, but do not want to publicize their views. They are pro-development at any cost.
IF YOU CARE ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE, SUPPORT LOWER DENSITY!
Al
Al Forman, Editor