Defender NO.61-65

As we enjoy the fireworks and picnics on this Fourth of July, let’s also remember that we enjoy the fruits of liberty because of the courage and determination of ordinary citizens 232 years ago.

July Fourth Celebration, Friday, 4:00 pm, Flagler Park, 201 SW Flagler Ave., Stuart. Various music, games, clowns and pony rides. Band concert 7:30 pm. FIREWORKS at 9:00 pm. Free. Information: 772-286-2848.
In Indiantown, Timer Powers Park on Friday night.

[ Editor’s Favorite Reader Comment: Sent by classy commissioner candidate about whom I said, reluctantly, that I would not vote for him ]
“Although I do not agree with your conclusions, I feel that you were fair enough with the facts. Keep up the good work.”

“Insightful analysis as always. Not too many surprises, other than your reluctant endorsement of Patrick Hayes. I thought you might be more expressively supportive of him in the primary.”

“I can't thank you enough for this information. You nailed the questions that I was intending to ask.”

“I respect your recommendations but wholeheartedly disagree with your analysis of the candidates. You're spot on with Fullman though.”

“My thanks for straightening me out on the primary situation. I am a registered Democrat, but I want Henry to win.”

“As always I appreciate your information. I'm taking your suggestion and re-registering from "no affiliation" to "republican" for the primary. NO MORE 2004!!!”

“The editor is excellent and consistent in his fair evaluation of the issues. This one seemed particularly meaningful at the present time.”

“Even though I cannot vote I would like to contribute to your candidates.”

“I am voting for Doug Smith and Lee Weberman. Incumbency can be an asset and is not a valid reason not to vote for a candidate.”

“Thank you for all your most informative messages. I printed out copies for my friends who do not have a computer in order for them to be more informed voters on Election Day.”

“Keep up the good work, I enjoy your newsletters (as egregiously dogmatizing as they are at times).”

“I can not believe that I never thought about changing parties, so I could vote in the primaries and then just change back to an independent.“

“My sincere thanks for your insightful assessment of the commissioner candidates. Martin County residents are in your debt for such fine work.”

[ Editor’s Least Favorite Reader Comments ]
“Please remove my name from your list.” “Unsubscribe me.”
[ Editor’s Note: Done. I respect anyone’s right to remain uninformed (;-) ]

TO VOTE IN THE PRIMARY FOR THE TWO COMMISSION CANDIDATES MOST DEDICATED TO PRESERVING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE
– REPUBLICANS COPELAND AND POLLACK –
YOU MUST SWITCH PARTIES (AT LEAST TEMPORARILY) BY JULY 28.

It’s easy. 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: Supervisor of Elections, P.O. Box 1257, Stuart, Fl 34995. Any questions? The Supervisor of Elections Office at 772-288-5637 is always very nice and helpful.

July 16, 2008 at 11:00 am. County commission candidates. Sandhill Cove, Palm City. Sponsored by Palm City Chamber of Commerce and Economic Council.

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.

July 23, 2008 at 600 pm. County commission candidates. Indian RiverSide Park, Jensen Beach. “So Why Vote?” theme focuses on young people. Sponsored by Future Group and Young Professionals.

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. Blake Library. Sponsored by League of Women Voters.

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

IT MATTERS BECAUSE LEGISLATORS TOO OFTEN THWART THE WILL OF RESIDENTS IN ORDER TO BENEFIT THEIR PAY-TO-PLAY SUPPORTERS

State Representative District 81 is shaped like a Gerrymandersaurus. The neck starts in Indiantown, the head is in Port St. Lucie, the nose is at Jensen Beach and Sewall’s Point, and the open jaw is at I-95 west of Palm City.

Stuart down to Tequesta and west are in uncontested District 82. It has no primary for Democrat Catherine Hilton and incumbent Republican William Snyder.

However, in District 81 both Republicans and Democrats face primaries. Here is a quick once-over of the candidates in District 81.

Michael DiTerlizzi is the heavy favorite here …. unfortunately. He has name recognition and a campaign chest overflowing with large donations, totaling over $54,000 as of 3/31/08. His dominant contributors are from the real estate and development sector, plus attorneys who have appeared before him when he was sitting as a commissioner. The attorneys plead for zoning and Comp Plan changes to benefit their clients, and DiTerlizzi has usually been agreeable. The State House of Representatives is loaded with such reps (eg., they turned down DCA Secretary Tom Pelham’s plea for even a minimal Citizen’s Bill of Rights because the developer-business interests did not want it). Do we need to send one more of that brand to Tallahassee?

Jeff Gorman has a campaign bank account as thin as a supermodel. He does not answer written questions, so we don’t know much about him.

Danny "Dr. J" Jazarevic is a surgeon living in Stuart. He has a highly respected history of army and public service. Unfortunately he has a thin campaign bank account at this date. Still he is a better candidate than DiTerlizzi.

Bill Ramos, a Jensen Beach resident who works in Martin County, is the people’s candidate. He ran previously for state rep, and lost, but not by much. His campaign treasury of about $9,000 as of 3/31/08 is made up almost entirely of small contributions, typically $10 or $50, from ordinary local citizens – not the smart money boys. People are anxious to have their voices heard in Tallahassee, heard over the deafening whispers of overpaid lobbyists. Ramos deserves our votes.

Adam Fetterman, a politically well-connected personal injury lawyer, is the lawyer’s candidate. Much of the more than $72,000 contributed to his campaign by 3/31/08 has come from other lawyers in $500 gobs, very little of it from Martin County. Big bucks from Palm Beach and Broward Counties. He lists his address as Port St. Lucie to qualify in District 81, but an online address search indicates he really lives in Palm Beach County. Lawyer-representative inspired liability and other laws often burden ordinary citizens and businesses. Let’s not add to that mess by sending Fetterman to the legislature.

Green Party candidate Kristina Wright is also running. FYI: Presidential candidate of the Green Party is expected to be hatred-filled former US rep Cynthia McKinney.

NOTE: The next candidate campaign report, covering contributions to 7/18/08, is due on 7/25/08.

July 28 is the last day to change your party affiliation in order to vote in the primary. In DEFENDER Issues 60 and 61, we showed how easy it is to switch temporarily from Independent or Democrat to Republican. It’s worth doing for this primary election. Any voting questions, call the Supervisor of Elections at (772) 288-5637. They are very helpful. It’s not that I don’t like Democrats – on the contrary I plan to vote for Democrats Bill Ramos and Martha Bennett in the general election.

However, one Republican candidate in Commission District 1 (Henry Copeland) and one in District 5 (Ian Pollack) have the best chance to win against developer-funded opponents. They have the widest backing. Their victories would get the Commission off the bad track of eroding our wonderful Comp Plan, allowing monstrous warehouses next to homes, and promoting rural clustering to benefit developers and large landowners, while citizens pick up the extra infrastructure tax burden.

Victories by Copeland and Pollack will allow county government to focus on quality of life issues that affect all residents. Let’s not split the good-guy vote as we did so self-destructively four years ago. This is a subtle hint to two good, but not likely to win, candidates: Hockey and Born.

Many folks have been hard hit by the economic slowdown, including a home foreclosure and declining businesses owned by people close to me. It’s a painful national problem. One little county can not turn it around instantly any more than one person on a beach can hold back the tide. Certainly shifting the financial burden to present residents to bring in new business is not the answer. And giving away the protections that have made Martin County such a desirable place to live is surely not a solution.

Shouting jobs-jobs-jobs as justification to Browardize Martin is worse than foolish. Developer-influenced Commissioner Michael DiTerlizzi has even stated on the record that jobs are more important than pollution! Cough cough. This is a time that slow-growth and fast-growth advocates should be working together cooperatively to help present residents and businesses, while preserving our quality of life.

It is tempting to some to make it sound like Martin County is a basket case in order to convince us that we should adopt changes that benefit their own self interest. Don’t be misled. Martin County has the highest wages in Florida for counties our size, and the highest on the Treasure Coast. We have lower unemployment (5.6%) than St. Lucie County (7.6%) and Indian River County (7.2%). We have one of the best school systems in the entire state. Our crime rate is low, and western sprawl has (so far) been avoided.

Furthermore, manufacturing jobs in Martin are higher, as a percentage of all jobs, than St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties, as well as higher than the state average. And our tax millage rate of 13.5892 is a better business attractor than the 19.2848 in fast-growth St. Lucie County (plus 4.2625 for the City of Port St. Lucie - for a total 23.5473 that is 73% higher than Martin County).

The clincher is the recent finding by business-oriented Forbes magazine, which studied every county in the U.S. with more than 65,000 population. It found that Martin County is the 11th best county in the nation to raise a family! The only other Florida county to be listed is Sarasota in19th place. Why the heck would some people want to change our growth/economic model from one of the best in the nation? Well maybe we do know why. Wink wink.

So it would be wise to ignore those who badmouth Martin’s economy for their own purposes. Instead of pushing a selfish agenda of change, let’s come together in a constructive way to find how we can do, at least something, to make matters better without ruining our future.

Rocky Point resident Jay Honan reports that a potential homebuyer in Connecticut wants to speak to him about the effect of a giant Hinckley warehouse to be built next to neighborhood homes. Will this drive down those home sale prices? You can bet the farm it will. We can thank Commissioners Smith, DiTerlizzi and Weberman for this financial disaster. They voted to approve the warehouse even though a mountain of evidence showed that they shouldn’t. Why did they do so? You get one gue$$

Loudon County, VA supervisors have voted overwhelmingly to bar themselves from accepting campaign contributions from builders and others with proposals before their board. It is part of a broad effort to restore public confidence in a body that some have viewed as too close to the development community, according to a Washington Post report.

Loudon Supervisor Lori Waters (R) said it was a necessary step even though it would put incumbents at a disadvantage when running for reelection against challengers without such limitations.

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 7/14/08

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.

Florida’s Sunshine Law (Statute 286.011) allows exemptions from the requirement that officials must meet openly in public. One such exemption permits Martin County commissioners to meet in private with County attorneys to obtain legal advice.

On Nov. 27, 2007, Commissioners Doug Smith, Lee Weberman, Michael DiTerlizzi, Susan Valliere and Sarah Heard met in executive session with County Administrator Duncan Ballantyne, County Attorney Stephen Frey, and Assistant County Attorney David Acton. Court reporter Deanne Morris prepared a verbatim transcript of this discussion, which was closed to the public.

The subject of the meeting was an amendment passed by the Commission and approved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The focus was on highway interchange areas that had previously allowed for services just to transient motorists. The amendment provided for an overlay called the Exchange Oriented Research and Biotech (EORB) zone. In particular, the discussion centered around a legal challenge to the amendment filed by attorney Virginia Sherlock on behalf of Donna Melzer and (your editor) Al Forman.

Now that the commission has repealed their amendment to avoid having a judge or state agency repeal it for them, the 32-page transcript has become public record.

I initially spoke before the Commission against the EORB amendment when applicant Don Cuozzo of developer-planner Houston Cuozzo presented it. I did so because the amendment would set up an industrial spot zone far outside the Urban Service Boundary (USB), allowing risky biochemical manufacturing next to my residential community. This was reported in Defender Issue No. 4 of 4/5/07 in the article, “Case History – How commissioners and developers worked together to undermine the Comp Plan and foster industrial sprawl.”

I have woven my interpretive comments (in regular type) with those portions taken verbatim from the transcript and printed in underlined italics so readers can better understand the meaning of the transcript quotes below.

[ EDITOR’S NOTE: The EORB amendment was on shaky legal ground from the start, but the Commission majority plunged ahead with it. Because of our legal case, the Commission was facing a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who would rule on our complaint. The ALJ could, in effect, throw out the amendment if he found that Melzer and Forman were legally right and the Commission wrong.]

MR. ACTON: The existing plan has some inconsistencies which I’m sure – fairly sure the administration hearing officer will not look favorably on and therefore we face a very real possibility in this case of having the Department’s [DCA] determination reversed. In fact, when this becomes evident to the Department, they may be the ones who are telling us they’re going to back off on their in-compliance finding --- So we have a problem in prevailing in this hearing.

COMMISSIONER WEBERMAN: Refresh my memory. Wasn’t this originally a privately submitted comp plan amendment? --- Has the applicant themselves been briefed on these facts?

COMMISSIONER WEBERMAN: Okay. Is it appropriate to ask what their sense is or is not – should it just be our decision?

MR. FRY: Yes. And the applicant’s opinion was that the County shouldn’t settle, that they don’t want to have to wait for the comprehensive plan amendment in order to be able to proceed with the use of the property or the expressway oriented easement.

[EDITOR’S NOTE] Though EORB was a privately submitted application rather than a County proposal, the County paid $5,000 in taxpayer dollars to re-do the inadequate privately sponsored traffic study.]

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The legal thinking goes something like this: The EORB amendment is screwed up, but we can accomplish the same goal for the developer by doing a work-around “review” to jiggle the Comp Plan.]

MR. ACTON: What I’ve outlined for you is why I don’t want to have a hearing in this case if we can. It creates problems we don’t need to address right now, especially since you are in the process administratively of going through the review of the comprehensive plan….So we have a mechanism for addressing the problem in the very near future.

COMMISSIONER DITERLIZZI: Mr. Forman is clearly on record as saying I [he] don’t want those polluting businesses in my backyard. I’m sorry. I have a little different philosophy as far as bringing industry to market.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Complainants Melzer and Forman offered a reasonable settlement that would end the dispute and protect all citizens. The Commission ended up killing the amendment rather than giving the public more influence.]

MR. FRY: I personally didn’t get the impression that the Board is interested in settling on the terms that were provided.

COMMISSIONER HEARD: For the record, I think that we should accept the settlement agreement. I think that you’re just going to find yourself in more hot water than you want to be in. But that’s your discretion.”

[EDITOR’S QUERY FOR READERS: Do these transcript excerpts suggest that the commission majority is looking out more for the interests of developers or the interests of residents?]

On July 10. 2008, the Stuart News editorial board conducted a lengthy two-part interview with District 1 Republican commission candidates Doug Smith and Henry Copeland. The relaxed, conversational interview brought out the abilities and differences of these two articulate men. The contrast was dramatic.

It was very evident that one of the two had a far superior understanding of the issues, a clearer insight of what should be done, and a much better approach to making the Commission a more effective and responsive body. Irrespective of one’s political views, any reasonable person should recognize the significant difference between them, and conclude which would make a better commissioner. See for yourself. Go to:

It’s not very often that a newspaper refuses to endorse either of two candidates in a primary election, but that is what has happened in the District 1 County Commission race after the editors did research and conducted personal interviews.

On July 15, 2008, the Stuart News stated: “After meeting with Brent and Fullman, the editorial board of Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers has decided not to endorse either of the Democratic candidates in the District 1 primary. Neither Brent or Fullman appears to possess the qualities required of a commissioner …. Neither candidate, at this point, is qualified to hold a position of this magnitude.””

Following up our exposé of the inner workings of the Martin County Consensus, Inc. in Defender Issue No. 55, readers have inquired about what that group has been doing. The concise answer is: Not very much.

My last involvement with their meetings was the one held in the Blake Library’s John F. Armstrong Wing on Dec. 3, 2007. I arranged for the speaker and did most of the promotion. We had a full house, wall to wall audience.

In March 2008, Consensus, Inc. sponsored a lunch which – to use their words – was “at an undisclosed location … by invitation only.”

On July 14, 2008. they were back at the Blake’s 250-seat Armstrong Wing. Consensus, Inc. promoted the meeting and its speaker in the newspaper and elsewhere. Only about 50 attendees showed up.

This decline in both public event frequency and attendance have come about under the Consensus, Inc.’s exclusionary leadership: President Bill Summers and recently resigned Chairman Tom Fullman, and their self-appointed board.

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 7/19/08

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Martin County

Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 64

$$$$$ for commission candidates involved in primary races

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION / (-EXPENDITURE) TOTALS AS OF 7/18/08

District 1

Doug Smith (R) – $108,191 / (-$55,217)

Henry Copeland (R) - $49,962 / (-$15,955)

Tom Fullman (D) - $5,727 / (-$3,634)

Eric Brent (D) - $4,590 / (-$4,516)

District 3

Lee Weberman (R) - $101,505 / (-$70,127)

Patrick Hayes (R) - $16,550 / (-$6,698)

District 5

Ian Pollack (R) - $51,510 / (-$11,631)

Edward Ciampi (R) - $47,129 / (-$23,191)

John Born (R) - $6,700 / (-$7,887)

John Hockey (R) – $5,314 / (-$13,055)

[Editor's Personal Note to Pollack, Born and Hockey: You are all wise enough to know that your campaign can not be won with only a pittance of funding. It's fine to present your positions in person at forums, but it takes money to reach the 49,000 other Republican voters not in attendance. Since so many of your views are similar – especially preventing western rural lands from being spotted dark with cluster housing – it would be heroic for you to support, for the good of the county, one candidate capable of winning.]

Analysis of largest campaign treasuries

Are developer-related interests trying to buy the election? Let's examine the make-up of the contributions. The numbers will speak for themselves.

Doug Smith in District 1 had 388 contributors, of which 38% gave the maximum allowed of $500, 25% gave $200 to $499, and 37% gave under $200. Of the $500 donors, at least 44% were developer or real estate related. This includes such occupational titles as contractor, realtor, property management, land planner, architect, etc. Undoubtedly the number actually development-connected is higher, but it is not possible to determine by title alone if, say, an attorney or investor is deeply involved in development. Most of the $55,217 paid out is for forthcoming newspaper and direct mail ads.

Lee Weberman in District 3 had 295 contributors, of which 53% gave the maximum allowed of $500, 28% gave $200 to $499, and only 19% gave under $200. Of the $500 donors, at least 42% were developer or real estate related. This includes such occupational titles as contractor, realtor, property management, land planner, architect, etc. Undoubtedly the number actually development-connected is higher. Most of the $70,127 paid out is for a big TV ad campaign later.

Ian Pollack in District 5 had 231 contributors, of which 27% gave $500, 21% gave $200 to $499, and a majority of 52% gave under $200. None of the $500 donors had a recognizable connection with development.

Henry Copeland in District 1 had 237 contributors, of which 26% gave $500, 22% gave $200 to $499, and a majority of 52% gave under $200. None of the $500 donors had a recognizable connection with development.

Edward Ciampi in District 5 had 195 contributors, of which 38% gave the maximum allowed of $500, 14% gave $200 to $499, and 48% gave under $200. Of the $500 donors, at least 12% were developer or real estate related.

Rating the Stuart News

THEY GET MOSTLY "A", BUT ONE DISAPPOINTING "F"

Diverse Views: Few newspapers present as wide a range of viewpoints as the News. There is hardly a belief or attitude that you can not find in the columns (including staff columnists), letters and online blog. Rating A. Wide scope of online election content also earns an A.

Reader Access: The thoughtful and the idiotic all get a chance to express themselves in print and online. The News is almost unique here in the number of reader guest columns they run, covering many important topics. Rating A.

Political Endorsements: This is less than perfect. The News picks up an easy A when it endorses someone like Laurel Kelly, who has been doing a fine job as Tax Assessor for many years. The News also has been bold and wise in refusing to endorse either candidate when one may be only a little less-bad. Some party stalwarts may say you are obligated to endorse, but your primary obligation is to tell the truth. So another A for not endorsing either Eric Brent or Tom Fullman in District 1.

To show how fair they are, the editorial board even videotapes endorsement interviews, and shows them on their website. A reader should be able to see why the editorial board supports a candidate. That's brave.

Unfortunately, in the case of the endorsement of District 1 Republican candidate Doug Smith, they let preconceived bias make their decision instead of the interview answers. Watch the video and compare Henry Copeland's sharp, understandable replies with Smith's vague mumbles, late arrival and disconcerting body language.

Any objective person watching the video clearly saw that it was Copeland who, by far, had a superior understanding of the issues, a clearer insight of what should be done, and a much better approach to making the Commission a more effective and responsive body. The News endorsement editorial almost implied as much.

It almost seems as if the criterion for endorsement requires adopting the business boosting positions held by the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Council. No fair. Some of the views of those organizations are excellent, but other positions would benefit their members primarily, and place burdens on residents. So Copeland didn't pass that filter, and did not get the endorsement that his interview deserved. Endorsing Smith makes other more sensible endorsements less credible. Regrettable rating F.

STUART NEWS DISTRICT 1 REPUBLICAN POLL

The newspaper's online poll of reader voting preference makes no claim to being scientific, but its results are interesting food for thought. As of July 25, 286 votes had been cast as follows for the candidates:

Henry Copeland – 58%

Doug Smith – 39%

Undecided – 1%

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

The Defender's website is up and running, though still under construction. It contains an archive of all past issues. Attached to this Issue No. 64 is a copy of our website Home Page in pdf format. It is worth saving because, in addition to the archive link, it has the links to 20 websites containing much useful information related to Martin County. (To open a pdf file, the very widely used Adobe Acrobat Reader is needed. Latest version 9 may be downloaded free at www.Adobe.com.)

+++++

•••NO MORE 2004•••

+++++

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

mc-defender@comcast.net

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

Al Forman, Editor 7/28/08

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Martin County

Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 65

Who owns Martin County ’s land?

Defender DOES SOME NUMBER CRUNCHING

Martin County encompasses 355,705 acres of land and 126,215 acres of water. There are 87 owners of large tracts of land, those over 500 acres. 78 of them are private individuals or corporations according to the records of the Tax Assessor. 9 are government bodies or quasi-public institutions. It may be recalled that 500 acres was the minimum size to qualify for the benefits of clustering under the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment to the Comp Plan.

The top 16 owners, accounting for 168,904 acres, include:

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) – 55,374 acres

State of Florida – 27,115 acres

Carlos Garcia-Velez – 12,611 acres

Florida Power & Light – 11,800 acres

Tesoro Groves Ltd Partnership – 11,448 acres

Bull Hammock Ranch Ltd – 6,727 acres

Martin County – 6,394 acres

St. Lucie River Co. Ltd – 5,835 acres

Charles M. Armstrong – 5,738 acres

Groves 14 LLC – 4,170 acres

St. Lucie Partners LLC – 3,899 acres

Turtle Beach Ltd – 3,697 acres

Shadow Lake Groves, Inc – 3,635 acres

Caulkins Citrus Co. Ltd – 3,587 acres

Camayen Cattle Co. – 3,551 acres

Becker Holding Corp. – 3,323 acres

Excluding the three government bodies (SFWMD, state and county), the top 13 private landowners account for 80,021 acres, or 22.5%% of the county’s land. The balance of other private 500-acre-plus ownership totals 77,960 acres. Thus the grand total of private 500-plus ownership is 157,981 acres, or 44.4% of Martin’s total land area – almost all of it a prospect for sprawling cluster housing unless the Valliere amendment is rescinded.

Do Chamber members support scuzzy flier?

The widely reported distribution of a fear-mongering political flier by Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce Exec Director Ron Rose may end up as a complaint filed with the Florida Election Commission. Rose has refused to name the source of the fliers. The handbill’s intent was clearly to scare people into voting against specifically named commission candidates. In bush-league style, it told voters “to be very afraid” of these candidates and their supporters. This is very different from just disagreeing on policy.

The flier was anonymous, probably a violation of election law that requires a disclaimer notification. It will be of legal interest if any Chamber resources were used (including man-hours for an exec expected to attend such events), the quantity printed, and the paid distribution by one or more persons hired for this purpose.

Chamber members should ask themselves two questions:

Would you personally have distributed such a flier?

The flier has had the backlash effect of provoking anti-business sentiment at a time when the economic downturn needs stronger public support for local business. Therefore –

Do you think it was appropriate for Mr. Rose to distribute that flier?

The integrity of the business community may rest on how Chamber members answer … and what they do about it.

ATTENTION VOTERS

When you see those costly ads

and mailings by commission

candidate Doug Smith, remember:

YOU ARE LOOKING AT

DEVELOPER-CONNECTED MONEY

A hilarious spoof of wasted tax money

In case you missed the jovial column by St. Pete Times writer Howard Troxler in the Stuart News, here are the highlights of his skewering the idea that it’s wise to spend tens of millions of dollars of tax money as incentive to get (maybe) a hundred jobs from new businesses. Troxler proposes a business that would do the following with the multi-million corporate welfare giveaway:

* For $30 million, he guarantees to create 100 new jobs paying $100,000/yr.

* The jobs will last at least three years.

* Al l jobs will be filled by the local work force.

* Al l purchasing will occur here.

* Every dollar spent will have a multiplier effect.

His “incentive” proposal is to hire 100 people to sit around and drink beer!

It’s a better deal for taxpayers than what we’ve seen in some counties. The government does not have to build roads or any other infrastructure. It does not have to create any tax breaks, increase resident taxes, or hire more staff. And the plan directly benefits good citizens looking for work instead of luring out-of-state prosperous companies that bring in their own high paid senior staff.

Make mine a Bud, please (;-)

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Incentive plans are not a substitute for the good idea of helping companies already here.)

+++++

•••NO MORE 2004•••

+++++

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mc-defender@comcast.net

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

Al Forman, Editor 8/1/08

The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828 , Palm City , FL 34991 . Al l 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: Al l correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

___________________________________________________________________________________________

The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 66

Stuart News screws up – again

ENDORSEMENTS REFLECT SHORT-SIGHTED BIAS

The Stuart News is a remarkable newspaper. Some may consider it a touch schizoid. Normally it sails along in the finest tradition of journalism, not only presenting excellent news reports, but also opening its pages and blog to a wide array of different viewpoints. We are fortunate to have a local daily that allows its severe critics to use its pages to lambaste the paper itself. Bravo!

However, when it comes to endorsing political candidates, an unhealthy different personality emerges. The interviews with candidates, and an examination of their records, seem to mean nothing. The editorial board’s mind is apparently already made up, coinciding with the views of some private organizations that work for the selfish interests of their members.

Some residents claim that the endorsements reflect the financial self-interest agenda of the News. That is, faster growth candidates will convert to more readers and more advertising dollars. I don’t think so. I think it’s simply their sincere but misguided adoption of the inverted and discredited old view: What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.

Endorsements for Districts 1 & 5 prove the point

First came the endorsement for Commission District 1. The paper made it possible for readers to view online the interviews of Republicans Doug Smith and Henry Copeland. The contrast between the two was striking. More important than coming in late for the interview and some bad slouching body language, Smith’s answers were often mumbled, vague or evasive. Copeland’s replies were clear, constructive and insightful. So, to further its business organization agenda, the News endorsed Smith!

Hard on the heels of that fiasco, their editorial board considered the four Republican candidates in District 5. There were three good candidates truly concerned with the quality of life in the county, men who had spoken up publicly for some time on key issues. I think Ian Pollack had done so most effectively and for the longest time. A fourth Republican candidate, Ed Ciampi, thinks that our river and estuary are “pristine,” not surprising from someone who is a big booster of Big Sugar. Ciampi supports rural clustering. His views, ranging from angry to vague, did apparently have one over-riding saving grace for the editorial board: They parrot the positions of some business organizations. So on the very day that a reader guest column stated “I would hope that the paper’s endorsement for the District 5 race is not a foregone conclusion,” the News showed it was indeed a foregone conclusion. It endorsed Ciampi.

In the interest of honest communication, I urge the editors to post the following notice outside its interview room when speaking to Commission candidates opposing fast growth changes to the Comp Plan:

***
IF YOU HAVE NOT ADOPTED THE POSITIONS OF THE

ECONOMIC COUNCIL AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

DO NOT WASTE OUR TIME TRYING TO PERSUADE

THE NEWS EDITORS TO ENDORSE YOU!

***
However, when the question is not local fast growth, but rather understanding of other issues, sanity returns to the editorial board. For example, with the News Democratic endorsement for state rep District 81, the paper wisely endorsed Bill Ramos over his opponent who is flush with an $89,786 bankroll – hardly any of the contributions from Martin County.

The Commission gift to developers is primed to explode in their faces

Would you like a gift with a bomb attached? That’s what two developers would get if they start pouring money into a system for utility water and sewer. The developments are outside the Primary Urban Services Boundary, and thus not consistent with the Comp Plan.

I hope that before supporters of Commissioners Smith, DiTerlizzi, Valliere and Weberman tell me that the Developer’s Elected Quartet knows what it’s doing, consider that it is not just my opinion. It is the conclusion of the Growth Management Department staff and the County Attorney.

County Attorney Steve Fry said: “If the Board were sued over this matter ... I think the likelihood would be that we would not be successful.” HERE’S THE BOMB: “And any improvements done would be subject to a Pinecrest Lakes type remedy." (For newcomers, a somewhat similar scenario of Commissioners ignoring the law some years ago led to tearing down a new, occupied apartment building under court order.)

Judge Larry Schack – we need you back here in Martin County!

Firefighter contract “giveback” a ripoff

COUNTY DIGS A DEEPER FINANCIAL HOLE AS COMMISSIONERS PANDER FOR UNION VOTES

NON-NEGOTIATED SWEETHEART DEAL GETS THUMBS DOWN FROM TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION

In 2006, the Commission signed an overly generous 3-year contract with the firefighters union (IAFF). Many of their non-managerial members earn over $100,000/yr. Recognizing that contract renewal next y ear would be tough in a budget cutting period, IAFF offered to forgo half of their 10% annual raise due in October 2008.

However, the strings attached to this supposed concession would eventually cost more than would be saved. The amended contract approved on August 5, 2008 by Commissioners Smith, Weberman, DiTerlizzi and Valliere, under the claim of public safety, would extend 5% annual increases to 2011 whether we have the money or not.

Furthermore, the base pay of, say a firefighter/paramedic that goes up to $85,370, is just a starting point. The overtime, bonuses and retirement boost it considerably. And there are numerous “plus-ups,” 5% more for becoming a field training officer, 10% more for a promotion, and so on.

The Martin County Taxpayers Association has strongly urged against acceptance of this union initiative. To quote some highlights of their report:

“Not only are these [IAFF] policies unsustainable for their 290+ personnel, they cause serious management problems for all County supervisors …The Sheriff had to reduce his staff by 36 to meet his reduced budget for 2009 …this agreement also mandates hiring 9 more Fire/EMS personnel, 2 more administrative employees, buying new equipment. This severely reduces even the short-term gain from the ‘give-back’ and will drastically increase longer-term cost.

“With a $25 million shortfall in County revenue, over 100 County employees laid off … why is this contract extension being negotiated in ‘executive session’? Why are additional management prerogatives being given away? The short answer to both is that our Commissioners insist on acting as the County’s negotiators during an election year – while they are running for office.”

Only Commissioner Sarah Heard had the sense of responsibility to all Martin residents to vote against this Sweetheart Deal.

Random Musings …..

..... Even a little wit or humor in the political fray is welcome. At the Palm City forum for District 1 Commission candidates, Doug Smith did not show up. Well, it does take courage to be in front of an audience that is not your cheering squad. Henry Copeland put his hand on the chair reserved for Smith, and said with an impish grin: “I’m going to take his seat.” Good laugh from the crowd.

….. At that same forum, one candidate was off on a rousing I’ll-do-this, and believe-me-I’ll-do-that yada-yada harangue. He may have thought he was presenting as a powerful advocate. One observer quipped that he sounded like that pitchman in the TV commercial. Ah, if only we could see ourselves as others see us.

….. In Doug Smith’s TV commercial, he takes credit for slow growth in Martin County. Considering his slavish obeisance to developer proposals, I was perplexed for a moment by this nervy claim. Then, as a fan of SpongeBob, I realized that today must be Opposite Day.

….. Defender No. 63 exposed verbatim statements made in a closed door Commission Executive Session. Commissioner Weberman is very unhappy that such meetings are not kept secret forever, instead of just until the matter at hand is settled. Yep, it’s that #@$%*& Sunshine Law that lets citizens compare what is said privately with what is said publicly. (For the etymologically inclined, the #@$%*& cartoon substitute for cussing is called a grawlix.)

•••NO MORE 2004•••

+++++

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mc-defender@comcast.net

Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 8/7/08

All previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
www.MartinCountyDefender.com