The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 67
Why it’s time for a change
VOTING FOR BETTER COMMISSIONERS IN THE PRIMARY WILL PRESERVE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE
Martin County has been ruled for the past eight years by a coalition of commissioners whose actions are guided by developer-related special interests that contribute generously to their political campaigns. [See Issue No. 64 for financial details.] Too many of the actions of this Commission majority are contrary to the best interests and desires of most residents.
Here are some examples of their disregard for our quality of life and the future of Martin County:
Comp Plan and zone changes: Over the years, these commissioners have approved hundreds of Comp Plan changes, zoning changes, land use changes, and ordinances that erode the legal structure that has allowed Martin County to remain the wonderful place to live that we want to preserve. Those actions have primarily benefited developer related interests.
Wasteful management: This dominant commission group has allowed county staffing to greatly exceed population growth, have pandered for votes by approving an unreasonably costly labor contract, and wasted a fortune on consultant contracts that were either not needed or outright harmful. Now we have to live with service cuts.
Rural clusters: Arrogance led them to ignore the widespread opposition by residents, and their pleas for a referendum, before passing the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment. Ignorance was reflected in failing to understand that such clusters would stimulate sprawl, overload infrastructure, impact the environment, and ultimately raise resident taxes.
Utility sprawl: Sprawl is the spread of urbanization over suburban and rural land. When the faster growth commissioners voted to extend utility water and sewer (probably illegally) for developments outside of the Urban Services Boundary, they set the stage for the kind of sprawl that has afflicted too many other Florida counties.
Impacting neighborhoods: The Commission majority continues to approve developments inconsistent with the neighborhood. For example, there is Pitchford’s Landing and Renar Riverplace in Jensen Beach. The giant Hinckley warehouse in Rocky Point will be destructive to the homes in Rocky Point, and so on. The pleas of neighbors are ignored.
Impact fees shift to taxpayers: For any type of new construction, impact fees pick up the cost of such added infrastructure as roads, schools and public safety facilities as are needed to service the new development. Faster growth commissioners reduced the impact fees below calculated costs, thereby shifting the expense to taxpayers.
Disrespecting citizens: The Commission majority is barely patient with the residents who plead their case before them. Weberman is the most egregious offender. He has said that he discounts citizens who come before the commission regularly. And contrary to long tradition, they have denied what used to be a rotating chairmanship to the people’s favorite commissioner, Sarah Heard.
There’s more, much more, for which those commissioners should be ashamed, but there is something we can do about it. We can elect fresh new commissioners who have the people’s interest at heart.
Republicans to the rescue
PRIMARY VOTE FOCUSES ON TWO PRIMARIES
The twists and turns of election politics have made the Republican primary races in Districts 1 and 5 crucial in changing the Commission’s orientation. Of all those running, electing at least the following two candidates can produce a beneficial tectonic shift on the Commission:
Henry Copeland and Ian Pollack are the best qualified.
They can win if responsible growth voters unite.
Do not allow other candidates to split the good guy vote, and spoil the chance for important change. Only Copeland and Pollack are likely to beat the political growth machine. This fact is underscored by the mailing of a personal attack flyer by the pro-developer FuturePAC. The flyer attacks only Copeland and Pollack, none of the others, because those two have the wide support that places victory within their grasp. The forces pushing irresponsible growth fear a change in the status quo.
Welcome Republican news for State District 81
In the State Rep District 81 race, we need to elect someone who has a life history of courage and public service – a man like surgeon, trauma center director and former army colonel Danny (Dr. J) Jazarevic, a Stuart resident. He has stood up for working folks, business people, and retirees. He has insisted that the local Republican Executive Committee treat everyone fairly. His qualities have been politically recognized and rewarded by the Republican Party of Florida. The state party has donated $34,000 to Dr. J’s campaign, bypassing candidate Michael DiTerlizzi, who is heavily funded by developer interests. RPF obviously thinks Dr. J is the best Republican candidate, just as we do.
EARLY VOTING REMINDER:
Before the August 26 Election Day, you can avoid long lines by voting at any of the four open libraries, or Election Center on Martin Luther King Blvd., from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday-Saturday, August 11-23.
The Big Lie:
“SLOW-GROWTH ADVOCATES ARE ANTI-BUSINESS”
The Defender is unabashedly in favor of slow, responsible growth. We support efforts to attract new businesses and more jobs – as long as such undertakings are well conceived and do not undermine the protections that make our county a wonderful place to live.
For example, we sent the following letter on August 6, 2008 to all five commissioners. Our comments support the Economic Development Impact Fee Mitigation Program developed by the Martin County Business Development Board. It includes reasonable suggestions to assure the program’s success.
Dear Commissioners:
Re: Economic Development Impact Fee Mitigation Program (Econ Dev)
On August 12, 2008, you will be considering the Econ Dev ordinance.
It is a good idea, with potential to improve the County’s economic base. Fortunately, it is not like the giveaway incentive programs in adjacent counties, programs that will waste many millions and never get a fair return. Econ Dev includes specific provisions for recovery of the Martin County tax money it has paid for the impact fees attributable to the new business.
However, there are shortcomings in the Econ Dev plan that should be corrected. Also, there is no meaningful provision for citizen input on spending a considerable amount of tax money.
For Econ Dev to be successful in attracting targeted new business, the support of the general population is necessary. Surely you do not want to make this another major divisive issue that will get tied up in court and become a political football.
May I suggest that you consider such factors as the following, based on a quick first look at the proposed ordinance.
1 – Include the equivalent of the CRA’s Neighborhood Advisory Committee to advise the Commission on the complex decisions to be made. Such a body must consist of a balanced representation of civic groups, as well as representatives of the business community.
2 – In order for residents to see where the tax funding is coming from, and how much the program costs, you should consider a separate millage rate for the program. The success of the program will be evident when, over time, this rate drops.
3 – Without some means of year to year monitoring, a ten year deferment may be excessive. The need for earlier infrastructure can be either a major tax burden or reduced level of service for residents.
4 – The whole purpose of Econ Dev is to attract new and expanded business. It should not apply to landowners and builders who will, in any case, profit substantially just from the expanded economic activity. Only the active business provides us with benefits.
5 – The targeting concept for preferential treatment has a long history of failure, both in the U.S. and abroad. Playing the favorite game is mostly guesswork, and the Commission is unqualified to do so. Specific provision is needed, not only as to which industries and companies to target, but the protocol for making such decisions.
6 – It is necessary that the rationale and statistical basis of Econ Dev’s numbers be open to both expert and public scrutiny. For example, why does the 150% wage factor provide $5,000 per job mitigation and not $7,000? Or $3,000? Similarly, why does a $15 million investment earn 50% of county impact fees instead of, say, 45% or 55%? Wild feel-right guesses will not serve us well.
As I said, Econ Dev has the potential to do us much good, but it must be thoughtfully examined, certainly more thoroughly than my brief scan. Most important, it must not be rushed to approval. That would be a prescription for killing a good idea.
Al Forman, Editor
Martin County Defender
ALMOST ALL RESPONSIBLE GROWTH ADVOCATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS.
Here are some cautionary comments by columnist Kenric Ward in the August 10, 2008 Stuart News:
The Keystone Research Center, an independent policy analyst in Harrisburg, Pa., found that $720 million in Pennsylvania state incentives given to 1,333 businesses simply spurred "sprawling land-use patterns and job redistribution." …. Growing government and cutting deals with business is not a winning combination for taxpayers. Though job-creating incentives may sound nice in a down economy, they put communities on a very slippery slope. Soliciting companies with special spiffs while leaving long-time, small employers out of the loop (and sticking them with the bill) is perversely unfair. It also invites political favoritism and abuse.
THE COMMISSION MAJORITY RARELY MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO MISS AN OPPORTUNITY. IF THEY HAD MADE SOME VITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN ECON DEV, IT WOULD HAVE UNITED BOTH SLOW AND FAST GROWTH ADVOCATES TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IT IS BASICALLY A GOOD IDEA. INSTEAD, ON AUG. 12 THEY STEAMROLLERED APPROVAL OF THE FLAWED VERSION 4-TO-1.
Just another reason that IT’S TIME FOR A CHANGE
+++++
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 8/15/08
All issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
www.MartinCountyDefender.com
**********
What’s happening in Stuart? Find out at
www.SailfishCity.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 68
A COMMISSION PRIMARY VOTE POST MORTEM
Who won, who lost … and WHY
How money and lies combine to buy elections.
It is estimated that less than 10% of the local electorate make a serious ongoing effort through the year to learn the details about public issues and how their elected officials are voting. So 90% are inadequately informed. Many try to do a last minute catch-up with the information thrown at them just before election. So if one candidate has gobs of money, and uses it to push nice sounding lies again, and again, and again, it gives the uninformed something to latch on to … and to vote for.
A word from the wise: "Democracies get the government they deserve."
DISTRICT 1 – Republican Doug Smith wins by 188 votes
Doug Smith – 8,846 (50.54%); Henry Copeland – 8,658 (49.46%)
With a huge campaign bankroll and growth-machine PAC-funded attacks on his opponent, Doug Smith was able to buy a deluge of TV and other ads to put forth falsehoods about his record. Smith claimed he lowered property taxes. FACT: During his tenure taxes rose from $90.3 million to $149.5 million, far beyond inflation and population growth. Smith claimed responsibility for slow growth. FACT: He voted for almost every developer proposed growth measure.
Copeland ran an excellent campaign. Perhaps the only thing he could have done, but didn't, was to push for Democrats to switch to Republican for this one election.
Democrat Tom Fullman received 2,805 votes (52.71%) to beat unknown Eric Brent's 2,517 (47.29%).
Only 18.9% of registered Democrats voted in District 1, compared with 35.2% of all Republicans, reflecting lower enthusiasm in their own party for both Democratic candidates.
DISTRICT 3 – Republican Hayes upsets incumbent Weberman
Patrick Hayes – 9,035 (52.87%); Lee Weberman – 8,055 (47.13%)
The vote was as much against Weberman as it was for Hayes.
DISTRICT 5 - Ciampi wins over split vote of slow growthers
Ed Ciampi – 7,544 (45.05%); Ian Pollack – 5,962 (35.6%); John Born – 2,184 (13.04%); John Hockey – 1,057 (6.31%)
Slow growth candidates have a long history of the fatal political malady: Split Vote-itis, aka the Circular Firing Squad. Pollack's early decision to wait a while before announcing his candidacy may have played a part in his defeat. The strategic option he could have chosen, a full bore early entry showing his wide support, may have discouraged the entry of other slow growth candidates that split the vote.
WHAT'S AHEAD? To be discussed in an upcoming issue.
Real estate / developer interests are not friends of business … or our children
Amendment 5 tax fight shows their true face
In the hope of boosting land and home sales, and increasing construction, real estate and developer interests – we'll call them "realty-devs" -- persuaded Governor Crist and the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission to put a radical amendment question on the November ballot. It's called Amendment 5 to the Florida Constitution. It would eliminate, starting with the 2010-11 year, the state-ordered portion of the taxes that pay for schools. This amounts to about an $8- to $11-billion cut, accounting for approximately 25% of the average property tax bill.
This massive shortfall would supposedly be made up by increases in other taxes, especially a penny boost in sales tax. That's a 16% sales tax increase – still not enough to make up the difference. However – and it's a big however - there is no requirement that the Legislature replace the eliminated tax money after the first budget year. It's not even clear that it must be replaced in the first year. With tax reduction the driving force in Tallahassee, it is likely that much of the lost revenue would not be replaced.
AMENDMENT 5 WOULD DESTABILIZE THE STATE'S EDUCATION SYSTEM, BUT SOME ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING REALTY-DEVS DON'T SEEM TO CARE.
Passage of this ballot question would bounce Martin County's A-rated schools up and down at the whim of the lobbyist-compliant Legislature. Is even the risk of such damage worth it just to give realty-devs a financial boost?
It's not just schools that would be hurt. Amendment 5 would place a disproportionate sales tax burden on the backs of the poor. It would also hurt business badly, as any added tax at the business-customer interface does. That is why many pro-business advocates opposed the amendment.
Worse yet, the 75-word summary is deliberately misleading by giving the false impression that legislators must permanently replace the local school property taxes removed by the amendment. It doesn't require that.
A JUDGE TO THE RESCUE
Recognizing the serious shortcomings of Amendment 5, Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper ruled that the ballot question is misleading and inaccurate, failing to properly explain the proposed changes it mandates. He kicked it off the November 2008 ballot. Absent reversal by a higher court, this judicial decision buries Amendment 5. R. I. P.
Nevertheless, the great effort to get it on the ballot unmasks the irresponsible self-interest of, not necessarily all, but too many realty-devs.
TOUGH TIMES IN THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS
Palm Beach Post essentially abandons coverage of Martin County news
There was a time, not so long ago, when the Palm Beach Post Local Section distributed in Martin County provided modest to substantial coverage of the news out of Martin. No longer.
A couple of months ago, we saw fine reporter Jason Schultz, very knowledgeable about Martin affairs, reassigned elsewhere. Glenn Henderson, the Post's Martin County Bureau Chief, received a pink slip buyout. Some 260 employees were reportedly let go.
The final proof of editorial abandonment, if not in the pudding, is in the almost non-existent space devoted to Martin County news. For simplicity, we added up the square inches of news reports, rather than the traditional column-inches, in recent successive PB Post Local Sections delivered to Martin County subscribers. We divided this space into three categories by area coverage: News from Palm Beach County, from Martin County, and from elsewhere.
Aug. 22, 2008: Palm Beach – 534 sq. in.; Martin – 40 sq. in.; elsewhere – 46 sq. in.
Aug. 23, 2008: Palm Beach – 579 sq. in.; Martin – 53 sq. in.; elsewhere – 81 sq. in.
Aug. 24, 2008: Palm Beach – 601 sq. in.; Martin – 10 sq. in.; elsewhere – 204 sq. in.
Aug. 25, 2008: Palm Beach – 337 sq. in.; Martin – 52 sq. in.; elsewhere – 206 sq. in.
It would be a sad and unwelcome ending, if it is indeed an ending rather than a temporary adjustment. In either case, the Post owes a clear public explanation to readers in Martin. If the Post no longer intends to provide credible daily news coverage of Martin County, they should say so to paid subscribers who expected the same level of coverage in 2008 that they had in 2007.
Is the free acquisition of 2,233 acres in exchange for allowing mining worth it?
WHAT DO YOU THINK? VOICE YOUR OPINION IN THE QUICK-AND-EASY POLL BELOW
"Life is one damn trade-off after another."
Here's a situation ready to become a county brouhaha. A Lake Point Ranches entity owns 2,233 acres near Lake Okeechobee. Originally they planned to build a polo field and 44 upscale ranchettes on 1,000 acres. However, buyers being scarce these days, the owners have offered Martin County an interesting deal: They are willing to give the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) the land if the county will allow them to mine aggregate on 1,000 acres for the next 20 years. The land is said to be worth $53 million, but the value of rights to take out about 90 million cubic yards of aggregate should be deducted from that figure.
The upside of the proposed deal is that at a time when there is a shortage of land acquisition funds, we would gain 1,233 desirable acres immediately and without charge. The land would be preserved and not developed. 20 years later, a 1,000-acre, 20-ft deep lake holding about 6.5 billion gallons to clean Lake O water runoff that otherwise would pollute the St. Lucie estuary would be in SFWMD hands for water management. Also, the mining activity would produce jobs and boost business.
The downside of the deal, which provides for surface dynamite-blast mining to a depth of 20 ft., may adversely impact the aquifer, play havoc with a wide range of wildlife, and throw much dust particulate into the air for the next 20 years. Furthermore, all those big, heavily laden trucks carrying the aggregate will not be good for our roads, adding a costly maintenance burden on taxpayers.
DO YOU THINK THE UPSIDE IS WORTH THE DOWNSIDE?
Please, let's hear from you. It's so easy to vote on whether you think the trade-off is worth it. Just click REPLY. Then type in the Subject Line "Accept Deal" if you think the trade-off is worth it, or "Reject Deal" if not, or "Not Sure." Then click SEND.
Your additional comments are also most welcome. Results will be tabulated, but individual responses will not be published. Same source multiple votes will be automatically deleted.
+++++
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 8/29/08
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.
All issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 69
What’s ahead for Commission District 1?
AN OPPORTUNITY AND DIFFICULT CHALLENGE TO UNSEAT COMMISSIONER DOUG SMITH
“It ain’t over until it’s over” – baseball philosopher Yogi Berra
In the primary, Doug Smith beat fellow Republican Henry Copeland by a mere 188 votes. Recently converted Democrat Tom Fullman beat a much lesser known opponent by a far smaller margin than expected. For the November General Election, where voters are not limited by party affiliation, Smith and Fullman will face long time Republican Joan Wilcox, running as No Party Affiliation. Write-in Don Gleichman is also running.
Labeling the political camps is a bit of a jumble. During the primary, supposed fast growther Smith touted slow growth as one of his achievements. Supposed slow growthers Copeland and Fullman pushed their pro-business viewpoints.
The bright line dividing Martin’s political camps seems to focus on two key issues: (1) Supporting or opposing the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment; and (2) Accommodating developer/landowner requests for changes that (depending on your view) either enhances growth or undermines the Comprehensive Plan. So for convenience, we’ll call the opposing camps Pro-Cluster-Developer and Anti-Cluster-Developer. Sensible people will understand that we do not mean Pro intends to destroy the Comp Plan, and Anti does not mean opposition to responsible growth.
Based on this arbitrary label, Smith is clearly Pro, and both Wilcox and Fullman are Anti. Is it possible for an Anti-Cluster candidate to muster more votes than Pro-Cluster? It’s difficult, but quite possible because the combined tally for Anti-Cluster Copeland and Fullman was 2,617 votes greater than the vote for Smith. Furthermore, there are 20,736 independents or others out there who could not vote in the primary, but can vote in the General Election.
The key is whether Anti-Cluster advocates will unite behind one candidate, or if it will continue its self-defeating history of splitting its vote the way it did in District 5. In order to unite, Anti-Cluster voters would have to choose the one candidate that is better qualified and more likely to win.
Why Wilcox is better qualified and more likely to beat Smith than Fullman
Let’s start with a practical political question: Is someone who has recently run, and made a mediocre showing, more or less likely to win than a highly respected fresh face? Score one for Wilcox.
Why, with the considerable exposure Fullman has had for the past couple of years, was he able to defeat a virtually unknown opponent by a piddling 288 votes? And why did only 18.9% of all Democrats vote for their two District 1 candidates, compared with 35.2% of all Republicans voting for their two?
Perhaps the answer relates to what seems apparent: The more voters know about Fullman, the lower their enthusiasm for him. Fullman deserves credit for initiating the Jensen Beach Group and Martin County Consensus, Inc. He claims that demonstrates his leadership qualities. However, the Jensen Beach Group soon replaced him as their leader. As to the Consensus, Inc., it was very active with a promising start in 2007. Under Fullman’s chairmanship in 2008, Consensus, Inc. went into decline in terms of activities and membership. Currently its influence is insignificant. That does not bespeak leadership.
Fullman will also be vulnerable in a General Election to the news, downplayed so far, first revealed in Defender No. 60, about 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?
In terms of position on political issues, the differences between Wilcox and Fullman are not great. Both are focused on preserving our quality of life. However, when you compare the record of service experience and credentials of the two, Wilcox comes out head and shoulders above Fullman. You can see this yourself by visiting their websites:
Highlights of service experience and credentials
Wilcox is an attorney, who has worked as regional counsel of the public interest Environmental and Land Use Law Center . Her financial experience is extraordinary: She is a founder of the $1 billion AMBAC Indemnity Guarantee Co.; she was a vice-president at Paine, Weber; she was adjunct public finance professor, New York University Graduate School of Public Administration, to mention just some of the financial experience so lacking and badly needed on the Commission. Wilcox has a Master’s Degree in Urban Planning, and a Ph.D. from New York University (government finance and organization).
Wilcox’s prior community service includes membership on the Martin County Republican Executive Committee, and a National Council of Churches task force, among others.
Fullman is a family therapist, educator, and small business consultant. He currently contracts with MHM Correctional Services at Martin Correctional Institute within the Psychology Department, where he provides mental health services. He is a graduate lecturer at Barry University in Organizational Change and Organizational Communication. He holds an MBA from Florida Institute of Technology, and a Ph.D. from Florida State University .
Fullman’s prior community service includes president of the Martin County Kiwanis Breakfast Club and president of the Martin County Florida State University Seminole Club, among others.
In terms of the skills, experience and know-how that will best serve Martin County , those of Wilcox are clearly far superior to those of Fullman. The only way they can be put to service on the Commission is for voters concerned about the environment, sprawl, traffic, and out-of-control spending to unite behind the Wilcox candidacy, and not split the vote.
***
WONDERING OUT LOUD: Suppose the primary election support effort spent on Fullman had been used instead to bolster Copeland, might that not have earned Copeland 189 or more additional votes … and changed the course of Martin history? At least two smart Jensen Beach leaders think so.
***
Mining swap poll results – “Reject” is favored
In the previous Defender Issue No. 68, we asked readers whether the county should allow surface aggregate mining for 20 years on 1,000 western acres in exchange for South Florida Water Management District receiving free 1,233 acres now, and the 1,000 dug out acres for a filter reservoir 20 years later.
Using the first 50 responses as a base, the next 25 made only a slight change in the numbers. The next 25 essentially made no change, so we cut off the count after the first 120 poll replies, all verified not to contain duplicate votes from a single source.
48.3% voted to Reject the mining deal.
35.0% voted to Accept the mining deal.
16.7% voted Not Sure.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I voted Not Sure because of uncertainty about risks. There were compelling reasons for both acceptance and rejection. Assurances of government agencies managing the property well were unclear. The level of risk cited as the downside of mining for this particular application has not been sufficiently disproved or substantiated. How can the Commission be sure enough to approve the deal? Some of our knowledgeable readers offered additional commentary on the issues involved:
The road base (shell rock, lime rock) is worth $1 to $1.50 before it is mined, depending upon how far away from the job the/ project is. Contractors pay $5 to $8 per cubic yard at the site, more if it arrives via rail from Miami/Homestead.
The only water storage in the "pit" will be the area above the seasonal ground high water elevation to the top of the surrounding bank, or dam. This may be 4' in the dry season and much less during the rainy season when storage is needed.
You mention the use of dynamite. Is that just a conjecture or a factual statement? The cheapest and most widely used is ammonium nitrate and fuel oil slurry, also known as ANFO. It is pumped into bore holes and detonated with an initiator charge. Problem is that when there is a misfire, which is the norm, all those gallons of fuel oil leech into the surrounding strata along with bad ole Mr. Benzene of the Carcinogenic Benzene family. Not the kind of stuff that you want to linger in a water reservoir. There needs to be a county code of what can be used as explosive charges. None exists at this time.
As always, the devil is in the details. I don’t think it’s a bad idea, but we are being told that we can trust those in charge with not changing the rules down the road. Unfortunately, it does not take much for those rules to be abandoned when one feels the need to make a deal. Can we trust this transaction?
Jobs, we need the jobs.
I would like to hear more on how it might affect the Aquifer.
Most of the rock will move by rail, and not affect roads.
Looking past my time left on this earth, I do not want this damage, which future generations will have to live with, to point and say "You did nothing to stop this proposal".
+++++
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 9/2/08
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 issues of the Defender are archived at our website:
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 70
PARAPHRASING SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN:
“County matters more than party!”
A strong two-party system provides stability nationally. However, in local matters, political parties do not play such an important role. After all, what social, cultural, economic and philosophical differences are there about fixing a pothole? That is why many communities across the nation have made elections non-partisan.
Rather than voting for a local candidate just because of his or her party label, it makes better sense to vote for the person on the basis of record, character and qualifications, as well as position on issues. The worst reasons to vote for a candidate are the non-binding promises to do this and improve that.
When we vote for one of the 100 senators and 435 congressional representatives, we are voting for 0.019% of the legislative body. When we vote for a county commissioner, we are voting for 20% of that body. So it pays to focus on the individual at election time.
After considerable thought and examination, I have chosen the candidates in Commission Districts 1 and 3 whom I’ll vote for. It was not an easily made choice, because the race is not between an angel and a devil. It’s between well-intentioned individuals – not necessarily equally desirable individuals - vying for both the power and the opportunity to serve.
DISTRICT 1 CHOICE
In District 1, I will vote for Joan Wilcox , a long time Republican running as a No Party Affiliation (NPA) candidate. The primary reason for this decision is that the county is desperately in need of experienced financial management experience. Her credentials in this regard are far superior to those of her opponents.
Ms. Wilcox has a fair chance to win if the almost 50% of Republicans who voted in the primary for Copeland (Wilcox and Copeland positions on issues are essentially the same) are joined by more of the 21% of voters who are Independents. Furthermore, realistic Democrats who recognize that the Democratic candidate has little chance to win, may wish to vote for Wilcox rather than split the vote to allow the fast-growth, pro-cluster incumbent to be re-elected. Only Wilcox has a chance to win against Smith.
DISTRICT 3 CHOICE
In District 3, I will vote for Martha Bennett, a Democrat. The main reason is that line-in-the-sand issue: The Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment. Bennett will work to rescind it, while her opponent will support it.
Ms. Bennett has a fair chance to win if she can gain the votes, not only of Democrats and Independents, but those same Republicans who supported Copeland in District 1.
ELECTION CONSEQUENCES
Unlike the Primary Election, the November General Election is open. Any voter can vote for any candidate, irrespective of party affiliation or lack thereof. A vote for Wilcox and Bennett is a vote for change. Why do we need change? Well, consider what the present Commission has caused or failed to anticipate: The closing of parks; the reduced library hours; the staff layoffs; negatively impacted residential neighborhoods; the eroded Comp Plan; and developers poised to sprawl into western county as soon as the real estate market turns up. Change for the better is vitally needed ….. and it’s achievable if we recognize that “County matters more than party.”
GRIM IRONY DEPARTMENT: Some pro-Fullman slow growth advocates did not raise a finger to increase the vote foo Henry Copeland when he could have beaten Smith (Copeland lost the Republican District 1 Commission primary by only 188 votes). Now they are hand-wringing, crying because they can’t muster enough support for their candidate. Well, boo hoo!
Nasty shenanigans by Commission majority
Lovely Peck Lake Park would be closed for want of $10,000/yr to operate it. The park is located in District 4, represented by Sarah Heard. Al l commissioners have a reserve, funded by a district tax. How to spend this reserve is at the commissioner’s discretion, subject to Commission approval. Heard has retained almost $2 million.
So some people, including a Stuart News scribbler and Commissioner Weberman, more or less accused Heard of unreasonably withholding the money that would keep the park open. Here’s what really happened previously: To embarrass Heard, Commissioners DiTerlizzi, Weberman and Valliere initially prevented her reserve money from being spent on two other District 4 parks. Their hollow argument was that she wouldn't be the district commissioner forever. Yep, it’s the same bunch that does not let Heard rotate to the chairmanship.
This story still has a good ending in spite of the political shenanigans. Finally, because of adverse publicity, the Commission voted to allow Heard to allot $20,000 to keep the Peck Lake Park running for the next two years. Separately, instead of using her district reserve as a tool for political influence, Heard has allocated $200,000 for work on an apartment building to house 40 homeless and working poor women, and up to 80 homeless children.
Is 2% the magic number for growth?
Mr. H, one of our critical but friendly readers, has been asking me some reasonable questions: Why are we always urging slower growth? Isn’t our recent 2% annual rate slow enough? Do I have some other growth rate in mind? And implied: Why not be more receptive to faster development? Here is our answer:
Perhaps you think a 2% growth rate should immunize fast growthers from criticism. Not so. Broward once had a low growth rate. The issue is what are influential fast growth forces poised to do if we give them the opportunity. We've seen the home building overstock in anticipation of faster growth. We've seen public utilities going west to accommodate developers. We've seen clustering to induce sprawl and higher taxpayer infrastructure cost. We've seen reduced Level of Service traffic to accommodate more construction. We've seen zoning and land use regs changed to benefit you-know-who. We've seen residential neighborhoods punished for being close to where industry wants to build. We've seen commissioners saying yes yes yes to the Comp Plan eroding growth machine that feeds their campaign treasuries.
If you want to stave off the damage of an impending hurricane, you don't start taking action when the winds hit. You start as soon as you see the direction the storm is heading. Our Comp Plan provides for the kind of growth that will not ruin our quality of life, whatever the growth percentage.
+++++
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 9//13/08
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 issues of the Defender are archived at our website: