The (failed) 2007 secret meetings to unify the slow-growth candidate vote

About a year ago, several of us were concerned that  slow-growth advocates needed to unite behind a single Commission candidate in each district if we wanted to prevent a repeat of the 2004 election, which put a pro-developer majority on the Commission.

It was like pulling teeth, but with help I convened a meeting of nine leading, high profile slow-growth advocates. Two others could not attend. No potential candidates were invited. All of us knew each other, and the meeting was cordial, purposeful and seemingly productive.  We discussed prospective candidates, evaluated the qualities that would make an excellent commissioner, and considered their potential for winning the 2008 election.

We came to the conclusion, by informal consensus, that the three best prospects were Henry Copeland (District 1), Martha Bennett (District 3), and Ian Pollack (District 5).  We would leave it to a follow-up meeting to explore what could be done to support the favored candidates.

While the meeting was in progress, one of the attendees stood up and said he was leaving. He insisted without saying why that his favorite, Fullman, was a better choice than Copeland. Then he went on a blustering rant, saying there were many bad things about Copeland that we did not know. We were all taken aback. I challenged him to be specific, and to explain a few of those supposed bad things. Instead of an explanation, he stalked out of the room. Uh oh! So much for unity. We never held the follow-up meeting.

Independently at about the same time, Lloyd Brumfield, who operates an excellent filtered news service, called a broader meeting with the same objective as mine. Discussion by a few dozen attendees was lively, but rambling and contradictory. We would work out differences at a scheduled follow-up meeting. That meeting was subsequently canceled.

We now know from the Republican primary results what the lack of solidarity brought about. In District 5, the three-way slow-growth split gave victory by plurality – not majority - to Ciampi over Pollack. That’s how DiTerlizzi won the district four years earlier. In the District 1 Republican primary, Smith barely nosed out Copeland, not by split vote, but by some support splitting away to favor new Democrat Fullman.

I hate to admit it, but Stuart News columnist Rich Campbell (who is wrong on numerous matters, and probably did not know about the meetings) has been right – so far – in his New Year prediction, “What’s ahead for us in 2008?”  He said: “Martin County’s slow-growth faction will divide and conquer itself during the elections just as it did in 2004. Too many slow-growth candidates will split the vote.” Please join me in working to prove Campbell is not such a great prognosticator.

THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER! Be inspired by Churchill’s uncounquerable determination and bold exhortation: “Never, never, never give up.” THE GOOD GUYS CAN STILL WIN BY UNITING!

Look at the candidates in District 5

Ed Ciampi, who won the four-way Republican primary with the unified. generous financial backing of developer-business and landowner interests, is an admirer of Big Sugar, and wannabe clone of incumbent DiTerlizzi. He’s bad news for the county.

Linda Green, the unopposed Democrat, was protégé of sorts under Mary Dawson, co-author of the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment. However, Green has struck out independently, opposing this bad law. Green is a good candidate – but lacks experience, and has not been in the forefront of slow-growth battles.

John Patteson, a long time registered Republican running as No Party Affiliation (NPA), is the strongest, most experienced and best informed candidate of the three. It’s not just the positions he takes. It’s his irrepressible zest in standing up before the Commission for environmental and slow-growth issues that wins my support.

I”LL VOTE FOR JOHN PATTESON BECAUSE I KNOW HE WILL FIGHT FOR A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL OF US!

Lesley Blackner Receives “2008 Woman of the Year Award” from Defender  

Leslie Blackner, co-author of the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment, received the “2008 Woman of the year Award from the Martin County DEFENDER, an e-newsletter edited by Palm City resident Al Forman. The presentation was made at the County Commission chambers, Fast-growth commissioners had opposed the Amendment.

As stated on the presentation plaque, the award was given to Ms. Blackner “For her indomitable spirit and outstanding courage in the battle to place on the ballot the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment that will grant the people the right to vote on land use changes that change the face of their community forever. “

Upon receiving the award, Ms. Blackner said:

“Martin County is perhaps the best place left on the east coast of Florida. It’s a reminder of just how gorgeous and unique the entire state of Florida used to be.  Why is Martin so different from Palm Beach County or St. Lucie—ruined by developers gone wild?  Citizen leadership is the reason.  Martin has been blessed over the past decades with dedicated citizens who don’t want to see Martin paved with wall-to-wall sprawl.  For years now, Martin’s citizen leadership has fought the good fight to make sure it isn’t swallowed up in concrete. 

“Not surprisingly, Martin is held up as a model of “responsible growth management” throughout Florida.  Martin was lucky for many years.  But luck can change.  And knowing that the difference between responsible development and being paved over often boils down to just one vote on the county commission means that our current land use system vests way too much power in the hands of commissioners.  That’s why developers will say and do just about anything to retain power over commissions.  The growth machine will tell you anything to maintain power.  Look at the campaign contributions and see who donates the most to local races.  Look (if you can) and see who’s sending out sneaky ads. 

“The truth is that land use is politics.  The law rather naively assumes that when a commission approves a requested land use change, the change is granted because it is in the public interest.  The hard truth is that the public interest is too often defined as keeping politically greased developers happy, and everything else is irrelevant.  In fact, the current real estate debacle can be laid directly at the feet of Florida’s commissions who hardly ever say “no” and let developers go wild, overbuild on speculation and crash the entire US economy.

“With the advent of Florida Hometown Democracy citizens will have some peace of mind knowing that changes to their local growth plans truly reflect the broad public interest because voters themselves will have the final say over whether or not they want the change.  We wish we had qualified for the 2008 ballot but the growth machine, to their credit, did a good job of seeing that it did not happen.  Nonetheless, we are just about qualified for 2010 and all our opponents can do is defeat us at the polls.  We have the next two years to win the hearts and minds of Floridians about this important reform.  You can do your part by connecting it to ongoing growth fights here in Martin.  When you hear about a proposed growth plan change think how Hometown Democracy would impact the proposal.  Talk to everyone about this hope for the future.  Wouldn’t you like to have a voice on whether or not Martin is paved or saved?” Ms. Blackner concluded.

Why the Commission must be reformed

The Commission majority has been passing laws and land use changes that benefit special financial interests and burden residents. These changes will become irreversible if this same majority – even with different faces – continues in power for the next four years.

A survey of 1,500 Martin citizens, conducted by our Martin County Consensus and published in the April 24, 2008 Stuart News, found that 78.2% of residents, believed that the County Commission was doing a Poor or Very Poor job.

Above and beyond the national economic downturn, based on county performance (library hours, traffic, parks, neighborhood encroachment, wasteful expenses, taxes, Comp Plan erosion, etc.) each of us should ask ourselves:

IS MY FAMILY BETTER OFF AS A MARTIN RESIDENT THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO? If not, it makes sense to change the status quo.

If you like Martin County the way it has been, and want to preserve those wonderful qualities, the only solution is to unite behind the credible candidates who will reform the Commission.

The candidates who will bring about needed change are:

* Joan Wilcox, District 1, long time Republican running NPA

* Martha Bennett, District 3, Democrat

* John Patteson, District 5, long time Republican running NPA

WISHFUL THOUGHT FOR TODAY: In these days of reduced public services without tax reduction, wouldn’t it be nice for the county to have on hand an extra $573,000 – the amount that was wasted by the Commission majority on the Glatting-Jackson and Urbanomics consultant reports?

+++++

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                                  9/20/08

The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica,

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

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

 What’s happening in Stuart? Check out the following website:

www.SailfishCity.com

–

  Al Forman
  mc_defender@fastmail.net

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

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 previous issues of the Defender are archived at our website:

www.MartinCountyDefender.com

Behind the closed doors of a Commission “Executive Session”

TRANSCRIPT REVEALS THEIR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE “BIOTECH BOONDOGLE”

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.

EORB ON SHAKY LEGAL GROUND

[ 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 DEFERENCE TO WHAT THE DEVELOPER-APPLICANT WANTS

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

MR. ACTON: Yes, they have.

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.]

MISUSE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN “REVIEW”

[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 FAVORS INDUSTRY OVER PREVENTING POLLUTION

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.

ONE COMMISSIONER IS WILLING TO SETTLE

[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?]

A candidate interview video worth watching

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:

http://www.tcpalm.com/videos/detail/martin-county-district-1-pt2/

Stuart News declines to endorse either Dem

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.””

Thumbs up for the editorial board having the guts to tell it like it is.

Update on Consensus, Inc.

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.

+++++
•••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 7/19/08

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.
–
Al Forman
mc_defender@fastmail.net