Sailfish City - Stuart Florida Community Site

The Martin County

  Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 54

 

CRA Developers 1 – Motorists 0

 

COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TCEA EXEMPTION WILL CREATE MORE TRAFFIC JAMS

 

To understand this story fully, let’s look at a few definitions:

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

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

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

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

HOWEVER …..

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE TRAFFIC MESS GOES COUNTYWIDE

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

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

CRA Developers 7 – Motorists 0

 

+++++

_{CofC activities not Rose-y in Jensen Beach}

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

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

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

Mr. Rose has not yet responded to my offer.

+++++

 

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                                  5/3/08

 

The Martin County Defender is published and Copyright 2008 by WordsmithAmerica, Box 1828, Palm City, FL 34991. All rights reserved. No part of this issue may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording for public or private use, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. NOTICE:  All correspondence not bearing legal copyright notice which is sent to the Defender or its editor is subject to being edited and published.

Sphere: Related Content

The Martin County

  Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 47

 

Time to adopt charter government

in Martin County

 

Ø   What is it?

Ø   Why do we need it?

Ø   Who has it?

Ø   How do we get it?

 

WHAT IS CHARTER GOVERNMENT?

 

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

 

WHY DO WE NEED IT?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

WHO HAS CHARTERS?

 

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

 

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

 

HOW DO WE GET A CHARTER?

 

It ain’t easy!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Two questions worth asking commission candidates in 2008

 

1 – Will you vote to appoint a Charter Commission if elected?

 

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

 

 

Anti-democracy officials beat

Hometown Democracy

 

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

 

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

 

It’s time to muck out the political stable.

 

₊₊₊₊₊

 

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                                  3/11/08

 

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.

 

•••NO MORE 2004•••

Sphere: Related Content

The Martin County

  Defender

The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 42

 

Airport poll results:

 

·        RESIDENTS PREFER COMMUNITY AIRPORT

·        RESIDENTS DO NOT WANT TO SUE THE FAA

·        RESIDENTS APPROVE OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH THE FAA

·        RESIDENTS ARE SPLIT ON SHORTENING RUNWAY VS. WHETHER OTHER SAFEGUARDS ARE OK

 

 

I’m dissatisfied with how Witham Field is run. It would be better with a shorter runway, no construction expansion, and legal certainty that the public golf course and YMCA land are not part of the airport. The County leases with Fixed Base Operators are too generous, too. I’ve written and spoken these views before.

 

There is a major obstacle. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exercises control over the airport, based on federal law and the millions it has contributed. There are certain decisions FAA may defer to Martin County. However, FAA adamantly opposes shortening runways, and will fight aggressively against such attempts by local governments.

 

Most residents want Witham to be a community airport, not a scheduled commercial airport. So the Martin County Commission authorized Commissioner Sarah Heard to go to Washington with counsel to negotiate the controversy with the FAA. She brought back a proposed compromise, which the Commission will consider on Feb. 5, 2008. [See Heard letter below.]

 

As in most negotiations, neither party gets everything it wants. The compromise offers concrete pad buffers at the runway ends, paid by Federal funds. It will continue to pay for house buyouts, and agree that airport boundaries don’t include the public golf course or YMCA land.

 

However, the FAA will not agree to shorten the runway. It’s their national policy. The longer runway could someday accommodate larger aircraft.

 

The Commission can accept or reject the proposed FAA agreement. If the County rejects, it can either live with the status quo and its risks, or sue the FAA to shorten the runway. If the County sues, it may cost millions of dollars, and drag on for years, with the outcome uncertain at best.

 

Left out of the equation is what residents think, especially those who have not spoken up on the issue. So we conducted a pilot survey of a randomly chosen sampling of regular Defender readers. 700 were selected, plus 300 from a secondary list of occasional business readers. We ignore the latter here because of the inadequate 2.3% returns, which did favor a commercial airport. The 700 sample of regular readers, whose responses of 16.4% are presented here, represent mostly slow-growth residents, not necessarily a scientific population cross-section.

 

A few people have disparaged this survey because they claim that final contract details are not yet stated. This is nonsense because the Commission will be considering the highlights of a proposed agreement – explained in Commissioner Heard’s letter below - not a final contract that attorneys would work out.

 

With my lifetime belief as an editor that the public has a right to know, and that zealotry is no substitute for the truth, here are the responses to the four questions we posed. Please don’t shoot the messenger.

 

115 of 700 readers (16.4%) returned questionnaire forms.

 

If your word were law, would you decree that Witham Field be a community airport or grow to be a scheduled commercial airport?

88.7% prefer community airport

6.1% prefer commercial airport

5.2% not sure

 

For Witham Field to remain a community airport, do you believe the runway must be shortened, or can other safeguards keep the airport from going commercial?

45.0% say other safeguards can be OK

40.5% say must shorten runway

14.4% not sure

 

Should the County approve or reject the proposed agreement with the FAA?

50.0% say approve

35.2% say reject

14.8% not sure

 

If the Commission rejects the agreement, should the County sue the FAA?

54.7% say do not sue

23.6% say sue

21.7% not sure

 

A sworn affidavit has been filed attesting to the truth and accuracy of these poll results.

 

The poll results suggest that most residents, in this case people who have generally been critical of airport operations, want to put the quixotic battle with the FAA behind us. We should be realists and take the worthwhile concessions offered so we can concentrate on exercising the powers that the County does have to keep Witham Field a community airport.

 

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A concerted and irresponsible effort has been made by some “friends” of the editor to suppress the results of this survey – called “spiking the piece” in journalistic lingo – without their having seen its contents. The presidents of WAAM and the Consensus have colluded in their unsuccessful effort to bury this objective poll report. We take seriously the public’s right to learn the facts, so we are not deterred by arm twisting to prevent publication. The poll results are as stated above. Disregarding the pressure from friends was instilled many years ago by the advice of a mentor to this young editor. He said: “Make as many friends as you can, but always remember who your best friend is: Your Typewriter.”]

 

A couple of follow-up questions, if you please

 

Here is an invitation to readers to contribute wise and viable suggestions. We now pose these questions to two response segments of the survey groups, and to those who agree with their views.

 

To those who believe that the agreement should be rejected if shortening the runway is not included:

 

What plan do you propose Martin County implement to get the FAA ever to change its no-shortening position?

 

To those who would sue the FAA:

 

With public funds already being reduced, what other county services would you propose to cut in order to pay for a costly lawsuit against the FAA?

 

To advocates of continuing a near-hopeless conflict with the FAA, we commend last week’s words by the brilliant columnist, Peggy Noonan: “It’s not human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn’t work.”

 

Heard’s letter to newspaper clarifies airport stance

 

I do have a settlement proposal ready for our February 5 meeting.  I’m very pleased with it.  I don’t like to be ambushed any more than anyone else does, so I think it’s important to get this proposal out as far as possible in advance of our Board discussion so that the public and my Board have lots of time to debate, discuss, contemplate my proposal.

 

Last week the FAA released one letter concerning the runway issue.  That is only part of the story. 

 The BCC appointed me last October to work with staff to negotiate the best possible settlement with the FAA on two key issues:

 

The property map.  The FAA and the County have been disputing for several years the appropriate boundary of the airport.  At issue is whether the golf course, the YMCA, Monterey Road, Monterey Commons and several other properties are part of the airport and can be used for airport purposes.  The FAA has insisted that these properties ae part of the airport.  We disagreed.

 

The Runway.  The FAA directed the County to prepare a plan to improve the safety areas at the ends of Runways 12/ 30.  The current safety areas (RPZ and RSA) do not comply with FAA design standards.  The BCC approved a proposal to resolve the safety areas last summer.  Local FAA officials rejected our proposal.

 

I have led intense negotiations with the FAA at all levels.  I have completed these negotiations.  I am prepared to present to the BCC a comprehensive package that resolves the outstanding problems.  The result improves the safety of Runways 12/ 30.  And, it sets a certain limit on the boundary of the airport which will, once and for all, prevent the threat of expansion of the airport.

 

Here is the proposed comprehensive settlement.

 

The FAA rejected our request to shorten the runway (ANAC 3) to bring the safety areas into compliance with FAA design standards.  Instead, the FAA has agreed to pay for the installation of an EMAS (Engineered Materials Arresting System) bed at both ends of this runway.  This is a new technology that is being used very effectively at many airports throughout the country.

 

(How EMAS works.  It’s a system of interlinked engineered materials in an area covering the width of the runway by 450 feet.  If an aircraft should skid or roll off either runway end, the EMAS will stop it, embed it in its tracks.)

 

I believe this is a reasonable compromise.  The FAA originally refused to pay for the EMAS (which is expensive: $ 8 to 10 million for our project) and insisted that we extend the safety area into the golf course.  This was unacceptable to me and to the BCC.  It always begged the question, if the FAA can force us to expand into our golf course now, what of the future?    What might they force into our golf course?  Which leads to….

 

The second, and most important, component of the deal is that the FAA has agreed on a permanent boundary for the airport.  Essentially, the boundary will be the existing airport boundary.  This is exactly what the County proposed in our negotiations.  The FAA has agreed that the golf course, YMCA, and all the other areas where jurisdiction was absolutely unknown will not be part of the airport, and will not be subject to federal law that limits how airport property can be used.  This is a huge victory for the county.  Most importantly, the County property outside the agreed upon boundary will not be available for airport expansion.  Not now.  Not ever.  I believe that this is a critically important insurance policy for Martin County. 

 

This comprehensive settlement achieves the two critically important goals of this whole effort.

 

It improves the safety of Runways 12/ 30 at no cost to Martin County taxpayers.  In my view, and in that of aviation technical experts, EMAS is a tremendous safety enhancement.  Improved safety for our residents was a top goal.  This settlement crafts a better solution for safety than our proposal dubbed ANAC 3.

 

Most important, this guarantees that the airport will not be expanded beyond its present boundaries.  Though this component didn’t receive the public attention that the runway part did, this was the issue that kept negotiators up at night.  The map had to be part of the settlement.  It is the key to peace.  The titles to the land underneath the golf course, YMCA, etc. were so clouded no one had any idea who had jurisdiction.  This was the issue that goaded us all.  Given the uncertainty of the clouded titles, could and might the FAA at some future date try to force us to expand the airport?  This settlement makes that impossible.  It puts the County in control.

 

I’m hoping for my Board’s support on Feb 5.

 

The alternatives - litigation with the FAA, users, or property owners - would have been very expensive and uncertain.  It would have required the use of tax revenues to defend or pursue litigation, an approach that I found highly undesirable.

 

Once the BCC approves the deal, we will make it an amendment to our Comprehensive Plan and thereby make it law.

 

I think we’re done here.  I hope that this proposal makes clear and certain that we have regained the safety for our residents and ownership of this County asset.

 

Naturally, we will continue to work to improve noise impacts at the airport, and we, along with the FAA, agree to continue the home acquisition program. Thanks!

 

Sarah Heard

+++

 

Commissioner Heard has consistently shown her devotion to the welfare of all Martin residents – unlike special interests with their self-serving agendas. She deserves our support now!

 

+++

 

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                                  2/4/08

 

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.

 

•••NO MORE 2004•••

Sphere: Related Content