Sailfish City - Stuart Florida Community Site

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Martin’s total land area - almost all of it a prospect for sprawling cluster housing unless the Valliere amendment is rescinded.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.

* All jobs will be filled by the local work force.

* All 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

Al Forman, Editor                                  8/1/08

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

--

  Al Forman

  mc_defender@fastmail.net

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

Al Forman, Editor                                  7/28/08

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.

--

  Al Forman

  mc_defender@fastmail.net

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