I believe that the following e-mail sent to the county commissioners expresses my opinions on the sales tax, new passenger trains and proposed customs house:
Dear Commissioner:
There are three issues I would like to address with you.
The first is “All Aboard Florida” owned by FECI a company of the Fortress Group which has real estate worth $62 billion under management presently. In 2002 the group had $2 billion. Obviously, there is much more to their operation than a railroad. FECI’s, Flagler Company describes itself on its web site this way: Flagler is one of Florida’s oldest and largest full-service commercial real estate companies. The company owns, manages, leases, or has under development more than 7 million square feet of Class-A office and industrial space located in strategic markets throughout the state. Flagler also owns 2,500 acres of Florida land with entitlements in place for in excess of 14 million square feet of development. Additionally, Flagler provides world-class, third-party real estate services including brokerage, property management and asset management to a prestigious roster of corporate, private and institutional clients.With more than a century of experience specifically in Florida, a business model built on the concept of stability and innovation, and an integrated service line, Flagler is the strongest choice for any organization seeking a Florida partner in commercial real estate.
“All Aboard Florida” can be a loss leader for their parent for years in order to further and accomplish what I believe their real goal… real estate development. As Commissioner Scott stated yesterday at a Martin County Chamber event, railroads in this country are almost sovereign. A full scale battle against this behemoth is not winnable in my opinion. It may be much more to our advantage to work with the Coast Guard and our legislative delegates to minimize the impact of the trains and to continue to lobby for a stop in Stuart which is the most logical place on the Treasure Coast.
My second issue is the sales tax. As I stated at Tuesday’s commission meeting, I would like to see a 10-year one cent proposal. It needs to be tightly written so as to make sure that the proceeds are used for the intended uses only. You are right that past commissions used the money for favored projects such as building the outrageous water park. At first, I supported a three-year limitation but upon further thought, it seems that will not allow enough time or resources to really make a difference to the infrastructure deficit. A shorter span may result in just “favored projects” being planned and completed which will leave most of the public seeing little benefit in voting once again to extend the tax three or five years hence.
Lastly I want to address the Customs facility. I object to us as a county having anything to do with this for multiple reasons. First, no matter how a deal is structured (either with private entities or by using the airport fund), any shortfall for any reason will need to be made up by the county. It is ultimately the responsible party in this instance. Secondly, we have seen time and time again that no matter what assurances we receive from Washington as to how the facility is to be operated and that any local obligations will remain consistent, we all know that the federal government can rewrite the deal obligating us to spend funds for things never contemplated at any time. We may not even be able to close the facility at our discretion.
I don’t believe that we, as a county, should be maintaining and paying for a facility that clearly falls under federal authority. There is no ambiguity as to who will be in charge of enacting and enforcing regulations and laws pertaining to trade and immigration. It is a federal responsibility. For argument sake, even if we agree that it may be beneficial to a few of the county’s residents and businesses, it does not mean that it should be done. It has always amazed me that the biggest proponents for governmental subsidies, quotas and tax breaks are supposed conservative, free-market-oriented wealthy individuals and businesses. The free market is great unless they must operate within its parameters. This is one such instance where we should not allow the favored minority to trump the interest of the majority.