Category Archives: Belief in Capitalism

Martin County Taxpayers Association on the BDB

Posted on by

 

The MCTA has reviewed the last year’s audit for the Business Development Board which was on the April 19th BOCC meeting.

 

It was not a clean report since the auditors pointed out accounting policies not in line with best practices. Among the discrepancies found by the auditors were that there was not timely reconciling of accounts, and that one person is performing too many accounting functions. We do not believe there is anything being done at the organization that would rise to the level of malfeasance or misfeasance. Perhaps, at worst, there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

 

We have for some time believed that the board is much too large to do an effective job in oversight. The board is a political and insider who’s who of Martin County elites. Everyone seems to have a seat, but no one has much responsibility.

 

Further, their budget is composed of $450,000 from Martin County taxpayers with another $35,000 from Martin County municipalities. Government handouts make up $485,000 of the nearly $519,000 in total income. In effect, it is a creature of government without the oversight that the taxpayers deserve. This is nothing new and has been going on for years. It just appears that the BOCC does not have the political will to bring this function in-house.

 

The audit uncovered improper bookkeeping procedures. Another area of concern was that the employees lacked an understanding of accounting. A direct quote from the audit: “We strongly suggest that a better understanding of not-for-profit accounting principles and QuickBooks would significantly benefit the Organization not only in terms of internal controls and related processes but also with regard to financial reporting and the accuracy of related financial statements. In our opinion, this is a significant part of the basic foundation of knowledge that must exist within the Organization in order to overcome many of the issues cited in this correspondence.”

 

If the financial responsibilities of the BDB were brought under the county’s finance department, it would be a step in the right direction. But that is not the real problem with this organization. Unlike the St. Lucie County EDC, the BDB suffers from a lack of focus and dynamism. St. Lucie County knows where it wants to go. Martin County doesn’t want too much business to disrupt the nature of the county and then only want what the elites consider the right types of business.

 

Because there is no strategic vision, we are wasting the taxpayers’ money on halfway measures. A review of what businesses the BDB played a key role in bringing to Martin County, would be the same ones that several other organizations would also take credit for.

 

When we had an independent tourism board, it too was a waste of taxpayer dollars. Once the BOCC brought that function in house, there was a concentrated effort to determine how we should go after tourism dollars. It is time to stop spending our tax dollars so that the political and current business elites can have a place to call home.

 

With nearly a half a million dollars of government money, the results should be measurable and quantifiable…not what the BOCC currently receives in the form of Rah-Rah pep rally speak. Every taxpayer should demand accountability which is sadly lacking in this situation.

 

STUART COMMISSION KEPT ITS WORD!

Posted on by

Last week the Stuart Commission kept its word to city residents.

 

When they voted down the Silverthorne project which needed a land use change to construct 77 town homes, the commission indeed kept its word. If this project had come before the commission last year, it would have been approved in a heartbeat. This is not last year.

 

Each member of the board (except for Meier) had made a solemn pledge to not approve any new residential development outside the CRA until some of the existing approved projects come online this year. By doing so, the city can see whether we need more future residential projects or not. I would suspect that we do but a short break should not matter.

 

This does not, however, mean that the commission is now anti-growth. They are pausing residential development outside the CRA for a year so that the impacts that these new projects bring may be evaluated.

Many residents are afraid of a population influx that will change the character of Stuart. While Stuart will see an increase in population, it will not be so great that it cannot be absorbed. The key to keeping population within acceptable limits is to understand the impact our building height restrictions have. With a four-story maximum, you cannot cram enough units into any project to increase the population to Broward, Miami or even St. Lucie County standards.

 

Most Stuart residents realize that owners of vacant and under-utilized property have a right to develop their land. Within the city boundaries is where this more intense use should occur. I have a real problem with what may be going on with the rural lifestyle amendment to the county’s comp plan for western Martin County.

 

The one that has not yet fully been explained to the residents yet. There may be unintended consequences that are not being adequately explored. That is where our worries should lie.

 

There is a small minority of residents that believe no development should ever happen. That is not rational. Nor will their approach of “never” lead to good development practices occurring.

 

This is best illustrated from the hysteria by a few because of the Kanner CPUD (Costco). It is mostly non-city residents who are trying to stop the mixed-use development from being built. While they have admittedly slowed things down, the likeliness of stopping the project from completion is very low. And why should it be stopped?

 

It is a 50-acre parcel that was annexed into the city specifically for development. And contrary to what some of the NIMBY group suggest, the annexation did not occur so that single family homes could be built there as it was originally zoned by the county. This was always going to be some sort of mixed used development, and it is proceeding according to plan.

 

You may have also heard that the property was full of native habitat. In truth, it was an abandoned farm with cars and machinery buried and discarded on site. Unpermitted ponds were dug, and overgrowth had a sprinkling of endangered native plants. Those plants must be protected by the development order.

 

The owners and developers have a right to seek to develop the land to the highest and best use within the code. They are seeking to do this. Those who would try to prevent it should instead be looking at what is occurring in the county with the rural lifestyle amendment.

 

Stuart and its commissioners are taking the right approach for now. This is a brief respite before new residential projects are approved outside the CRA. It is inevitable that new projects will come before the commission. They will and should be approved.

 

For now, I think that it is probably a good idea for residential developers outside the CRA to heed the mindset of the commission. The residents want a break to see what happens. The commission majority has agreed with that. At some point next year, we will see new applications and the commission can look at them with the knowledge of what has come before and their true impacts.

 

 

 

 

It’s A Secret

Posted on by

Remember the promise from the BOCC that the citizens of Martin County would have one information meeting regarding the “Rural Lifestyle” amendment. It has not happened yet.

 

As of March 12th, (when I am writing this), nothing is on the county website advertising the meeting. The supposed facilitator, the Guardians of Martin County, have nothing on their website. The commission meeting when the rural lifestyle was approved for transmittal to the state was on Feb 22nd and included the plan for just one information meeting. At that time, staff said the state would have the approval back to the county within 50 days. The BOCC can vote to add the rural lifestyle amendment section to the comp plan once it is returned.

 

This may be the most significant change to the comp plan since its inception. What I am hearing from the majority of the commission and county government is “trust us.” Well, I would trust you if you were transparent and you have been anything but that.

 

Perhaps by the time you read this, the meeting date, time, and place will be on Martin County’s website. Perhaps a press release will go out soon. Members of the public get only one bite at the apple to have their questions answered and their fears either confirmed or alleviated.

 

Through detective work this is what I have learned. The meeting will take place on March 23rd at the Wolf Technology Center at IRSC Chastain Campus between 4-8 pm. This is apparently your only chance to know more. If you can’t attend, then too bad. If you live in Palm City Farms, Jensen Beach, or western Martin put aside time for the commute. If need be, the county believes, you should take off from your job, your business, and your kid’s ballgame. You won’t get another opportunity.

 

Discovery, which precipitated the comp plan amendment, is a good project. It could have been approved without the rural lifestyle change. They do believe in transparency because they have a sound project.

 

They will be having a second meeting to explain their project at 7:45 am, March 24th at the Polo Club off Bridge Road on the site of the proposed development. Because it is a good project, I am hoping that Discovery will have more informational meetings throughout the county and speak about the rural lifestyle amendment. Yet this is no substitute for the county making sure that the public is informed. The county idea of one meeting in one place just won’t suffice.

 

Martin County government makes it impossible to trust them because they are not working to gain the citizens’ trust. If this amendment to the comp plan is so good, then they should be anxious to educate us so that citizens have the information to have an informed opinion. A little openness goes a long way.

 

The county is the one with an artificial time limit on approval not the people. Let us have 20 meetings. Go to each part of the county and educate the citizens.

 

Citizens, you are treated this way because some commissioners may feel you are irrelevant. You should stop voting for commissioners if they are not listening to what you want. If you have been a commissioner term after term for years and years because there is no (or only token) opposition, then why bother to listen to the people. Re-election is a certainty since so many of us have no memory of how we are treated between elections.

 

A Bad Decision That Will Be Remembered

Posted on by

How do you take a couple of very good land use projects and then allow them to metamorphosize into a bad outcome? Just look at the actions of the BOCC, senior county staff, Growth Management, the applicants, and assorted others.

Courtesy of Pinterest

At the commission meeting on February 22nd a proposal was brought forward that would introduce an entirely new land use classification known as rural lifestyle. It will allow for housing developments to occur on western lands in a clustered format outside the urban service boundary. I should add that this designation could apply anywhere in the county, but because it must have a minimum of 1000 acres, it would not likely happen in Jensen Beach.

 

The “procuring cause” was the Discovery project on Bridge Road. I have written extensively on why I believed this was a good project from day one. And it still is! In fact, the applicant said repeatedly at the transmittal hearing for the comp plan amendment that the new designation was not needed for his project. They would have come in under the exception process.

 

When dealing with staff, the applicant and more importantly his myriad of consultants began to think about not a plan amendment just for this project but to create an entirely new section of the plan that would apply countywide. That way, the consultants could bring other projects without going through all the steps that would be required under the special exception process every time.

 

There is another project on Bridge Road that goes over to Kanner Highway called Three Lakes. They presented their plan to Jupiter Island as a courtesy. It would have four golf courses and no residences. The development would contain golf cottages for members to use. These would not be for rent. In an earlier piece, I mistakenly wrote that members would rent these cottages. It is not allowed under the LDRs. And since they are for members, I don’t know what difference it would make if they were rented if one of the conditions was a time limit for use.

 

With 95% permeable and open space, it is another good project. No residents equate to needing no services. Ag land pays very little in taxes…golf courses pay a lot more. According to the plan the runoff is contained on site and irrigation will come directly from the St. Lucie Canal.

 

When I asked the developer’s rep if a new designation was needed for his project, the answer was no. They would go through the individual plan process. So how did we get this “rural lifestyle” classification?

 

I would imagine that ears perked up with the possibility of having all kinds of development outside the Urban Services Boundary if they played their cards right. The cards they had to play were a few compliant commissioners, staff members who saw an opportunity to play nice with their land consultant friends, senior staff who wanted to placate some of the commissioners, and an elite that couldn’t care less about what the everyday residents of the county wanted.

 

So, after hearing from many, many residents at the commission meeting who wanted the county to give more time for more explanation and outreach, the majority on the commission voted to transmit the plan amendment to Tallahassee. Nothing was going to prevent them from moving forward even without any demonstrated reason for the rush.

 

The very idea that after its transmittal and return in about 50 days, the commission will not vote to approve this is not to be believed. The sop to the public craving more information was that under the auspices of the Guardians, there will be a public hearing.

 

I have a couple of problems with this approach. One or possibly two informational meetings where citizens can ask questions is clearly not only the wrong format, but the Guardians are not experts in running these types of public meetings. They have their own agenda.

 

My second problem is that when the county went ahead and rewrote the CRA plan, they hired the Treasure Coast Planning Council to work with staff. But the important part of what occurred was that they had over 70 public meetings to iron out questions and concerns that residents and others had. This resulted in broad buy-in and agreement.

 

Opening our western lands to development is as important as the CRA project. Yet unless you were one of Martin County’s elites, you never saw this coming. A wink and a nod and some fast footwork by the dynamic duo of Smith and Ciampi with the silent encouragement of Jenkins has resulted in far less than what the people of Martin County deserve.

 

Regarding the plan itself, I have many questions about sewer and water being provided outside the urban service boundary (USB). I am not keen on package plants. Yet they have supposedly come a long way in the past few years. We need to hear from an unbiased expert on this matter. But running new utility lines outside the USB is something I don’t like either.

 

It would also seem to me that clustering homes makes sense instead of 20-acre ranchettes. That is the very definition of sprawl and bad planning. Isolated homes without amenities are not something any planner today can embrace.

Courtesy of Pinterest

That type of development has been available for decades, and it has not led to 20 acre-ranchette developments. The wealthy are generally not interested in being in the middle of nowhere without a place to have a drink or a round of golf. Besides if they desire the wide-open spaces, they probably have a 1000-acre Montana spread to call one of their homes. At the same time, most of the rest of us can’t afford the ranchette lifestyle. I guess that is why the county called it rural lifestyle instead of ranchette lifestyle.

 

For there will be sufficient open space under the proposed land use at least 70% including golf courses. And if they want to have more homes, the developer will need to set a minimum of 500 acres in conservation deeded to either a government or nonprofit. Another question arose about that which had some suggestive changes but the three commissioners are probably figuring it can be worked out during the informational meeting.

 

About a year ago, it was explained to me that there were several developers who just wanted to have golf clubhouses with no homes. I saw it then and still do as a way of preserving open space. Currently, most of that land is failed agricultural farms and ranches. There is probably no chance given today’s economics that it ever will again be used for that purpose. Golf clubhouses with no homes seemed like a great way to preserve property rights and keep Martin green. I thought one of the conditions could be to have a public trail or nature preserve as part of the deal for approval.

 

Now it is still open season and the only new or existing residents we will be accommodating in their golf course homes will be the rich and famous. The wealthy have no compunction about buying a home worth millions on a golf course with a clubhouse and other amenities in much smaller lots than 20, 5 or 1 acre, if it is elite enough and of course has a fence and guards to keep most people out.

 

All the double speak from the dais was just that. It reminded me of “You have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” Commissioners Ciampi, Smith, and Jenkins, that is no way to vote on any legislation. It was nice of you to arrange for a session after your affirmative vote to give your constituents a chance to become educated. (As long as they can meet at your one or two appointed times at an appointed place.)

 

I thought Commissioner Heard would always be a no. It is so contrary to anything she believes that to think anything else would be foolish. With development issues, I disagree with her most of the time, but I respect her point of view and she gives a different perspective than my own.

 

In my mind Commissioner Hetherington was the standout. There is not anyone more business friendly and believing in property rights than her. Yet she cares about important items not being rushed and that constituents have the information. Hetherington would have been a yes vote on Discovery if it were a stand-alone project. She may still vote in favor with the adoption hearing after the public informational hearing.

 

The only thing all commissioners should remember is that the Guardians, developers, consultants, and the wealthy are not most of their constituents. Commissioners also need to consider the property rights of landowners. The bogus fear of 20-acre ranchettes popping up after years of not happening should not be a reason to change land use in a hurry.

 

Get the buy in of the everyday residents of Martin County. We know it can be done if the right steps are taken. It was proven with the CRA re-write. As my friend Tom Pine would say the “Good Ole Boys” win one more. Too bad for the county.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annexation & Land Use

Posted on by

Once a parcel is annexed into the city, the City of Stuart often struggles with what land use to give the parcel.

 

The reason most people annex into the city is because Stuart allows for greater density than unincorporated Martin County. However, an annexation does not mean that the property owner is ready to do anything with the land. Sometimes, it can sit for years without a request to change the Future Land Use (FLU). During that time, it will keep the county’s zoning.

Once the landowner or developer is ready to build something, then he will come to the city and, as a first step in the process, ask for a FLU change. That is what happened with Costco, and for some, it was as if the world came to an end. So, upon annexation, should the city assign a future land use designation also?

 

Again, the Kanner CPUD became such a focal point because the county had given the property a zoning designation that allowed 5 homes per acre. Of course, that use was assigned decades ago. If that land use was allowed to stand, the property would have been worth a fraction of the amount that was paid.

 

There are two reasons a FLU is not assigned upon annexation. There is no idea what eventual use will be asked by the owner. The second reason is that if a land use is automatically given, then the commission may not need to weigh in when an eventual project is ready. Hard for a politician to bear.

 

After years of studying this very problem, I would contend that upon annexation, the land should be given the highest appropriate land use possible unless the owner wishes another one. But FLU needs to be part of the annexation.

 

Currently, a piece of land of approximately five acres on Willoughby that abuts the Kanner PUD is on the market for $3.295 million. That property was annexed into the city with its old Martin County land use. It isn’t being offered for sale at that price to build a few houses.

 

Interestingly, I have been told that the property is owned by a relative of Ms. Richards. She was the intervenor on the Costco parcel and wanted to keep the land use at 5 homes per acre. When this comes into the city, will she be fighting against the rezoning?

 

This parcel should be given the highest FLU now and that should be given the same land use as the Kanner CPUD. It is fair and is in conformity with the rest of its surroundings. It, too, is full of debris. Will Ms. Cartwright (the nemesis of the Costco development) treat her pal, Richard’s relative to the same tactics she is now employing with the Kanner CPUD mentioned in my companion pieces? It could result in the loss of couple of million dollars to the family of her ally and friend.

Is It Paradise Lost Or Another Junk Yard?

Posted on by

How many emails does it take to have the results that you seek? Robin Cartwright must think if she sends enough email, then she will have her results which is to stop the Kanner CPUD.

 

I have just read quite a few emails that she has sent to the city from late December through mid-January. She has claimed that the developer of the Kanner CPUD (Costco) has continuously exceeded what he is allowed to do with his permits. When pressed, however, for details about what exactly was wrong, she has only used generalizations such as, “We took a drone video this morning of the property. Please be advised that more than trails were cleared. Additionally, there are activities taking place on the property right now, which may or may not be “legal” as there is no silt fence nor chain link fence up…” An inspection made by the city building inspector showed no code violations going on.

 

The emails continued but without any proof of violations. At one point Mayor Matheson became involved. It appears he was giving direction to staff about going to the property. The development director sent an email to the building official on January 19th referencing the mayor asking him to send someone out to the site. Photos taken from a drone by Cartwright were the basis of the complaint though no footage was forthcoming.

 

When asked by City Attorney Mike Mortell to provide evidence of violations she claimed were occurring, Ms. Cartwright told him to visit the site. So far, every visit to the site has revealed no violations. Mortell wrote to her that she had only made broad accusations as to what was being done in violation of a permit. There has been no specificity to any claim.

 

Mr. Nicolosi, the building official, visited the site on January 19th. He walked the property and found no violations of the current permits. What he did find was that a pond that may or may not have had a DEP permit at the time of its creation was encroaching on the property from Lychee Tree Nursery. Nicolosi further found that “The Amy Busteed (3250 SE Willoughby) property has a building that is encroaching into the subject property. The building does not meet City of Stuart setbacks as well as constitutes a trespass as it is over the property line and inside the subject property according to the survey markers present.”

 

Nicolosi further states in his report, “The contractor contracted with a  company to use ground penetrating radar and has located several buried dump sites. The results of the radar investigation indicates that at some time in the past, someone excavated the property and dumped trash and debris and then covered it up to conceal the illegal dumping. The trash includes motorcycles, boats, axels, machinery parts, tires, etc. Below are pictures of some of the debris that was found.”

 

Nicolosi’s report can be found here

 

FWC also went out and inspected and found no violations.

 

Adam & Eve in Paradise
Pinterest

Apparently the pristine nature of the property claimed by Cartwright on the site of what will be people’s homes and stores was not a natural wilderness but rather an old junk yard. And both properties where actual violations have occurred and been documented were those of Linda K Richards’ family (she was an intervenor the Costco suit). So much for stewards of an ecological paradise.

 

 

In her emails to the city, Ms. Cartwright repeatedly states that she or someone at her direction is flying a drone over private property. She is video recording images of the property without the property owner’s permission. That is in violation of Section 954.50 of Florida statute. here

 

The city should not continue to bother the owner and contractors without specific reference to what in the code is being violated. Thinking something is wrong should not trigger an inspection which costs taxpayers money. It is enough without proof now of wrongdoing on the site.

 

Is this behavior harassment? I don’t know. But I do know that if it keeps up, I would not be surprised to see court action. The developer is not looking to hurt anyone, but we are talking about millions of dollars…which is serious money. Patience may be running out.

 

What Is An Expert Witness

Posted on by

This is the first of three articles regarding the Kanner CPUD.

 

When I was actively engaged in the real estate business, I would occasionally testify in court as an expert witness. I was a licensed real estate broker, a licensed insurance broker, I had designations as a Certified Property Manager from the Institute of Real Estate Management and a Certified Commercial Investment Member from the CCIM Institute.

 

Those various designations meant I had taken classes and had passed exams in my field. I took licensing exams and more education for the different states in which I was licensed as a real estate broker. But the most important aspect of being an expert witness was that I was currently and had for decades been engaged in the commercial real estate business as an owner, broker, and manager. All the certifications and licenses just proved my dedication to my profession. My testimony was valuable because of my experience.

 

EW Consultants has been in business for 25 years in Stuart. Edward Weinberg and his team have been used hundreds of times as expert witnesses for environmental and wetland matters in development projects in Martin County. They do the inspections and obtain the permits that are necessary to ensure that the law and rules are being followed. After authoring their report, it becomes part of the developer or landowner submission to the governing body.

 

If it is a contentious approval, someone from EW Consultants will testify, usually Weinberg, as to the contents of their report. In the Kanner CPUD (Costco) project, the developer hired Weinberg and EW Consultants to handle that part of the process. It was the developer’s expert witness.

 

One of the professional affiliations Weinberg had listed on his resume is being a member of the Society of Wetland Scientists. They have a certification program and Weinberg had been a member. Weinberg did not renew his membership in 2019. Does that disqualify him from being an expert and is that certification necessary?

 

On January 10th Robin Cartwright, who has opposed this project at every turn, sent an email to the Stuart City Commission and others stating that Weinberg was no longer certified by that organization. She went on to request that any action that was taken because of his lack of certification be reviewed and a third party be hired to review Weinberg’s reports.

 

Once again, there is no law that states Weinberg must be a member of the organization. There is no Florida agency that requires a license. Weinberg has put himself out there as an expert based on his experience and education including a Masters in Oceanography from FIT. Since he was certified by the Society of Wetland Scientist at one time, he had met their criteria. He did not want to continue with the organization for whatever reason. And there is no requirement that he does.

 

Since the report came from EW Consultants, the other members of the firm contribute to the work product. One of those members, Arnaud C. Roux, has that certification. Therefore, how many members of the firm need to belong to an organization that costs a substantial amount of money?

 

Further, the City of Stuart had EW’s report reviewed by a third-party consultant, Kimley Horn. It is true that Weinberg worked there but not since 1997. In his letter dated January 26th to the commissioners, the city manager correctly stated that if EW Consultants did not have what was required neither, the South Florida Water Management District or DEP would allow the company to pull permits on behalf of their clients. It is important to note that Florida Fish and Wildlife also allows the company to pull permits.

 

I go back to my statement about what an expert witness is. Much of that depends on what the trier of fact thinks of the individual purporting to be one. I know when I testified as one, I would be questioned on my credentials and experience first and then be asked about the case. The judge and, in some circumstances, a jury would decide how much credence to give my testimony.

 

And, besides, the Kanner CPUD has already been decided. The commission voted 5-0 to move forward with the project. There was an administrative state hearing regarding the land use which was instituted by Cartwright. Presently there is no decision on that matter. There are appeals that can be made but it is not likely the state or district court will go against the decisions of an elected body if all procedures were found to be followed.

 

You can find the city manager’s letter, resumes of Weinberg & Roux, and Cartwright’s email here

Parking & Form Based Code

Posted on by

Stuart is trying to implement form-based code in East Stuart and the Creek District. I hope that they do.

 

By doing so, the people who want to develop the properties they own within those areas know ahead of time what can be done. This should help end the many PUD applications that come before the commission. However, the commissioners would have to resist the temptation to insert themselves in the process going forward or otherwise they defeat the purpose of enacting that type of code.

 

Form-based code develops neighborhoods rather than individual projects. It takes a holistic approach. What this city and commission is used to doing is tweaking projects. Commissioners suggest to developers that they will vote to approve a project if the developer knocks a floor off here or puts a tree there. You need fifty parking spaces according to code but only have room for thirty-five, this is what you must do the commission tells the applicant.

 

The problem with that scenario is there is no consistency. Form-base code substitutes endless pages of tables and rules and states this is what the city wants to accomplish in this area. How the space is filled in the parcel is up to the developer. Another way to phrase form-based code is that a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

Ironically, by trying to exercise control over individual projects, the projects are often not as well implemented and designed as they should as part of an integral design for a neighborhood’s character. For example, consider parking. The lack of enough parking spaces as required by code has stopped many businesses from opening. While on Federal Highway, parking calculations are the explanation for empty parking lots, unfriendly streetscapes, and buildings set so far back that an observer can’t make out what businesses are located there.

 

Downtown Stuart has an excess of parking. There is no question about it. What it doesn’t have is a parking space for every customer directly in front of every business. Cities weren’t designed for that. Throughout the CRA, excess parking calculations to build a building or open a business have resulted in buildings not being developed or businesses not opening.

 

There are eight spaces for each car in the United States. Estimates are that 1/3rd of the land in cities is dedicated to parking. About 30% of a building’s cost are due to having code-required parking spaces. This is not sustainable.

 

Stuart must stop thinking in terms of 1960 and think about 2060 which is closer to the present. Within most of our CRA, we should forget about mandating how many parking spaces are needed for each apartment, home, or business. If parking becomes acute, then the private sector will build a garage. People who build housing know what they will need to make sure their buyers or tenants will live in the properties. The same for restaurants and stores. With all the complaining, how many businesses downtown have closed because of parking issues?

We should take places like the Baptist Church property that is for sale and the entire north side of Ocean Avenue from Dixie to U.S. 1, and have it rezoned and changed to a form-base code neighborhood. In that way a perspective developer will know what to build as of right. Once done, the commission should then stay out of the way and only allow it to be developed using the criteria within the window adopted.

 

Stuart commissioners and all governments are not very good at this part of running cities. They should bring their vision to a neighborhood then be confident enough to have the owners implement it. This may take decades for the vision to be built, but then the product will be much better than the one the current antiquated system is producing.

 

Why Martin County Needs A Rural Resort Land Use

Posted on by

Once again, Martin County finds itself without the right development code in place to move projects to completion.

 

I have written about the Discovery Land project on Bridge Road before. It will bring extremely expensive homes to the county in a resort setting. For all intents and purposes, there will be millions in tax revenue and require little in county services. Those who believe that placing enough roadblocks up will deter development are dreaming.

Suburban Sprawl

Discovery will bring many fewer units than what would be built in a more traditional development project. The choice is several hundred units worth millions each or several thousand worth $300,000 each. The latter would require many county services, and the former would not.

 

Most of the land in the Discovery project will remain undeveloped. In addition to the construction jobs which are always temporary, there will be a slew of others to support the resort plus ancillary businesses like shops and restaurants. To me it has always been an easy choice…the feared Browardization of thousands of rooftops or a few rich ones.

 

That doesn’t mean that development of Discovery will not come without rules. Right now, it does not seem current code quite fits the “rural resort” nature of the project. I understand staff and the applicant are attempting to write the code but is that the best way to go forward?

 

This project and others that may come after may be more than the staff can handle. And to rely on the applicant to help define the code changes necessary may not be the best for the county. The county needs to hire a consultant to expeditiously write what is necessary to move forward. Commissioner Smith is very fond of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. As time goes by, I have become a convert.

 

The county should get a quote from the council and others if it wants to write the best code for “rural resorts” for the benefit of all the parties. That would also take an immense pressure off the Growth Management department. At the same time as a neutral third party, the council would be able to more fairly hear the concerns of all sides.

 

There are several other projects that are in the wings that would fit the rural resort criteria, e.g., very high-end golf courses. These are not golf course communities but rather places where the rich fly in to play golf for a couple of days like Michael Jordan’s existing club. This type of development would be preferred to having endless rooftops in western Martin.

 

In my mind, this is smart development. People have a right to develop the property they own. Let’s make it easy for them to do so by creating a rural resort classification. At some point, the Harmony development, and others like it will end up being built if alternatives are not provided. In my opinion, that is what most Martin County residents want to see.

 

The government does not own the property…private property owners do. A well-written land classification may help keep endless seas of rooftops from the area. I think that is the smart way of having the inevitable growth.

Restaurant Service

Posted on by

Why do we go to restaurants?

 

We each have different reasons. A special occasion is one reason. Many of us eat out one, two or more times per week. I have friends that never make dinner.

I am the cook in our family and a good one. My wife does the cleanup. As a treat and given our busy schedules, once or twice a week we go out.

I enter a new restaurant with high hopes and anticipation. Yet more and more often, I leave disappointed. Sometimes it is the food. It can be poorly prepared, overly ambitious in its presentation or just plain awful. When that happens, I will go back after a while to see if it was just a bad night or something more. Seldom will I give it more than two tries.

 

I like eating out because I want to be served. Too often that service is poor in quality. You will see poor service in all types of dining establishments. The industry is known as the hospitality industry for a reason, and restaurant staff need to understand that concept.

 

I grew up in the restaurant business. I worked in restaurant kitchens and dining rooms. I toiled in hotel dining rooms, catering halls, places with French service, casual restaurants, and greasy spoons. Each type of establishment has differences in the food served. How formal or casual the service is will depend on the type of restaurant. However, casual dining does not mean inferior service.

 

In places that were formal, the Maître D’, captains, servers, and bussers were professionals. They were not ever going to be anything else but restaurant people. Occasionally, there would be someone like me, a student or as a second job. Even the short timers knew what was expected in the dining room.

 

I have two recent examples of what is unacceptable service and two of very good service. We recently ate with another couple in a restaurant in Hobe Sound. With everything I had heard about it, I planned on having an excellent experience. Was I wrong!

 

The server, a young lady, announced that she had just started at the place. I don’t know why that should make a difference. She then disappeared for 15 minutes and re-appeared to take our drink orders. Then another 15 minutes passed before coming back with the drinks…a vodka on the rocks and a glass of wine, not exactly complicated cocktails.

 

Every diner at the table should be finished with their meal before removing any plates. I have a particular peeve about that, and I cannot say how many times I have admonished a server for doing so. She fell right into that trap. She also had half the orders wrong, brought appetizers out for us at different times, and kept announcing that she had just started as if it were her get out of jail free card.

 

A couple of weeks later, we are eating in another restaurant when almost the same excuse was used by the server, “I have only been working for three days.” My wife and the other couple could not have been more accommodating when she made the same mistakes as the previous server in the other restaurant.

 

Finally, when she got the order wrong, drinks mixed up, left the water glasses unfilled, and many other mistakes, I had had enough. When my wife and the others continued to reassure her, she was doing just fine.  I said no she wasn’t. This is her profession for right now. She is expecting a tip and she is getting paid. She should spend some time learning her profession. Harsh…maybe?

 

I have heard many say there isn’t enough people to work. I don’t buy that excuse. During the same period, I went to two comparable places in ambience, price, and type of food. We had professional service.

 

There were plenty of servers and bussers on the floor. I also saw managers and owners that knew their business and would not have allowed mediocre service or food in their establishments. A new hire should always be assigned to an experienced employee to learn the ropes. The staff in these restaurants were professionals. The owners made sure that the employees knew that there was a team effort to serve customers.

 

It is about time that we return to the days when working in restaurants was treated as an occupation and profession not a fill-in until something better comes along. And you should never hear, “I have only been doing this for 3 days.”