Category Archives: Martin County

From September 29th Friends & Neighbors Newsletter

Posted on by

THE OLD COURTHOUSE COMES HOME

 

Since 1989, the County has leased the old Courthouse and Gazebo Park to Stuart. The City turned around and then sub-leased the Courthouse to the Arts Council. No money changed hands from Owner to Tenant or Tenant to Sub-Tenant. The only reason the City ever became involved was because the County wanted to tear down the building. With the termination of the old agreement, that all ends.

 

The County has received a $125,000 from the state for a new roof because the structure is historical. The Arts Council will receive $60,000 per year from the County to manage programs at the courthouse. The City will retain a lease on Gazebo Park, but the County can maintain the trees around the building without paying the City the tree trimming fee.

 

Commissioner Heard could not understand how the Arts Council qualifies for free rent and to receive $60,000 per year. She equated it to the BOCC picking winners and losers. On the surface it sounds that way, but Martin County has decided to be responsible for the building because it is an historical structure. The Arts Council is named in the Comp Plan as the County’s local arts agency.

 

There is absolutely no doubt that there are too many nonprofits being funded by nonprofits and or the government. Duplications and similar organizations abound. Perhaps the Arts Council should be combined as part of the Elliot, House of Refuge, and the Stuart Feed store. There can be a debate that joining all these organizations with one Executive Director and Board would make sense economically. But that is not the question being asked.

 

Just like government provides golf courses and parks, they should provide art and music. The Arts Council does that! So it isn’t, at least in this instance, the County picking a winner. This gives us a well-rounded community. A motion was made by Jenkins and seconded by Hetherington for the proposal. It passed 4-1 with Heard dissenting.

 

TO READ THE ENTIRE NEWSLETTER:

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Aacd75f58-c34d-44ba-bbc9-3859645f0dd2

GET THE ENTIRE NEWSLETTER IN YOUR MAILBOX BY SENDING YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO THOMASFCAMPENNI@GMAIL.COM

Why Do We Care About Parking?

Posted on by

The bane of planning departments across the United States is how to calculate the parking needs for a new development.

A multi-family project has a requirement for so many spaces per unit. Depending on the retail involved, there could be several different parking requirements. Medical offices may have several depending on specialty. Offices, entertainment venues and single-family homes have other requirements. And what is this based on? Is it science or research?

Parking calculations are driven by the political not the scientific. Even practical considerations are put aside when parking is considered. In this country, the average amount of livable square footage per person is 800 sq. feet while each car has 900 sq. feet of parking. Since the 1950s, America has been more concerned about where to park cars than almost any other requirement that goes into erecting new projects.

This preoccupation with parking has resulted in designing our homes, businesses and entertainment venues for the auto instead of people. When you require setting aside a requisite number of parking spaces for each development, you are substituting bureaucratic planning for market forces. This is proven over and over when you witness the vast empty parking lots around malls and office parks.

Before the beginning of modern America (after 1945), parking requirements were not generally considered in cities. In 1946, 12% of cities with a population of 10,000 or more had parking requirements. In 1952, 22.5% of cities did so and by 1972, 96% of cities had such requirements. This obsession with parking and the automobile “drives” people to have a car. Citizens begin to substitute cars for other alternatives in transportation. An example of this was the tearing up of the streetcar lines in Los Angeles. Patterns in where we work, shop and dine are affected.

Population densities are lower because municipalities demand that builders set aside as much space for autos as people. New York City, one of the cities with higher densities in the U.S., had its first comprehensive zoning plan in 1916 but had nothing on the books about parking until 1950. Since 1982, in most of Manhattan, there is no longer any parking requirement for residential development. New York City has further reduced the amount of municipal parking lots in an effort to discourage cars, especially in its core business areas.

Further studies have proven that having free street parking discourages the use of paid parking. As someone who began driving as a resident of Manhattan, I can tell you that several hours a week were spent finding on-street parking instead of paying.  But is free parking actually free? A study by the Milkin Institute stated that there is a definite monetary value to on-street parking that is not charged for. When parking is not charged by municipalities, all citizens absorb the cost.

San Francisco, which is one of the most expensive cities in which to live, has a parking requirement that adds $22.00 per square foot to construction costs. As to that supposed free spot at the mall, for each 1000 sq. feet of retail space, there are 6 to 8 parking spaces required which translates to more than 1000 sq. feet. So, when the price you pay for an item is calculated, the cost to provide that supposed free parking space is in the mix.

In downtown cores, requiring so much parking per residential unit, office space, or retail store is even more absurd. Buying on-street parking or construction of parking spaces within the project only makes the traffic situation worse. If one were to let the developer determine what parking is needed for his project, the market would decide what is necessary.

Instead of bureaucrats and politicians dictating needs, markets will. This results in the end user, the motorist, paying the cost of the space his auto is occupying. This only works if, in these denser areas, the on-street parking spaces have a cost. By charging for the space, the municipality can use the revenue to help pay for transit or street improvements.

It is not a municipality’s obligation to build garages or other parking amenities. Developers, businesspeople and residents themselves will decide how much parking is needed. This will have the immediate effect of allowing for more density in downtown corridors. It will promote more intermodal use, and, if need be, a private solution to any parking inadequacy by the private sector building parking facilities.

For the past 75 years, our development patterns have been dictated by cars. This has allowed sprawl, less use of mass transit, and a separation of our work, entertainment and residential life. It is imperative that we not have the auto dictate how we function as a society. If we are to have true cities, then we need to have markets decide. If we ignore parking requirements, almost immediately the costs of new projects will be less, allowing more diversity in our housing, retail and office tenancies.

Study after study has proven that there is no such thing as a free parking space. There are unintended, and mostly bad, consequences to our parking obsession. In an effort to foster transparency, let’s make sure everyone knows the facts.

Is The Ban Worth It

Posted on by

Once again, little old Stuart could be embarking on either being a trailblazing community or a foe of the City’s businesses.

The Commission on Monday Aug. 12th will discuss doing away with the use of plastic straws and polystyrene, starting with the properties the City owns. As an example of the impact, there would be no more plastic “clamshells” for your food at festivals in parks. If extended to the entire city, when you go out to eat you won’t be taking your “doggy bag” home in anything but a tin foil wrap in a paper sack.

Is outlawing these things a good thing to do? Sure, it is and should be supported.

It should be supported if the entire nation banned the products at the federal level as that would really make a difference to our environment. A bill has already been filed for next year’s session of the Florida legislature concerning this. If passed, it would be a ban in the third most populous state in the union, making us a national trend setter.

The County may have an interest in banning certain items. If Martin County did so, then Stuart could have a “Me Too” ordinance. The result would ensure that within the 550 square miles of dry land within Martin County’s boundaries there would be unanimity on this. All our residents, and more importantly businesses, would have the same regulations. The way this proposed City plan is currently shaping up, Stuart’s many businesses would pay the price…especially “Mom and Pop” shops.

Stuart has over 300 permitted events a year. If an ordinance is passed, the organizers and the vendors will have to do something special and change their business model to be here. I guess the “plastics” police will be out in force giving citations. This is big government gone amuck. Where is the cost-benefit analysis?

It is easy for Commissioners to impose their non-business judgment for that of Stuart’s tax-paying businesses. If a total ban is passed, then the lawsuits from McDonald’s will not be far behind. The litigation would be paid for by the City’s taxpayers. Now, given the new state law passed last legislative session, perhaps the City will also pay for the prevailing party’s legal bill.

Because you can, doesn’t mean you must. That is the motto of good government. This Commission needs to take a deep breath and not burden the City’s businesses to prove a point. If Stuart were Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, or Orlando, a ban could have an effect. Environmentally, such a ban for city-owned properties in Stuart will have virtually none.

Laws should not be passed so that we feel good. They are to be imposed for a purpose. If tomorrow you ban all plastics in the City of Stuart, that would not remove them from the Walgreens or Publix or Wawas outside of the City’s limit. Walgreens and Publix could even sue the City in Federal Court under the commerce clause.

If you want to do something that will impact the environment, the place to start is commercial recycling within the City which could be phased in over 3 to 5 years. Many residents do not even realize that commercial businesses (including restaurants and bars) do not currently recycle.  If required, the bottles and cans going into recycling would save the commercial businesses tipping fees at the landfill. This would make a huge difference and end up being much more environmentally friendly.

Unless we ban straws, plastic bags, polystyrene or anything else on a national level, state level or, at a minimum, throughout Martin County, we are not doing anything more than making ourselves feel good. Let’s look at commercial recycling, or better yet, a regional burn facility to incinerate these products. This is doing something that will have an impact.

Our Growth Industries

Posted on by

One more self-storage facility is being proposed to be built in Stuart. It is my understanding that there are three such projects in the development stage in the City with several more being built throughout the County. Along with assisted living facilities, self- storage facilities are our growth industries.

In some ways these facilities are dependent on one another. Americans in general love their stuff. I am no different. The only reason I don’t have a unit, is that I have a guest house that is my office and attic. Just like many, I can’t part with my stuff either.

And, as my wife and I come to the point that we need a little extra help and transition into an assisted living facility, what will happen to my stuff? My kids have already said that they don’t want most of it. Will I then put stuff into a storage unit even though I will by that point no longer ever have those things in my living space again?

Perhaps there is a business opportunity here. A developer can construct a combined self-storage and assisted living facility. You pay one price for both. Your stuff may be only a few feet from your living unit. It could be a Martin County innovation.

Martin County doesn’t have many manufacturing jobs. We are not a center for high tech or low tech…we don’t have much tech. The public and nonprofit sectors are our largest employers. It is nice that we have them and they do contribute to monetary circulation. But they rely on donations and taxes. No new money is entering the County.

If what is being built in our little County are storage facilities for both people and stuff that may be what Martin County will come to be known for. Our governmental policies have not encouraged businesses from locating here. Instead we may become the capital of storage units. We could have the distinction of having the most storage units per capita or the most nursing home beds.

But while both those things are needed, those sectors will not employ all our job seekers nor are they high-paying careers. This can’t be our economic strategy. Could it be because we lack a strategy? Government should not give businesses subsidies for locating within their boundaries.  But a no subsidy policy doesn’t mean government should ignore being business friendly.

Martin County has a level of government services that needs to be maintained. The roads are built, water lines and other utilities are existing, parks, libraries, and first responders already in place. Not spreading out the costs of those services to more people makes them more expensive to those already here. This is where we find ourselves.

If a factory is built and hires 200 people in Stuart or Jensen Beach, will it be required that government hire more people to service those jobs? Probably not since the infrastructure is already in place. However, the taxes that will be paid will go towards lessening the overall tax burden on those already in the County.

What would you rather see being built on that lot? A building employing 200 people or one storing stuff? How we accomplish the former instead of the latter is the question.

 

Taken For A Ride (From May 19th Newsletter)

Posted on by

How many of us have health insurance for ourselves and our dependents whose premiums are paid entirely by our employer?

I would bet not one of us is that fortunate. This is the new benefit that will be given to the senior employees of the Village of Indiantown, including the Council. No other government employees in Martin County have medical benefits to match. I doubt if anything like this is offered to any elected official.

The stated purpose was to hire and retain employees. Council Member after Council Member said so. So how many employees does the Village have? There are two. Harold Brown and Susan Owen, the Clerk. Mr. Brown’s benefits are pursuant to his contract. That leaves one full-time employee.

How many does the Village expect in the future? From what I can see the Development Director, Public Works Director, Financial Director and probably the Parks Director will be outside contractors which fulfills the “Government Lite” philosophy that has been touted. So, the main beneficiaries of 100% paid medical premiums for employee and dependents would be the part-time elected Council.

Whether you are a federal, state, or local elected official, there is no longer any such notion that you want to serve your community and move on. There are two Martin County Commissioners that have now been there for decades. This is their career. City of Stuart has two Commissioners that are approaching a decade in office receiving $18k a year with medical and retirement benefits. Stuart Commissioner Leighton also works for Martin County Courts.

With a population of less than 6,000 residents, the Village of Indiantown has a budget of $55,000 for its 5 Council Members for salaries. Now, they will add to that cost the most generous medical package in at least the County if not the state. This is what is wrong with government. Indiantown is not a rich community. The median household income is $38,000 per year and almost 25% of the population is at or below the poverty line.

I guess the “public servants” aren’t in those numbers anymore.

(To Subscribe To Your Free Newsletter Send Your Email Address To:

thomasfcampenni@gmail.com)

 

The Duties of Citizenship

Posted on by

Most of us have relatively little interaction with city or county governments. That is until we are in trouble and need police or fire/rescue, need a permit of some sort, or want to make a complaint. In some ways, it is too bad one of those situations will be our introduction to city hall or the county administration building.

We are all responsible for government performance. We cannot treat local government services as we would shopping in a store or as if we were consulting an attorney. For government to be at its best, every citizen should be ready to contribute time and energy to make it work.

We should view being a citizen as an active responsibility. Involvement is key to having good government. If we allow our municipality and county to govern without our input, we are asking for a bad outcome. Citizens need to take advantage of the opportunities afforded for civic involvement such as serving on community boards and other volunteer opportunities.

If citizens are not involved, mistrust begins to develop between government employees and the people they are there to serve. Residents have a civic responsibility to be part of government’s workings. I know that only a few will be able to devote hours to being involved but taking one of the citizen’s academies (see links below) offered will open your eyes to how your government operates.

We can’t have good government without everyone being part of the government. Go to your local council or commission meeting and see how you are being represented. How can you vote to keep someone in a job if you have no idea what they are doing in your name? In the larger governments, that Council Member or Commissioner is being paid a salary and receiving benefits such as medical and pension. Like any employee, they are not anxious to lose their jobs and citizens are the ones those employees report to.

Ask questions of staff and elected officials. Make sure that they understand what is coming before them. From my own experience, I can tell when an elected official or appointed board member has not looked at the agenda package that they are supposedly voting upon at that meeting. The public should not let those acting in our name off the hook for this inattention.

But, when staff, elected officials, or appointed board members are not prepared and do not take their positions seriously, our governments run much less efficiently and our taxes increase. It is the citizens that allow the carelessness and inattention to detail to continue, and then those same citizens whine about the result. In order to hold people accountable, you must have some understanding about how and what those people are supposed to accomplish. That takes involvement and knowledge.

It is incumbent on all citizens to spend an hour or two monitoring and understanding government. If you have more time, you can volunteer. Meet with your elected officials and question their decisions and understand their motives. It probably is a bad sign if a Commissioner doesn’t want to schedule an appointment with you, the constituent. The more you know, the less you will be fooled.

 

 

Here are links to two citizen academies. Stuart Police Department also has one.

https://www.martin.fl.us/CARES

http://www.sheriff.martin.fl.us/citizens-academy.html

 

And So It Begins (From The Martin County Taxpayers Association

Posted on by

Here is a piece I wrote for the Taxpayers Association. To read more go to:  https://mctaxpayers.org/articles-2/

The governments of Martin County are beginning their budget processes for the upcoming fiscal year.

As they begin to put together their operating, capital improvement plan, and enterprise fund budgets, the public will see that there will be increases in various taxes and fees.  It is a bit early to tell where and how these increases will manifest themselves. Given the state of the various governments finances and the services they will need to provide, it is hard not to believe that taxes will be higher in the coming year.

The Martin County Taxpayers Association has begun analyzing and gathering information regarding the upcoming budget year for the various governments of the County. It is important that the individual taxpayer understands why increases will be proposed and whether they are justified. The Taxpayers Association can analyze the numbers, but it isn’t always easy to know whether a proposed project is necessary. Further, many times, we do not have the expertise to know whether a less expensive alternative exists.

That is why having more citizen volunteers that can delve into the minutia of a subject is necessary.  For example, if you currently or in a former life worked for a road construction company, perhaps you could look at a proposed road improvement and help us point out a less expensive alternative. As in the private sector, government needs to evolve and improve the way it provides services to their clients, the taxpayers.

The Martin County Taxpayers Association is a volunteer organization that can only be as good as the members willing to help in this work. While we have a dedicated board, the association can always use more help in our legislative, observation and membership committees.

Each resident and citizen is a consumer of government services. Some may take advantage of one service more than other residents (e.g., the library system).  If that library user thinks there is a way to provide all or part of the library services in a more cost-effective way, we would welcome an opportunity to partner with him/her to help determine where potential savings or efficiencies exist. If need be, we could show an interested volunteer where in the budget that item is listed. Our organization is an entirely volunteer group, so our strength comes from having a diversity of expertise and a willingness to use that expertise for the benefit of all taxpayers.

This organization believes that we are a partner with elected officials and their staffs to help provide better government for as low a cost as possible. We are not an anti-tax organization but rather a smart tax organization. Every dollar collected from the taxpayers should be used to buy the best level of service. This is what the citizens of the County deserve.

 

All Laws & Regulation Are Not Needed

Posted on by

When someone is in government as an elected official, the official develops a tendency to believe that every problem can be solved by passing a law or ordinance. These actions make everyone feel as if they have accomplished something. Have they really done so?

This tendency of elected officials to solve every problem through legislation is natural for them. That is their tool and, therefore, using it is what they come to know. Looking in hindsight, I don’t believe I was any different when I was an elected official.

Every societal problem cannot be solved this way.

I see this attitude by elected officials over and over: The inability of a commissioner to accept his or her very limited practical scope of authority. By this I mean that, yes, commissioners have the legal authority to pass or change ordinances, but should it be exercised in this way and to such an extent?

Can local government pass an ordinance mandating that no tree can be cut down in a person’s yard without a permit? In Florida today, the answer is yes. However, ordinances such as that have led to the Legislature trying to pass bills to pre-empt that authority from local governments.

There are times that local governments should pass ordinances to curtail egregious behavior within their jurisdictions. If your town is in a resort area, there may be a justifiable reason to regulate short-term rentals within your community.

Often local regulation does not hinge on a need as much as a complaint over a single incident. In Stuart, the entire Commission and City staff have been thrown into a tizzy over a duplex owner that erected a front yard 6-foot fence. To my knowledge, there has never been another incident regarding front yard fences.

There have been complaints from other neighbors on this block of duplexes. Having seen the fence, I don’t blame the residents for their anger. But, because of this one incident, a “Zoning in Progress” has been passed by the Commission. This means that any new front yard fence permits in the entire City will be decided at the discretion of the Development Director until a new ordinance is passed.

Now, thousands of tax dollars are being spent on countless hours of staff time to rewrite the code because of this one incident. The original culprit will still be there because it was grandfathered under the old code. What the Board should do is prohibit front yard fences in this two-block neighborhood of attached homes and leave the rest of Stuart under the existing regulations.

In government, this is not an isolated incident. This is an example of regulation which is not “smart.” You couldn’t call it over regulation because a problem in a narrow section of Stuart does exist. But what the Commission is doing by using this one incident is changing a regulation that has worked for the past half-century. Many people in neighborhoods such as mine have or will want a fence to make sure their dog or kid can’t leave the front yard. They may find they can’t or will be limited to how high or of what material the fence can be.

This unneeded regulation is what gives the Legislature the plausible argument of pre-empting local governments from passing other regulations which are actually needed.

The Legislature is not immune to using the same rationale, only on a statewide basis. It occurs when the Legislator, a friend or one constituent runs into a local ordinance that prevents him or her from doing something. The one thing all politicians have in common, whether on a state or local level, is their ability to believe that all problems have a legislative solution.

Every elected official should not jump to the conclusion that a law passed will equate to a problem solved. In most cases, a smart lawyer or wily citizen will find a way to get around that prohibition. The answer to every problem, or even most problems, cannot be solved by legislation or regulation.

COMMISSIONER STACEY HETHERINGTON ON HOME RULE

Posted on by

COMMISSIONER HETHERINGTON FELT STRONGLY ABOUT THIS AND SENT IT UNSOLICITED. I ALSO FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT HOME RULE THEREFORE I AM PUBLISHING HER OPINION:

As a newly elected county commissioner, I am often asked: “Is it what you expected?” and “What is your priority?” I’ve been surprised about a number of things since taking the oath as your county commissioner, but the greatest disappointment is the state legislature’s continued attack on local government, commonly called Home Rule.

In fact, our citizens’ right to make decisions locally is under siege.

Home Rule allows counties and cities to make their own rules of governance, instead of relying on the state legislature. It ensures that enforcement of those local rules will be “at home,” and that any necessary changes as a county or city grows reflects the trust of residents in their local leaders.

In 1968, Florida voters amended the state constitution to delegate Home Rule authority to municipalities and counties. For a good number of years, that decision by the voters was honored and respected. In the past 15 years, however, that previously demonstrated respect by the state legislature has eroded. Each year the legislature ratchets up its attack on Home Rule by attempting to move authority from the local level to the state. This current year is no exception.

Several bills were introduced in the first week to micromanage every aspect of government and life in local communities. Instead of making your voice heard at City Hall or to the County Administration Building, residents would need to travel to Tallahassee, where legislators seem to believe only they know what’s best for you..

They seem to prefer “cookie cutter” solutions for every community, regardless of differences in need, character and values. Although I have been an elected official for a short time, I am a third-generation native of Martin County. I can assure you that we are not all the same, and the cookie-cutter approach will not work. You know just as well, even if you are not a native, that Martin County has little in common with Broward, Tampa, Miami or Jacksonville. Rules made with Jacksonville in mind may do harm to our own community and vice versa.

Who can better understand and determine what is best for our community? Your county and city elected officials, or elected officials in Tallahassee? You and I know the answer, but state legislators keep voting themselves more and more power over our communities by decimating our Home Rule authority with increasing pieces of legislation designed to transfer those powers to the state.

Be sure to read proposed House Bills (HB) 3 and 5, which I consider to be a reckless assault on towns and taxpayers. If enacted, they would prevent Florida’s towns and taxpayers from making their own decisions about matters as basic as taxes or certifying contractors. It even prevents local communities from creating laws that govern any kind of business — from gas stations and liquor stores to strip clubs and pot shops.

After serving my first few months as your county commissioner, this attack on Home Rule is the greatest single crisis I’ve witnessed for local government. It not only needs to stop, it needs to be reversed. 

I’m not sure how the state legislature believes it has the authority to usurp the will of the voters of Florida granted to them by the 1968 Constitutional Amendment, which created Home Rule, but do it they have. We must work together to protect local decision-making by rejecting House Bills 3 and 5, and the most effective way to do that is to contact the committee members who will be reviewing these bills to see if they should advance. Your voice is needed now more than ever.

Stacey Hetherington

Martin County Commission, District 2

Waiting for the Train

Posted on by

I am in the Virgin/Brightline Station in Miami waiting for my train to return to West Palm Beach.

Sitting in the station and looking out onto the street, the once neglected neighborhood is being reborn with new rental, office and condo buildings. The station will be the hub for not only transportation but also for revitalization of this neighborhood. Thousands of new residents, businesses and tourists have begun to flock to the area.

No one believes in or wants such massive development in Martin County. However, it wouldn’t be bad thing (on a much-reduced scale) for Stuart. Instead of thousands of apartments, how about a couple of hundred? A hotel of a hundred rooms instead of one of thousands. New businesses would open to service new residents, and the visitors that would come for a day or two.

We went to Miami Beach for the weekend. We had done this in the past and had driven to get there, which was a nightmare. This time we took the train from West Palm and it was cheaper and less aggravating than driving and paying for parking which was $44 per day plus tax at our hotel. The last time we went, we didn’t drive our car once while we were there but rather used Uber or Lyft. We did again this time.

For years, I fought against the train. Now that Martin County has accepted Brightline/Virgin, so have I. It would be foolish to continue a fight that will not be won in the courts. I have taken my own advice and decided to let the market determine the fate of this business.

In the meantime, I believe it is in the interest of Martin County and Stuart to work in partnership with Virgin/Brightline to mitigate any problems. We need to use this as an opportunity to bring residents, businesses, and tourist dollars to the area. Virgin Trains are no more the enemy than the people who want to build Savannah Place or Seminole Bluffs. In those instances, we work with them to achieve the best possible project. The same should be done with this business.

We can have the best possible outcome by taking this more inclusive stance. There are several possible sites for a station to be located which would be to Stuart’s best advantage. For those worried about development of the possible City Hall site, I agree that would be the worst of the options. The peninsula only has one way in or out. That is not where the biggest bang for the buck would be.

Second best would be the fairgrounds. The cons are it is not near downtown nor does it offer the economic advantages that should and could be maximized. When that site becomes available, it should be used in conjunction with the airport to add more light industrial space. These are high-paying jobs, and the more we can cluster them together, the more synergy will be derived.

The ideal spot is the Erneston/East Coast Lumber Yard properties adjacent to MLK Blvd and Dixie Highway. There is the opportunity for finally constructing a parking garage on the Court House parking lot. It would be an economic stimulus for East Stuart and a tie-in to the Colorado Avenue corridor. It is eminently walkable to downtown. We could have the tram meet each train. There is room for new businesses, a hotel and residences without adding to the problems of overcrowding downtown.

As I finish writing this, I am still at the Miami station overlooking newly constructed buildings and a few empty lots. More and more of the area is being relieved of blight in this CRA neighborhood. If Brightline ends up going belly up tomorrow, these buildings will remain. The people that have moved here will stay. The businesses with their offices aren’t going anywhere.

The same would happen in Stuart and Martin County. The developed real estate stays. Most of the economic benefit of the new construction remains. That is why we need to work with this company. It is in our own best interest.