Category Archives: Our Future

Sail Fish & Development

Posted on by

Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th century German philosopher.

One of Nietzsche’s ideas was “eternal recurrence,” also known as “eternal return.” The concept, that incidents in life continue to repeat, was proven to be correct by the Stuart Commission when they did not decide what to do for the umpteenth time with the Sailfish Ball Fields. For a decade, the City has been trying to determine whether those fields should be developed. To date, there still is no clear way forward…. only the same outcome of indecision.

Much of the problem seems to be that there is no systematic approach. Government, for all its vaunted keeping of records of past actions or inactions, refuses to ever read and learn from them. Consequently, the past is never studied by either staff or Commissioners to see what transpired earlier. While Nietzsche’s concept of “eternal return” is esoteric, the Spanish-American philosopher, George Santayana said something more apropos: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

By not knowing what transpired earlier, there cannot be forward movement. At the meetings, the City Attorney attempted to give a history to the Commission, but it was not in prepared remarks and was superficially insufficient. Even the two Commissioners who had sat through discussions in past sessions appeared not to have remembered what was previously discussed and voted upon.

So, once again, there was the specter of Little Leaguers and their parents, the vast majority of whom do not live within the City limits and pay no Stuart taxes, crying about “their” ball fields. I resent the fact that, as a Stuart resident and taxpayer, I must subsidize the recreational pursuits of children that live outside the City. There are hard costs of $85,000 to maintain those fields which are not even under the City government’s control.

It is nice to hear about the past at Sailfish and the “poor” kids from Jensen Beach and Palm City waxing poetic about their baseball. The parents of those children pay taxes, not in Stuart, but to Martin County to provide recreational fields. So, why then, should City of Stuart residents pay for ball fields when only about 10% of the players are residents of the City? For the Commission to continue to allow this is ridiculous and a gross misuse of tax dollars.

The Commission and staff lost sight of the fact that there should have been no discussion about whether to sell those fields or not at the meeting. That decision was already a foregone conclusion, or so it would appear to any business person when the Commission decided to put out an RFP for developers to build there. Both the development applicants have spent considerable time and thousands of dollars to put these proposals together. Should that effort and expense be treated in such a cavalier fashion? I don’t think so.

Staff had an obligation to lay out a coherent vision of what was to be achieved by the Commission that night. If they had done so, then the Commission would have had the obligation to check the boxes outlined. Instead, the entire matter devolved into a morass of indecision. There were no rhyme or reason about how to proceed. The Commission concluded to once again make no decision.

Before this moves forward again, certain questions need to be answered. The first is whether the Stuart Parks and Recreation Department will provide recreational programs. Presently, besides the after school and summer camp program, programs are de minimis. In my mind, both are needed and should continue but so should sports, both organized and ad hoc.

Currently the role of organized baseball is filled by Martin North Little League and their sub-programs. According to the information provided by them to the City, there are currently 20 City of Stuart children enrolled in their league out of the 192 kids in total. Stuart tax payers are subsidizing the fields to the tune of $85,000, or $4,250.00 per Stuart kid. That is more than half the amount per capita that the School District pays to educate a child.

When I was a youngster there was Little League and Pop Warner football. I had friends and classmates that belonged to those programs. Most of us, however, didn’t play in organized sports. We showed up at the park and played ball. There were city recreational staff available to watch our behavior and hand out equipment, but you could just drop by and play ball on an ad hoc basis.

Life is different now.  I wonder if kids would come if they knew they could go to 10th Street and be given a football or basketball and be able to play ball. As to organized recreation, there is nothing wrong with our own City staff providing it for Stuart children.

Let’s spend Stuart tax dollars for Stuart kids.

In order to provide organized recreation, the City would need to appropriate some money for the Recreation Center field, as well as for equipment and additional staffing. The staff needs to present to the Commission a modest plan on how to pay for this. It does not need to be grandiose with 4 baseball fields, a soccer field, and a football field. The important thing will be to make sure that there are adequate programs for all Stuart kids to participate.

The Recreation Center is not just for East Stuart but for all of Stuart. It needs to accommodate residents from Bahama Street as well as Manor Drive. A City of Stuart’s size cannot afford to have more than one Recreation Center and 10th Street is it.

The second matter that needs to be addressed is the Public Works Garage. It is not practical to decide about moving Public Works without knowing the cost and, just as importantly, where it is going. Supposition and rough estimates may result in faulty decisions. It should be up to the Public Works Director and City Manager to devise a budget and location before any further thought is given to selling either the current location or the Sailfish Ball Fields.

Third is the question of housing. Staff and the Economic Council gave a masterful presentation of declining City economic projections. The Finance Director provided a very significant statistic. The City of Stuart is still not collecting the amount of ad valorem taxes that it did in 2006. The real estate taxes currently collected by the City of Stuart are only half the amount needed to pay the public safety budget.

The tax bill for a median condo is $266 and single-family home $494. If you count every parcel in the City, 610 parcels pay nothing, 700 parcels pay $100 or less with 3102 parcels paying $500 or less. Yet, the cost per parcel for City services is $700. If, the City were a business, you would not like the trajectory.

Our housing stock is old. There is a useful life determined by both functional, economic, and physical obsolescence. Many of our homes have reached one or more of these forms of obsolescence. A home that is 60 years old but in good condition could be just fine for a resident that moved into the home in 1958 when it was new. That same home, even in good condition, would not be attractive to a 30-year-old because some of the features of that home are no longer functional for today’s families and the improvements needed cannot be economically justified.

There is a dearth of residential properties. From rental stock to owner occupied, there is not enough product. This results in higher prices being charged either to lease or buy in the Stuart market. The only way to solve the problem is to build new housing of every type. At last week’s Commission Meeting, a planner stated that there was a shortage of 4000 units in the City. That may sound high until you factor in the 21,000 people according to a DEO report that commute to the City every day because they either can’t afford to live here or the type of housing they are looking for is not available.

Does that mean that the City needs to make sure that there are units available for under market prices? I would say the answer is yes and no. A city of Stuart’s size does not have the resources or the expertise to provide those subsidies of under market rate housing. What it can do is make product more available by increasing supply through smart development policies.

I hear over and over that the proposed housing is too expensive and that it will fail. What exactly does failure mean? Take the worst-case scenario, which is nothing will be rented for the price needed to pay the mortgages and taxes. Then two things will occur. The bank will foreclose and sell the project to someone else at a reduced amount, and then the rents needed to carry the project will be less. The market will find what is known as equilibrium.

At the same time, if the project is successful from the very beginning and the rental rates are achieved, then pressure is lessened on the existing housing stock. The supply has increased but the demand will remain the same allowing those older units to rent or sell for less. The best thing that can happen to Stuart is to increase supply. In the rental real estate market, a 5% vacancy rate usually equates to equilibrium which means that supply and demand are in sync.

So, should the ball fields be developed? The answer is yes if the above items occur. It is imperative that the City not allow nostalgia or fuzzy thinking to influence what is best for Stuart. If you want to have an economically diverse and generationally friendly place to live and work, you cannot keep the existing quid pro quo.

As to “workforce” or “affordable” housing, I would like to see one example of a city of the size and with the economics of Stuart in the housing business. There aren’t any. You cannot compare Stuart to New York, Miami or even West Palm Beach. Those cities’ size and tax base afford different opportunities.

Here is what I believe can be done. The City administration can put together a pilot program of duplexes in East Stuart with one side owner occupied and the other a rental unit. They can be built on smaller lots. This type of project would encourage home ownership and demonstrate feasibility.

In respect to the ball fields, when the City does an RFQ, it can ask that a limited number of units be kept to 70% of the average medium income. The project needs to be mixed-use in nature. It needs to be open with residential and businesses fronting all streets including Martin Luther King Blvd. This should be planned as an economic generator for East Stuart, not a gentrification project.

There is a way forward, but it must be logical and methodical. The City Manager needs to take steps now. The Commission kicked this down the road for 90 days. That was idiotic. Once the steps that I outlined are taken, then the RFQ process should begin again, but only if the Commission realizes that, once an RFQ is released, the decision has been made to sell those fields. It cannot be taken back. At Monday’s meeting, City Manager Dyess said that the Commission needed to get off the merry-go-round. He was right.

Edmund Burke, an 18th century member of Britain’s Parliament, a philosopher and historian wrote: “When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people”.

It is time the City Commissioners show leadership for the good of the City of Stuart. They were elected to make decisions, not sway in the winds of fickle popular opinion.

Stuart Commission Needs More Deliberation & Fewer Motions

Posted on by

During Commissioner comment, Mayor Leighton read what I believe was a press release from Congressman Mast’s office condemning the South Florida water Management District’s Board for extending a lease on land to a sugar company where the reservoir will be built south of the Lake. The press release calls for the Board’s dismissal. The lease extension will run through March 31st, 2027.

 

With another lost summer behind us, I can more than understand why any hint of delaying the reservoir would evoke anger. But an elected deliberative board needs to have all the facts before doing anything. In this case that was far from true. In fact, the City of Stuart Commission, through naiveite and political manipulation, became a pawn in a struggle where Stuart does not belong.

 

The lease extension will run for an additional 8 years through March 31st, 2027. If that in any way would delay the construction of any part of the reservoir then perhaps it would be understandable that Stuart should be upset. However, in this case, if anyone read the lease extension before reacting, they would have seen that after the first 20 months the District could terminate the lease with 120 days’ notice.

 

At present, while it has been approved by President Trump, money is not expected to begin flowing to the project for several years. What the District did was smart stewardship by keeping the property producing revenue while we continue to wait for Washington.

 

What the Stuart Commission did was act not only foolishly but with hubris toward another governmental body. It is improper for an elected body to demand the removal of another governmental body not under their control. How would the City Commission like it if the County Commission demanded that the City LPA members be dismissed because they did something that the BOCC didn’t like?

 

It has become painfully obvious to this observer that the City Commission, which is a deliberative and policy board, has become “motion crazy.” Commissioner comments are the time when individual Commissioners can report on their activities and ask that staff look into a resident’s complaint. Turning it into a motion frenzy to have pet projects of Commissioners approved leads to bad policy and poor decisions.

 

If Commissioners wish to have a matter discussed, then they should speak to the City Manager and have it placed on the agenda of the next meeting under deliberation and discussion. In that way it can be fully vetted, and every Commissioner can have all the facts before action is taken. What is going on now is a Commission free-for-all. This is making the Stuart City Commission look amateurish and easily manipulated.

 

Commissioners need to realize that they should not let their personal beliefs interfere with what is best for the City. They should not be manipulated by each other or outside influences. There is almost no instance where a matter can’t wait until another meeting. Good government demands a deliberative stance.

 

Our two newest Commissioners ran on transparency. It is anything but transparent to vote on something without proper notice being given for the public. Staff has the obligation to make sure the Commission has all the information before action is taken. This Commission needs to start acting as a mature deliberative body.

 

There Is a Need for Educational Change

Posted on by

How we educate our children has changed dramatically over the years.

The amount of new information that is produced is growing exponentially. How do you incorporate this expanding realm of knowledge into a curriculum? Or, should the school system even try to do so? One thing for certain is that the methods for instructing our kids are outmoded.

What is being taught, and how it is being taught, is determined not by teachers or schools but by bureaucrats and legislators. Mandates encompassing everything from classroom design to recess are institutionalized and codified in state capitals and Washington. Teaching to the test was not something I remember hearing when I was in school.

American education has become more and more bureaucratized while our children have become less and less competitive with their world peers. For example, in math the average U.S. student is one full year behind the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) average and 3.5 years behind an average student In Singapore. We also lag in science and reading with other OECD countries.  Our educational system is demonstrably worse than other industrialized and first world countries.

Some people and educators claim that America’s averages are brought down by the number of foreign-born students; 23% of American students are either foreign born or have at least one parent that is. Canada, our neighbor, has 30% of its students that are either foreign born or have a parent that is.   Canadian students consistently outperform U.S. students in academic rankings.

How do we improve the dismal state of our education system?

I don’t believe that the answer is to make more rules or have more tests. Doing exactly that has not remedied our academic standings and has made our kids fall further behind. There are 57 million primary and secondary students in the United States. Many would say that we should leave education to the local school board to manage. In 1950s America, that probably would have been a good idea. It no longer is today.

All levels of government need to get out of the education business. This may sound like a radical idea. It is in some respects but, given the state of American education and our future, it needs to happen. There is more than one way for a teacher to instruct and a student to learn. For nearly a century, we have attempted to homogenize educational instruction. That uniform method has not resulted in better educated students.

If the government is not in the business of education, that does not mean it does not regulate the business of education. The state should license teachers and schools much as they currently do doctors and hospitals. Through our taxes, government will be supplying the funds to be distributed to independent schools. Just as with healthcare or our legal system, government has a responsibility to make sure that society is protected from any scammers or unqualified educational practitioners. Our children’s education is vital to having a functioning society.

Government does not dictate what medicine a doctor prescribes, and it should not do so with curriculum. Parents will be forced to take a much more active role in the schools their children attend. For some children, there will be a necessity to have special schools, but these too can be handled in the same way with more government oversight and a larger voucher payment.

The literally hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars currently spent on administrators, coordinators and bureaucracy can be better spent in individual schools. Parents will pick the educational institution best suited to the child instead of forcing the child to conform to one standard irrespective of the child’s abilities. What I am proposing is to dismantle an educational monopoly and bureaucracy that no longer serves American children. The current system does not educate our children in the manner they need to compete on the world stage.

This would remove the expensive middlemen and bureaucracy that are individual school districts. What I am proposing are non-profit, independent, charter schools that are licensed by the state. The schools should be individually functioning institutions operated by independent boards. The boards must be made up of local citizens with a majority of members being parents of students attending the school. By that requirement, schools will continue to be parent-centric and not become dominated by corporations. As non-profit corporations, they will not be profit generating. One must look at them as we do other local charitable organizations in our communities.

While this proposal privatizes education and allows for much more diversity in curriculum and pedagogic methods, it does not take government completely out of the picture. They are still the funder through tax dollars and, therefore, need to have oversight authority as they currently do with other regulated entities such as nursing homes, hospitals, and private universities. Teachers and principals would be regulated much as government now does with lawyers, doctors and insurance brokers, ensuring they meet minimum qualifications.

Each year, our children become less able to compete in the world. We have tried “big education” with government at all levels becoming more and more involved with less and less success.

In the past few years, I have been involved as a board member with the Center for Constitutional Values. I have seen just how smart and accomplished some of our Martin County kids are. But not all our kids thrive in their current academic environment. Unfortunately, those children are the majority of our kids. They are not living up to their potential. How about we try something to give them a chance to do so?

Good Ole Boys

Posted on by

Are the “Good Ole Boys” at it again in Stuart?

It appears that they are. And, if so, why is this still happening, especially for something as mundane as Flagler Place?

First, a history. What is now known as Flagler Place was originally built as a USO center during WW2. It became a recreation center for Stuart until the “Great Recession” a decade ago. At that point, the City decided to cut staff and lease out the space. For a time, the Lyric Theater ran the facility but because of a few community “activists” the Lyric decided it was not worth the aggravation they were put through.

So, the City decided to lease out the place about five years ago. They put out an RFP and the Commission had to choose between two competing bids. One was an artist group and community members and the other was the current occupant. The current occupant bid less but received the lease anyway. It was pointed out at the time that the other group was not as fiscally responsible and business oriented. Fair enough.

But the real reason — I believe that the lease was simply given as part of the “Good Ole Boys” network. The owner was a business partner in another business with Stephen Leighton. At the time Mr. Leighton was married to Commissioner Leighton and the tenant was a good friend of the Commissioner. I was there that night at the Commission Meeting as a member of the public. Though Commissioner Leighton recused herself from the vote, there was no doubt who was going to get the lease.

But times change and friendships fade. When Ms. Smith (the current lessee) wrote a letter to the City exercising her option for renewal, the City wrote back that the answer was “no.” In his letter to Ms. Smith, the City Manager based his refusal to renew on the following reasons: she had not paid her rent on the first of the month  and that she had failed to do so several times. When she paid after the tenth of the month, late fees were charged in the total amount over the years of $597.86. Because of these reasons, the City sent her a letter refusing her option.

Only the City made an error. Since Ms. Smith books events for up to a year in advance, she sent her renewal in early to make sure she could book without causing problems for some poor bride. So, the City had to walk back their refusal, at least for another year.

Why is it important and why should citizens care? Because our government should not be treated as if it is the purview of a few insiders whether awarding a lease or taking it away.

Did a Commissioner step over the line in settling a personal score? What will the City do with Flagler Place? Does it intend to go into the banquet hall business? There already is a City Community Center where one can rent space for events. How many does a small city of about seven square miles need or afford? The last time the City ran this as a Community Center, it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so. This was the “white center” and the other the “black one.” We do not need to go back to Jim Crow days.

When I spoke to staff, I was told that most Commissioners didn’t care about what it cost. When I spoke to Commissioners, they told me they did.  With so much in government, there is never a straight answer.

How many other City tenants owe money and or late fees? When I spoke with Ms. Smith, she claimed to be unaware of even being in arrears and upon receipt of the letter she told me she has paid those fees. If push came to shove, would a judge agree that this was enough of a breach to put someone out of business? It would be interesting, perhaps we will find out.

I do know that, if it was such a serious breach of the lease, why didn’t the City move against Flagler Place regardless of a renewal? I think it all comes back to what is going on behind the scenes — like the 55% Commissioner raise and the $3 million poison pill clause in the Mulligan lease. It comes down to being a “Good Ole Boy.”

 

 

What Government Services To Provide & How To Pay (Part 2)

Posted on by

A month ago, I wrote the first installment of a two-part series on how we pay for government services and what services should government provide.

The first piece concentrated on which services to provide and the difference between what the government should do and what private industry can do. This installment will concentrate on how society pays for those governmental services.

In examining what services should be provided, it became obviously clear that government does certain things quite well and is the best entity for doing those things. I used the example of law enforcement. Consistent and fair policing is a much more probable outcome when government provides it than if the private sector does. Further, the profit motive would preclude the services being provided as economically and as professionally as the public sector.

Unlike the private sector, when government produces a product, it needs to have taxpayers approve of the product — whether they use the service or not. So, while companies can tailor their products to the individual consumers that will buy those products, government does not have that ability. It is a one-size-fits all approach.

Forty-one states have income taxes. Florida has a prohibition against having one in its constitution. This has been a boon to the state’s economy since this is a reason people, especially retirees, re-locate here. Overall, businesses have lower taxes than the national average. Property taxes are higher than average for the nation.

Through their legislature, Florida voters have decided that social services are not where their tax dollars should go. Per capita spending is approximately $1500 per year, including education. Of course, because we spend so little on social services including education, many Fortune 500 corporations have chosen not to locate here. Our educational spending is less than $8800 per student, including administration and security, and this shows in our lower overall national rankings.

So how do we fund our government? On the state level, it is through the sales tax. Roughly 93% of the 6% that is collected on most sales remains in Tallahassee. Local government, such as counties and municipalities, rely on property taxes.

The Florida Legislature has been quite cynical in how they have achieved “tax cuts.” Tallahassee has primarily done so on the backs of local government.

Real estate taxes are one of the few sources of revenue that the Florida constitution permits local governments to levy without legislative approval. However, through pre-emption, edict and constitutional amendments, that ability has been extremely curtailed over the past decade. In other words, “tax cuts” given by Tallahassee have been done through limiting local government’s ability to levy taxes. If Tallahassee wanted to give a tax cut, it could lower the sales tax rate, but then their own pot of money would have shrunk. Instead, they shrunk local governments’ pots.

As counties, school boards and cities have seen their revenue streams constrained, Tallahassee has continued to pass along unfunded mandates. The largest one this year was school security by mandating a law enforcement officer in every school. The state has also cut funding for various programs that will result in programs disappearing or localities dipping into shrinking funds to pay for them.

Martin County already has higher than average real estate property taxes, as compared to other Florida counties. This is due to a lack of commercial and economic development, along with a dearth of residential growth. This was proven most recently with our discussions to keep FPL. The company has an option to relocate to Collier County, which has a lower tax rate.

The level of government that Martin County and its municipalities can afford to buy shrinks with each new property exemption or pre-emption. Many of our local elected officials believe and act as if there is an endless supply of tax dollars to buy services, as was witnessed by the recent golf course Shangri-La discussion. There is a disconnect between wants and needs and the ability to pay for government.

We are fast approaching a point where government departments, such as Parks, will have less and less in order to fund public safety functions. The Commission needs to begin curbing the growth in those budgets. It is easier to do so in Fire/Rescue since that is a department under their direct control. The Sheriff’s Office is constitutionally mandated and, while the funds are allocated from the County, the BOCC has little to say about the budget’s makeup.

I believe the County made a terrible error by not instituting a “Fire Fee” this year. The methodology was flawed, but the principle involved was not. That Fee would have accomplished three things. First, the overall Fire/Rescue MSTU (Municipal Service Taxing Unit) would have been lowered. Second, the nearly 20% of homeowners that pay no real estate taxes would have contributed something to their protection. The third, and perhaps most important, reason is that the public would have a better understanding of how much the Fire portion of the budget is. This would have been an eye-opener for many. They would also understand how much it costs to provide that service. The Legislature should also give localities the option of having a “Law Enforcement Fee.” This would bring more scrutiny to Sheriff’s budgets.

The State of Florida and Martin County are in denial, as is much of the rest of the nation, as to the costs of government. Our nation is facing trillion-dollar deficits during a booming economy. Those deficits will surely increase once a slowdown occurs. Unlike Washington, state and local governments can’t run deficits. Martin County is already experiencing a $200 million or higher infrastructure maintenance backlog.

The boomer generation I am part of has done a poor job in taking care of government finance. We have buried our heads in the sand. We have lived on a credit card that, in many cases, has already reached its limit. Unless we have a serious national, state and local conversation on what government is expected to do and how it is to do it, we will continue to erode our fortunes. No amount of sloganeering and pandering to the crowd will place us on a solid financial footing.

Martin’s Latest Tax Issue

Posted on by

For the third time in four years, the voters are being asked to approve an increase to the sales tax this November.

In 2014, the voters rejected a county-wide sales tax increase by 73 votes. Last year, a similar measure was defeated by 63% of the voters. This year, the request is for a ½-cent increase dedicated to School Board capital projects. This comes on the heels of an August referendum to increase the ad valorem rate for the School District by ½-mill. The voters approved that increase by nearly 56% of the votes cast.

The August proposal, which will generate $11 million per year for the next four years, will be almost entirely dedicated to teacher compensation. The Board made a compelling argument that swayed the usually anti-tax Martin County voter. Now, just a few months later, the School District is back.

If passed, the sales tax will raise an additional $16 million per year or $112 million over its seven-year existence. Most of that money will go to build the new Palm City and Jensen Beach Elementary Schools, which are both functionally and physically obsolete. Those construction costs will be $32 million for each school.

Martin County School District has $98 million in other capital projects that need immediate attention. How did we get into this predicament?

Most of the blame can be placed at the feet of the “Lords of Tallahassee.” Beginning in 2008, the Legislature mandated millage reductions (taking the credit for these tax cuts) that have resulted in $91.6 million less collected for capital projects in the past decade. There is an obvious correlation between the two figures.

Tallahassee dictates the maximum millage rate that can be used for capital expenses, currently 1.5 mills. That equates into $31.6 million per year in Martin County. Because of mandates, pre-emptions and rules, the School Board has had its hands tied in implementing cost-cutting solutions.

What are some of the examples preventing Martin County from saving tax dollars? The state dictates the size and capacity for each type of school built, which components must be used, which systems are necessary to include and construction cost limits. Every school must be built to be used as a shelter. Because of these restrictions and mandates, it will cost $32 million for the district to build a new elementary school.

There are obviously real needs in Martin County’s schools, but I am not voting in favor of this additional increase for several reasons. Unlike the earlier ad valorem request, except for the two new schools, all other expenditure decisions are left in the hands of the Board. I don’t believe they have the political will to resist the different constituencies that will be clamoring for new equipment and space.

This was proven true by the Martin County High School Pool Show. The Board decided to take a popular amenity (the pool) and discuss closing it. This brought parents, students, and others to speak at the Board meeting about what the pool means to them and the County. This was political theater of the highest sort. After a couple of hours of public comment, the Board weighed their options and decided to keep the pool open for now, subject to a further discussion after the ½-cent vote.

If the ½-cent passes, the School Board will have an additional $112 million raised over a seven-year period. Real estate taxes will bring in another $221.2 million over the same period. The Martin County School Board will have a total of $333.2 million for capital projects.

I believe that every cent is needed. I just don’t trust that the School Board will spend the money wisely. I would be much more comfortable with a specific expenditure plan that can be presented to the voters as the Board did with the ad valorem tax increase. Current and past administrations and boards have not adequately planned. Like bureaucrats and politicians everywhere, they have been shortsighted. Political expediency has taken precedence over a sound future in the district.

If the School Board wants my vote, they need to reconfigure how the sales tax proceeds will be designated. The Board should use those funds to bond the costs of the two new schools and to pay off the mortgage at Anderson Middle School. The advantage to this plan is that they would receive the money for construction immediately. This would ensure that the schools are built now.

The other $221.2 million in ad valorem funds for capital projects could go to eliminating the backlog and to set up reserve funds for future equipment replacements and capital repairs. A plan should be presented to the Board by the staff outlining exactly how this would be accomplished.

Martin County taxpayers and voters are not against taxing themselves. What they are not in favor of is having their money continue to go down a rathole of political pandering.

 

Dyess Essay On His Vision for Stuart

Posted on by

The city of Stuart has been in the center of my life for 49 years. From fracturing my arm on Commissioner Matheson’s street to getting hauled to the police department for playing cops and robbers in the defunct development that eventually became the Town Homes of Stuart, I have seen this city evolve. That evolution has been mostly positive surrounded by an environmental disaster. As a kid we would sneak on the dock behind someone’s house off North River Point Drive and jump in the river or watch the manatee. As a teenager we would go to the rope swing in the south fork or ski in the north fork, but you don’t see those activities anymore. Even with the water issues we have now I still believe in this city and see a great future for Stuart.

In the next five years I would like to accomplish Stuart’s position of relevance in the county again. We use to be the largest community in Martin County and received positive political attention due to our voting; now we are almost the smallest in population which makes us irrelevant to the county. As the county has grown around us we have allowed opportunities to escape us. I am not a kingdom builder, so it is not about wanting to become a large city, but rather a sustainable city that has a place at the table. I would also like to focus on the live, work, play dynamics of our community. I see opportunities for an open space promenade in downtown for gatherings and events as well as a restructured 10th Street facility that provides athletics, education and recreation. We are actually not that bad in the work portion of the model, but we could do better with trade opportunities and education in our low income areas. As for live, we need some housing work. We have an inventory of very high priced homes and then an inventory of very low priced homes and very little in the mid-market arena. I am patiently waiting for the Azul project completion to see how that apartment population dynamic works in downtown. Maybe cottage homes is the answer, I’m not really sure yet.

I could get in more depth on the specific items I see for Stuart, like a splash pad but it’s really not my vision that matters the most. It is yours! My job is to carry out the vision and policies of the commission and if the things that I see for Stuart differ from the commission then the commission’s ideas will be embraced by me. Getting five individuals to agree on exactly the same thing is very difficult, so I understand there will be times that some things that happen will not sit well with all five, but the majority rule will dictate. I know this isn’t exactly what you had in mind when you asked me to write about where I saw Stuart in five years or what I want to accomplish in that time, but I truly do believe in carrying out the goals of the commission who should be carrying out the desires of their constituents.

I have found over the past four months that this is not an easy job and it is very demanding, but I am up for the challenge. I am a doer, and like to get things done rather than meet about things for months on end. Government is great at kicking the can and I believe if the can needs to be kicked to often then we don’t need the can to begin with.

The Pool & The Sales Tax

Posted on by

So, how do you bring out as many parents and students as possible? You place an item on the agenda regarding a beloved person or institution. In this case it was the institution of the pool at Martin County High School and whether or not it should it be closed.

When the BOCC approved the building of Sailfish Splash Park and the pool there, it was supposed to save the taxpayers money because the County would have a modern facility instead of County taxpayers contributing to the old pool at the high school. If you were like me, you thought that then the school pool would no longer be needed and, therefore, would be closed.

Well, Martin County taxpayers did stop contributing toward the upkeep of the Martin County High pool, but the Martin County School Board taxpayers then picked up the entire tab. You may ask aren’t the two the same? The answer is yes. But, if you think as a politician or a government employee, the promise was kept.

I don’t know whether we need two pools of this magnitude in Martin County. I suspect we do. In fact, I would advocate for the BOCC to build more community pools. Then, of course, we must ask ourselves what role and what government entity should be responsible for sports and recreation.

In most of Europe, there are no sports teams connected with schools. Sports and recreation are handled by clubs. Schools do have gym classes, but their primary focus is education not sports competition.

Can we continue to afford parks that have ball fields and basketball courts for leagues and games while at the same time schools providing duplicates for school athletics? Remember, in the non-governmental world, there is only one set of taxpayers.

But, back to the school pool. The chamber was packed. Not a seat in the house to be had. It was SRO (standing room only). Parents, alumni, and students recounted how that pool was and is a life saver for so many. It probably was and is.

The cost of the pool is budgeted at $154,500.00 for the coming school year. That is not much in the overall school budget. The Board decided that the pool may come back for further discussion after November’s referendum on the ½-cent sales tax. It was a rational decision by a very calculating Board. For I bet, when those parents and alumni go to the polls, they will be voting in favor of the ½-cent sales tax.

Remarks Made to Stuart City Commission on a Brightline Station

Posted on by

I AM NOT HERE TODAY TO TELL YOU HOW MUCH I DISLIKE BRIGHTLINE COMING THROUGH OUR CITY.

THOUGH FOR THE PAST FOUR PLUS YEARS I HAVE BEEN A VOCAL CRITIC.

I AM ALSO NOT HERE TO TELL YOU THAT BRIGHTLINE HAS A BAD BUSINESS PLAN AND MODEL.

THOUGH I BELIEVE THAT IS AS TRUE TODAY AS IT WAS BEFORE.

THE COURTS, WASHINGTON AND TALLAHASSEE HAVE DEALT BLOW AFTER BLOW TO OUR EFFORTS TO STOP BRIGHTLINE.

THE TRACKS HAVE RUN THROUGH MARTIN COUNTY AND STUART FOR THE PAST 130 YEARS. FEC OWNS THOSE TRACKS AND THE STUART CITY COMMISSION IS NOT GOING TO PREVENT FEC OR BRIGHTLINE FROM USING THOSE TRACKS.

WISHFUL THINKING OR BURYING OUR HEADS IN THE SAND WILL NOT CHANGE THOSE FACTS.

WITH THAT SAID…WHAT SHOULD THE COMMISSION ULTIMATELY DO?

YOU SHOULD TREAT BRIGHLINE IN THIS INSTANCE AS YOU WOULD ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR DEVELOPER THAT WOULD COME BEFORE YOU.

WE IN STUART ARE KNOWN TO WORK WITH APPLICANTS TO ACHIEVE WIN-WINS. WE SHOULD NOT TREAT BRIGHTLINE DIFFERENTLY.

THE USE IS IN THE COMP PLAN AS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. LESS THAN A DECADE AGO WE WERE LOOKING FOR AMTRAK TO COME TO STUART.

BRIGHTLINE WILL BE PLACING ITS STATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IT WILL PURCHASE.

THIS COMMISSION, STUART AND MARTIN COUNTY NEED TO PUT ITS FEELINGS ASIDE. WE DO NOT HAVE A TEST AS TO WHETHER A PRODUCT THAT A BUSINESS WILL SELL IS NEEDED OR WILL THAT PRODUCT BE PURCHASED. THAT IS NOT GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY.

BRIGHTLINE WILL CHANGE STUART. THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO BOTH MARTIN COUNTY AND THE CITY. THOSE ADDITIONAL EXPENSES WILL BE PAID BY TAXPAYERS WHETHER THERE IS A STATION OR NOT.

IF BRIGHTLINE IS COMING AND IT APPEARS THAT IT WILL THEN A STATION WILL BE A PLUS TO GO WITH THE NEGATIVES.

IF BRIGHTLINE IS STOPPED BY ANY PENDING LITIGATION, THAT WOULD BE FINE. THEY WON’T BUILD A STATION.

IF NOT STOPPED THEN WE WOULD BE POSTIONED TO HAVE A BENEFIT COME FROM WHAT WE DON’T WANT TO SEE HAPPEN.

THANK YOU

Hobe Sound Remains Unincorporated

Posted on by

We haven’t seen much analysis of why the incorporation of Hobe Sound was so strongly defeated.

Perhaps much of it has to do with the proponents not making their case adequately. If you are proposing a new government, you need to tell the people why. The answer cannot be, “We want to keep everything the same.” The plan was to keep the Sherriff, keep Martin County Fire/Rescue, and have the County provide most of the services as they do now. What was the purpose then of incorporation? Why ask the citizens to pay more in taxes if you are not giving a definitive benefit?

As Indiantown is finding out, all government has a cost. I believe in government being as local as possible. Government should function as a government providing, at the minimum, all municipal services except perhaps public safety. And, in a town of Hobe Sound’s size, even public safety should be in the mix in the future.

With the ascension of Harold Jenkins to the BOCC, people felt that their interest was being represented. Jenkins did support incorporation. This would have been a done deal anywhere else but in Martin County. Unfortunately for the proponents of incorporation, Hobe Sound is in Martin County.