Category Archives: Sustainable Growth

LETTER TO STUART COMMISSION RE AKRON AVENUE DEC 3RD

Posted on by

Dear Commissioner:

I understand that the developer has pulled his original application from the Akron Avenue property and will re-apply to build a larger building with fewer units. That is a very disappointing development. I am definitely not someone who believes every lot should have a high density use. At the same time neither am I anti-development. The city needs smart development. From the plans I saw the original proposal was exactly what Stuart needs and was situated where it should be.

Unfortunately neighborhood opposition took into account only the number of units but not the overall footprint of the building. The city needs especially downtown small apartments to attract and keep not only younger residents but also older ones looking to downsize or just wanting to be close to downtown Stuart. This is a niche that needs to be filled.

 

The project that will proceed of right will be much larger with smaller setbacks. While a new building is better that an empty lot what will be built will not give us the size units we need. Unfortunately it will not be what the neighbors envisioned either. In most of the CRA certain residential buildings, such as a one family residence occupied by a nuclear family, will probably not be built today. This was a missed opportunity.

 

In the future it may make sense to hold a preliminary meeting between the neighbors and the developer chaired by a city official who knows the codes and regulations. With a knowledgeable city official presiding who was able to explain options to both sides, positions would not be as inflexible. For I believe even in this instance something could still be worked out to the neighbors, the developer and ultimately Stuart’s advantage.

Why Can’t the County Make Up Their Minds

Posted on by

Why is it so hard to have the Martin County Commission accept an offer of free land from Stuart to build offices for the Tax Collector and Appraiser? It seems to me that, for a variety of reasons, locating those offices in the city (particularly downtown) would be a win for both governmental entities as well as all the residents of the county. Rental rates are climbing, so the faster the relocation of those offices to county-owned buildings the better.

Building in most areas of Martin County would mean encouraging sprawl and the added cost of new infrastructure to handle the development. It would be unwise to place offices in different areas from one another. This would result in the public, other businesses that need to be in proximity to these offices, and county employees would be inconvenienced by not being in a central location. The more we can keep government functions in a compact space, the better the efficiencies of scale.

As a city and with a modicum of infrastructure improvements, Stuart can accommodate these offices as well as the associated businesses that will move into the area. By being located within the downtown area, density is not an issue and sprawl is averted in other parts of Martin County. At the same time, other sections of downtown will be redeveloped because of this influx. It is a win-win situation.

Sometimes it seems to me that these two governmental entities are busy working at cross purposes instead of working together. They forget that the citizens of Stuart are also citizens of the county. They vote and pay taxes to both. What is good for Stuart is good for Martin County and visa-versa. One is not better than the other and, in fact, each needs the other to be successful. No commissioner from either body should be disdainful about dealing with each other or their counterparts on the other commission.

This county commission has proved that it can accomplish much in a short period of time, witness the Comp Plan Amendments. It shouldn’t take months or years to decide what to do regarding our constitutional offices. The city commission has done everything asked regarding those parcels. Now it’s time for the county commissioners to fulfill their part. There is no room for prima donnas or indecisiveness.

 

SENT TO MARTIN COUNTY COMMISSION ON OCT 29TH 2013

Posted on by

Dear Commissioner:

I am writing today regarding three issues on your November 5th agenda. The first is the Business Development Board Contract. Regardless of your political and philosophical temperament, you are stuck trying to make the terrible better. The previous commission or any commission should never be able to enter into a contract of such a long duration. In this case not only is it for an eternity but the lopsidedness of the contract’s terms makes it seem more a “sweet heart” deal than a benefit to the county. It is a perfect reason why there is so much distrust of government by citizens.

In a perfect world the government should not be a party to this at all.  But the county is stuck between negotiation and a lawsuit which is perhaps winnable perhaps not but certainly expensive and time consuming.  Your goals should be to negotiate the shortest term possible for the smallest amount while holding them to measurable standards easily quantifiable. Going forward if this organization means so much to the business community of the county then they should pay for it. The government’s responsibility to business and to all citizens is to have in place easy to understand rules, quick permit and license application processes and ideally an ombudsman to assist the business in opening and expanding in the county. Digital Domain showed us what happens when government tries to insert itself into the market.

The second matter is the customs facility. Once again the so called interests of free market capitalism want the local government to provide a subsidy for their businesses. The very idea that once the federal facility is opened that our local government will control the operation or be able to limit or close the facility is probably a dream. The federal government will ultimately dictate to Martin County what will be allowable or not. The commission’s obligation will be to figure out how to pay for it. Just like the runway extension, once you involve Washington, local control is gone except for funding.

Some will say that this should be provided by the county because businesses will relocate or expand, or it is a governmental function like parks or schools and anyway once built increased fees from airport users will pay for the facility. This is all based on fantasy numbers and rosy scenarios. Parks and schools are not for the few or well-connected but for everyone. Those are legitimate functions of local government. Immigration and Customs are clearly federal functions and if there was a need at Witham Field the proper place to lobby for them would be in Washington.

My last point is the Seven50 Plan. As a planning tool it may be good and the locality can opt in or out of it in part or in its entirety. I don’t believe it is an insidious plot by the UN to gain control of the good old U.S. of A. After reading some of it and after speaking to someone on the executive committee, I do believe that the federal government will begin using the recommendations contained therein in awarding grants to the localities. Much of what is contained in the proposed plan such as density requirements would be in direct conflict with my beliefs and those of the commission majority. Much needs to be explored before continuing with the relationship.

How you look at these three issues is determined by your governing and governmental philosophy. If one consistently applies the principles of the free market, local control and smart growth then you should agree with my positions on the above.  I do not know whether any of you read your e-mail or not but this is one citizen’s way of expressing his opinions without taking time from your already over packed commission meeting schedule to do so.

SLAPP SUIT

Posted on by

When did it become acceptable to be sued for expressing an opinion? Was there a suspension of the 1st Amendment when it came to petitioning your elected representatives? Or has the state of Florida been so corrupted by corporate interests that the average citizen must be in fear of reprisal by speaking his mind on matters before governmental bodies? Are the interests of the big and moneyed that afraid of someone like Maggie Hurchella that they need the ridiculousness of a SLAPP suit to silence her.

 

The state of Florida supposedly prides itself on “Open Government.”  Somehow, the very idea of silencing an individual for petitioning and addressing her government if she disagrees with those powerful interests seems ludicrous.  Do we have “Open Government” for everyone but the individual? The use of the courts as a vehicle to stop legitimate petitioning of one’s government is tyrannical in purpose. It is a corruption of due process that should send waves of disgust through every American.

 

For too long, both the legislative and executive branches of government on the state and federal level have divided the American people using faulty syllogisms and logic to ferment artificial divides. While at the same time they have eroded our liberties as individual citizens in order to protect the entrenched powers. This is all shown to be true in the farcical SLAPP suit.

 

Is someone like Ms. Hurchalla, whether through writing or by speaking at public meetings, so menacing to companies worth hundreds of millions of dollars that she should be silenced by the courts? Has Florida become a state resembling those depicted in the works of Koestler and Kafka? Does uttering opinion and sharing one’s beliefs with their government, to be equated when directed against the interest of the powerful, as so dangerous as to be treated as a wrongful act?

 

Even if one were to presume that someone such as Maggie Hurchalla was mistaken in everything she said or wrote to her government, are her words so powerful that she should be sued for her opinion?  Is the price one pays for a political disagreement thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees? This is judicial intimidation of the worse sort by instilling fear and to prevent invoking one’s first amendment rights. Slander and libel are not in question, but free speech is in our state. There is no place for this type of judicial travesty.

Martin County’s Comp Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Letter to the Martin County Commissioners sent June 30, 2013

I am once again contacting you in regard to the upcoming vote on the Comprehensive Plan. Each of you has it in your power to insure that this county continues to be developed for the majority of its residents and not for the special few. You have been elected and re-elected to specifically accomplish managed and smart growth in Martin County. With these Comp Plan amendments and changes, the good work you have done will continue far into the future.

To be for conservation and considered development is not to be anti-business or anti-jobs. What you and the vast majority of our residents are looking to achieve is the sustainability of all industry and businesses in Martin County. This is not done through the awarding of special favors to a few developers or the well connected. It is partially done with the implementation of good and open government for the benefit of all the people. In the past many citizens felt that their elected officials were subordinating their interest for that of the chosen few. The current commission has begun to change that perception.

That is why I urge you to not postpone or wait any longer to pass these needed changes. Delay serves only those who have already lost at the ballot box. We need to enshrine in Martin County’s Comprehensive Plan those principles that we believe. As we saw in the past it was too easy for a few people to obstruct the will of the majority and proceed with ill-conceived and unsustainable development. These changes will make sure that going forth only thoughtful and sustainable growth will occur.

Changes to the Martin County Comp Plan

Posted on by

Letter to the Martin County Commissioners (sent June 9 2013)

I urge the commission to adopt the amendments to the county’s comprehensive growth plan without delay. It is my understanding that there were some technical changes recommended by the reviewing bodies, but nothing that would prevent the county’s staff from incorporating the needed language into the plan in time for July’s vote. At some point continued discussion becomes another tactic for obstruction. I specifically voted for you because of your views regarding the comp plan

For too long, Martin County was subject to the cronyism that has ruined South Florida. A small cabal of large landowners, developers and their minions thought that they controlled the future of our home. While they did succeed for a time under previous commissions, the overwhelming majority of voters decided to end that environmental nightmare and elected the current commission. This plan will enshrine and protect what we all hold dear. It is incumbent on you to act swiftly in its adoption.

There will always be reasons put forth for delay by the opposition when they are not successful. For their only tactic is to offer obstruction and procrastination, in hopes that the plan changes are never enacted. Whether it is our own inert bureaucracy or well paid lawyers and consultants, they should not be the ones determining the future of our county. It should be the residents speaking through their elected officials. The residents spoke through your election to keep Martin County growing in a smart and sustainable way. These plan changes will accomplish those goals.

Smart Growth

Posted on by

Many residents of Stuart and Martin County use the terms “pro-business” or “anti –growth” or “in favor of creating jobs” as code words that require no further explanations. Those words or phrases in and of themselves offer little meaning or context as to what the speaker or writer really means. Those phrases however do require meaning and context when used. They do not mean the same thing to everyone?

Is it pro-business to offer government incentives to the chosen few? I would argue that not only are such policies not pro-business but they are the antitheses of what that word really means. A society can’t be for pro-business when it unfairly rewards one business over all the others. You cannot be pro-business if your policies will bless only a handful with the cost to be borne by the vast majority. I am confused when our various governmental bodies shout the merits of capitalism when the largest employers in the county are those same governmental authorities, from the county to the school system.

Those governmental jobs do not contribute to increasing county wealth. They as do tax payer subsidies re-distribute wealth. The productive class becomes fewer and fewer of us while the government becomes larger and larger. At the same that very government professes to believe in the virtues of small government and free markets. It is totally hypocritical.

As a society we do need government performing services that the private sector cannot. But when that very government becomes not only the provider of essential services but also chooses the winners in the reduced private sector by bestowing subsidies; we no longer have the market being the determinant.  We have a government akin to Putin’s Russia more than we would like to admit.

Is government anti-growth when it refuses to rubber stamp permits for massive development or even to disapprove the building of another strip center? With all development matters our elected officials need to look to preserving the quality of life for the residents that are here. Martin County and the City of Stuart need to stop thinking that larger is better. I contend that development for the sake of development is a false answer to any number of questions from increased tax revenue to more jobs.

Smart growth requires careful planning. It is not only expansion but preservation. It is not only preservation of the environment but of those individuals and businesses that already exist.  I firmly believe that the right government with the right philosophy can do much good. Unfortunately too often governmental bodies forget that they act for the benefit of all the citizens and not for the sake of governmental bodies, employees or that of their friends and cronies.

July 18 LPA Meeting

Posted on by

 

The City of Stuart had a meeting of the LPA/PAB on July 18th.  At that meeting two ordinances were voted on pertaining to the voluntary annexation and the assignment of Commercial Plan Unit Development Zoning to a piece of property north of the Roosevelt Bridge on Federal Highway.  As a member of the LPA, I was present. The reason that the owner wanted the property to be annexed by the city was because of the difference in density allowed. Under the county regulations, he could only build a 60-room hotel. Stuart would allow an 80-room hotel plus 10,000 square feet of commercial and office space. Without this greater density, the owner stated the project would not be feasible.

While a member of the public did bring up whether Stuart had the right to annex the property, we, as members, thought the city did have the right to do so. As an aside, I do believe that Stuart and the county should have a more coordinated understanding as to annexation. Ultimately, the ordinances did pass by a 3-2 vote with one abstention. I was one of the no votes.

I had several reasons for my no vote. On a technical note, I don’t believe that the traffic flow issues were addressed adequately. Nor do I believe that the community of over 200 residents was adequately consulted by the developer and their views taken into account. I would have liked to have seen more community residents at the two meetings expressing their points of view. Those few who did come seemed reasonable in their objections. There was nothing that the developer could not have addressed.

I asked the owner’s representatives to tell me the type of hotel property and to explain the economic rationale for building the property.  They did not provide the information. Remember they will be adding 29,200 occupancy nights to Martin County. Where is the demand for the increased number of room nights going to come from? Jacqueline Lewis, the president of the Martin County Hotel Association, gave us facts and figures on past, current and future occupancies. The data was not encouraging. It was her belief that another property would hurt a future hotel anticipated in the downtown area. She also went on to express that the three older hotels on Federal Highway would suffer declining occupancy maybe even resulting in one closing.

This is the main reason I voted against the annexation. I don’t see the point of adding a new business to the City if one or more similar businesses close such as the Clarion Inn.  There will be no net increase in employment. While we would have impact fees and increased tax revenue, at least theoretically, if another hotel closes and others pay less tax because of less occupancy, where has the city gained?

While I am a complete believer in the capitalistic system of free enterprise, I don’t think we, as a community, should abandon those residents and businesses that exist. If that vacant land was already in the City of Stuart and was zoned for an intended use, I would feel differently. In this instance, government under the guise of annexation, is actually conferring an advantage of a larger hotel to the developer than otherwise would be allowed by Martin County standards. Stuart has essentially allowed the new guy to cannibalize our existing hotels.  I believe this is a detriment to the long term welfare of our City.