Our Time

Posted on by

The year 2019 is nearly finished and has gone racing by!

 

Where does time go? As a child, I remember calculating how old I would be when the year 2000 happened and realizing that I would be nearly 50. As a teenager, I could hardly wait until that 18th birthday that would bring adulthood and college. In my twenties starting out in the business world, it seemed that I had nothing but time since money was at more of a premium. Each year brought new uses for how I would spend my time. I would nod my head when people in their sixties would say that their life had passed as if they had been looking out the window of a speeding car. I thought they were exaggerating. They weren’t.

 

The concept of time becomes more important to us as we grow older. It is something that is at a premium with each year lived. Every second that passes is lost. Many of us “sell” our time professionally.

 

An attorney bills in increments of hours, accounting for every minute at his office. A restaurant sells food but, if they have a slow night with lackluster sales, the restaurant will never sell those “empty” tables again. Each hour is unique even if spent on doing repetitive tasks. We will not again have the moments we used for playing that video game or washing the car.

 

If you choose to spend time going fishing instead of playing golf, then one of your hobbies will suffer and the other you should become better. Is that what happens in relationships? When it is said that two people grew apart, was it because they didn’t spend enough time with each other? Are you then a better parent if you devote more time to being with your children instead of at your job or business?

 

Now that I am on the downward slope of my business career, I am just a few short days away from not owning any business for the first time since I was a college student. How will I fill my day? I will still be doing a little work for the guy who now owns the business (my son), but a large time constraint is gone.

 

With the activities that fill the days for my wife and me, we are still on the go constantly every day. I keep saying when I retire, I will do this or that but, deep in my heart, I know I never will otherwise I would be doing it now. Time is the one thing that is finite for each of us. We will probably not know when our time is up, so to speak.

 

Is it a waste of time to spend so much of it in front of the television, on the golf course or taking that daily nap? If we are doing those things, it isn’t a waste of our time but a decision on how to spend the time. The time we can never recapture or ever use again. What we did with our time is how we are remembered.

THANKSGIVING

Posted on by

Another Thanksgiving is upon us. This is my absolutely most favorite holiday.

In the last few years, it seems that the Christmas season is beginning around Halloween. Sirius Radio has had holiday music channels for weeks. The Hallmark Channel is in full maudlin Christmas fashion. Each of those repetitious movies has the plot of the books my 2-year-old granddaughter pretends to read. The rush is on, and it seems that I am out of the race.

Ever since I set up shop as an adult, I have hosted Thanksgiving dinner. As the cook, I start preparations a few days before. For years, I would brine the turkey (a step I no longer do), and, for the 24 hours before cooking, the bird air dries in the refrigerator. By allowing the skin to lose some of the moisture, it crisps better.

I always make the usual American-style trimmings…gravy, mashed potatoes, stuffing, squashes, vegetables… but it wouldn’t be Thanksgiving without at least lasagna or manicotti, meatballs, sausages, and other Italian-American dishes. For a while, I would make homemade mozzarella and a few times even burrata.

Over the years, the way I would prepare this dish or that would change. For instance, I learned to make stuffing from my grandmother when I was 14…not in her home kitchen but in a restaurant kitchen where we would serve over 300. We would save the leftover bread for weeks in big paper sacks, no longer allowed by health code regulations. She would soak the bread in chicken stock to soften. She would cook onions, celery, carrots, raisins, and seasoning in butter and sherry in large roasting pans on top of the stove. Mix it all together and bake in the pan. When I graduated to other professional kitchens, I made that same stuffing for years.

Once married to my first wife, who is Puerto Rican, she insisted on adding sausage to the recipe. It became my new standard. My current wife insisted that the sausage had to go and that the bread be replaced by stuffing cubes. Besides the American and Italian food contingents, my Puerto Rican wife would make pernil, arroz con gandules, and other cocina criolla dishes.

For several years between marriages, I hosted Thanksgiving as a bachelor for friends and family. The standard fare remained but other dishes came and went. One year, I had pierogis for Polish friends. Another year, I made a roast goose as a changeup, in addition to the turkey.

When we still had a place up north, our apartment would be where the kids, their spouses, and others would come. A friend of one of our daughters came a few times, accompanied by the most beautiful and interesting women. I definitely missed him when he moved to California.

The last few years, we were away from home on the holiday. Last year, we were with a couple that are long-time friends living in Texas. I cooked some and the host cooked some. It was an Italian, Tex-Mex typical Thanksgiving that was all American.

And maybe that is what we are losing when we relegate Thanksgiving to a pit stop on the way to Christmas. It should be a time when we celebrate what it means to be an American. Over the years I have adopted customs and foods of others in order for all to feel welcomed at the table. Because what we celebrate is the very essence of being an American. That is the true message. It is not about shopping or football. But it is about what we should hold dear. We sit together regardless of where we or our ancestors emigrated from and thank God for living in this country.

 

Caught In The Past

Posted on by

Millions of people visit Colonial Williamsburg each year. I first went there when I was nine or ten and fell in love with the place.

I can trace my love of early American history to that visit. I took my own children there several times. The last time I was there was a decade ago, and I still enjoyed the experience. I noticed they were playing the same film on their informational television station that I had watched as a kid almost 60 years ago.

Nearby Jamestown, settled in 1607, was the first permanent English settlement in North America. It remained the capital of Virginia until the statehouse burned in 1698. The College of William & Mary and other residents of what was then known as the Middle Plantation asked that the capital be moved there.

The Middle Plantation was renamed Williamsburg and became the colonial head of government, remaining Virginia’s capital throughout the period. Governor Thomas Jefferson moved the capital to Richmond in 1780 to avoid English attacks and to be more centrally located to the western counties. Williamsburg became nothing more than a college town, and for the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was a sleepy backwater and fell into ruin.

The City of Stuart was settled in the late 19th century and incorporated in 1914, which predates the creation of Martin County by more than a decade. For many years, Stuart was the population and business hub of the area. The railroad connected it to the rest of Florida, and the farming and fishing industries were integral to its growth.

Like Williamsburg after 1780, Stuart in the 1960s and 1970s began to decline into irrelevance because of suburbanization and the growth of alternative shopping options in Martin County. There was no longer a reason for the City to exist. The railroad ceased picking up passengers and the station was torn down. Downtown mom and pop stores were no longer needed with the growth of chains and big box stores.

Stuart fell into a miasmic state. It withered in its past. We weren’t southern enough to be like Faulkner’s fictional Jefferson nor were we cowboy enough to emulate McMurtry’s Anarene, Texas. We were a proud has-been farm town like so many others.

In the 1920s, Williamsburg had W.A.R. Goodwin to spearhead restoration, using the Rockefeller fortune to do so. For the decades since, Colonial Williamsburg recreated a town based on Tidewater life in the 18th century just before the Revolution. People from all over the world flock to experience and learn from the docents in period costume.

Stuart didn’t have Goodwin or Rockefeller, but it did have Peter and Joan Jefferson and a core group of others that began the rebirth of downtown and the historic preservation of many late 19th and early 20th century properties. Unlike Williamsburg, Stuart could not become a museum but needed to embrace commerce for economic survival.

Through the last two decades of the 20th century, Stuart saved its downtown. Retail stores catering to tourists were opened. Most new downtown restaurants were not accessible to the average Stuart resident because of price. Since economics needed to play a role in what was feasible, Stuart became a make-believe charming and historic downtown.

We saved the real estate for posterity but not with any real vitality. We made a small historic village next to City Hall but then, except for the Stuart Feed Store (Museum), they became rented offices. It cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to rescue questionable historical structures for what purpose? They are antiquated offices for politicians.

Martin County and Stuart recoil at any development. No old property should ever be torn down (historic or otherwise) in some people’s minds. The old Stuart High School building is a case in point. There is nothing architecturally unique inside or out. It is just a physically, economically, and functionally obsolete building. Yet it tugs at the heart because so many generations attended high school there. If the Arts Council gets its way, the “sick” property will remain off the tax rolls as its new home. It will not make way for new housing. No new families will be living there.

Are we using the term historic to mean that nothing should be changed? Every building, empty lot or current use must stay the same? In many minds, Martin County should be like an insect caught in a block of amber, frozen in time. We are Brigadoon without the sleep and striving to be Burroughs’ The Land That Time Forgot.

There is a price to pay for inertia. We are seeing it as Cleveland Clinic concentrates on expanding in St. Lucie County. Apparently, there are not enough babies being born to have even one private practice doing it in Martin. The hospital will, at great expense, continue obstetrics for the time being.  Due to the expanding populations to our north and south, we will have less clout in Washington and Tallahassee after the next census as we become even more of an afterthought for electoral districts.

I have heard the word paradise used to describe our area. And that is an apt description if you are a senior like me, or someone that has an inheritance. For young people or families trying to make a living, it isn’t such a paradise. History teaches us that remaining in a cocoon is not beneficial for having a future.

Stuart and Martin County are not Colonial Williamsburg. Our history is similar to thousands of other former farm towns. Most of our architecture is anything but “historic.” An old family photo may be sentimental, but it probably isn’t historic. We should know and treasure our history. That is different from living in the past with a predilection to a no-change future.

 

OCTOBER 27TH FRIENDS & NEIGHBORS

Posted on by

From this weeks edition:

The Pelican Café packed the chamber with supporters. It appeared that the vast majority of speakers in favor were not Stuart residents. Each spoke as though the City should give the Daly family carte blanche. If a low rent and a long lease were not given, the speakers implied that western civilization would come to an end.

 

The rumors of high rises, big box stores or chain restaurants were rampant. None of which have a scintilla of truth. When it was their turn to speak, Matheson and Meier set the record straight. None of the above was true. As the people’s representatives, they were looking out for the taxpayers. While they all acquiesced to the rent, they were firm in not allowing a 20-year lease if the Dalys were inclined to sell the leasehold.

 

A private landlord would, first, not give a term of 20 years and would want to recapture the premises if the leasehold was sold. Any profit should go to the people. It is unreasonable to have a 20-year term unless you need the long lease in order to sell.

 

Here is the language the City wants to put into the lease for the 20-year extension:

To read the entire newsletter go to:

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A462cefb2-cddc-476a-be70-02b5081ddb7a

Or get it delivered to your mailbox by sending your email address to thomasfcampenni@gmail.com

 

SOCIALISM WILL ONLY MAKE INCOME INEQUALITY WORSE

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran an article regarding the implementation of a “Wealth Tax.” Both Sanders and Warren are fans of this type of levy which would tax the accumulated wealth of those who have assets of more than $50 million. Both Warren and Sanders believe that this levy will result in the collection of billions of dollars. The tax will be levied on personal property, such as real estate and art. The proposal could be unconstitutional and would certainly be challenged in the courts.

While those of a more socialistic bent may call this a tax, in my opinion it is an opportunity for government to seize legally acquired property in the name of economic equality. This is akin to the Bolsheviks appropriating the farms of the Kulaks in the Soviet Union for their collective enterprises during the 1920s and early 1930s.

Private property, whether it is in the form of land, art or cash, should belong to those who have legally acquired it. The United States government should not be confiscating private property in the name of income equality.

That is not to say that the wealthy should be immune from paying taxes. Our tax system is flawed. For too long, our government has pursued crony capitalism. This has protected the powerful from competition and from the true market that was intended under our economic system. From the time of the 1930s, America has again and again abandoned a liberal economic order in favor of having the government dictate market forces.

This has resulted in the picking of winners and losers. The government has done so using regulatory restrictions on everything from who can compete to creating artificial requirements before allowing entry into a market. Regulation should be used to open markets and to prevent bad actors from bilking the public. Instead, Congress has given the executive branch too much latitude to use regulatory bodies and frameworks to reward friends and prevent true market capitalism.

We see this with subsidies, licensing, and other artificial barriers. In his work, The Road to Serfdom, Fredrich Hayek predicted that, when libertarian markets are prevented from operating, the results are, at first, economic tyranny followed by political tyranny; the rise of a dictator and the loss of political freedom. Our markets presently are more heavily regulated than those of the supposed “socialistic” economies of the Nordic states.

Today, The United States is on a precipice of economic and social dissatisfaction not seen here in over a century. This crisis has been 80 years in the making. The glorification of the presidency from the time of FDR to Trump has conditioned our citizens to think of the federal government as being embodied by the executive instead of what the Founders intended, which was the Congress. This gradual adaptation of a “strong man” government has culminated in the spectacle of the Trump Rally, which has ripped the thin veneer of civility from our body politic.

We hear politicians such as Beto O’Rourke suggesting the confiscation of people’s legally purchased firearms, which is not what our government should or was intended to be able to do.  The executive order that Trump signed overturning the executive order that Obama signed to protect DACA kids is wrong in both instances. Obama and Trump should have gone to Congress to have legislation passed to solve the DACA problem. Our system is meant to be deliberative and cumbersome. Authority for policy rests with the legislature, not the executive. The executive’s responsibility is to enforce the laws made by the legislature.

While we see the results more vividly in situations such as immigration, the corrosive effect on our liberty begins with how our capitalistic, free-market economy has been bastardized. Congress should pass legislation that specifically spells out what its intent is in the adoption of a bill. The details of how to carry out such intent by the executive should be as narrowly defined as possible.

The president should have little discretion on levying tariffs on goods. Trade agreements can be negotiated by the executive, but they should have legislative input. No executive should have the authority to decide which nations have tariffs and which do not. These agreements need to be ratified by the Congress.

Through the acquiescence of Congresses, dictatorial powers have been conferred upon the executive while in office. The Founders specifically wanted the executive branch to have a unitary president in charge. They did not believe pluralistic executives were practical. This unitary executive theory is workable only in a democratic republic — if the president’s power is checked by the Congress through oversight and legislation.

The Democrat answer to the overreach of Trump is just as bad. Confiscatory policies such as a wealth tax have been proven to be unworkable. In 1990, there were 12 European nations with one, and now there are only three. People who have accumulated wealth are smart and they have smart advisors. When confronted with confiscatory taxes, they leave.

There is no question that we have a disparity between the very wealthy and the other members of society. It is my argument the U.S. became such a nation directly because of government interference in the economy. This includes the increasingly intricate income tax laws and rules which were promulgated to benefit friends and favored companies. This has resulted in the creation of our crony capital economy.

Income tax rates on the wealthy need to be increased. If you want to have income equality, simplify the tax code to do away with all personal exemptions and deductions. Tax all income equally, whether it is capital gains or wages. There needs to be as few rate classifications as possible, but every dollar of income should be taxed. We should not buy into the argument that the poor and middle class will pay a greater amount than the wealthy. If we eliminate deductions, then there is no place to hide income for anyone. It also avoids the implementation of inefficient tax avoidance schemes. Money will flow to the most productive investment instead of the one that avoids the most taxes.

Deficits, in moderation, are not necessarily evil. What the United States government is currently doing is unconscionable. We are not spending anything on our infrastructure or society, and we have a trillion-dollar deficit during an economic boom. That should be enough to vote out both the current legislature and executive.

The supposed panacea of socialism has never worked. Sanders and Warren are the typical politicians who will climb to power on the backs of those who see benefit in their socialistic jargon. Their policies will result in further economic inequality. Trump’s phony populism and the abandonment by the Republicans of the liberal order, as typified by the philosophies of Burke and Smith, has taken the nation far from the Founders’ ideals. Today’s Republican economic philosophy harkens back to 16th century mercantilism, as if the world economy is a zero-sum game instead of a dynamic engine for human enhancement.

The U.S. economy needs to return to our roots of economic vitality with the government playing the role of umpire. Our battle with economic disparity needs to be addressed through social programs. Taxes on income should be increased to levels needed to fund the programs. This ridiculous assertion of a “trickle down” economy is wrong and has been proven so many times over the past 40 years.

The Warren/Sanders wing of the Democrats will not result in better government or economy. For it to work, it relies on the “smart person” directing instead of all of us being allowed to chart our own course. As Hayek wrote 80 years ago, “Only if we understand why and how certain kinds of economic controls tend to paralyze the driving forces of a free society, and which kinds of measures are particularly dangerous in this respect, can we hope that social experimentation will not lead us into situations none of us want.”

The Truth About Treasure Coast Classical Academy

Posted on by

Last week, I visited the campus of Treasure Coast Classical Academy (TCCA) at its temporary site on 34th Street in Palm City.

I was an early supporter of the school, dating back to when it was in its planning stages. There is no doubt in my mind that a school with this curriculum is needed in Martin County. It may not be for every student, but for those parents that believe in this model of education, TCCA is the place to send their children.

A misconception that many have is that it is not a public school. That is not true at all. The way a student gains admission is by filling out an application form online and then the students are selected by a lottery. There are points for siblings of existing students and for those whose parents are working at the school.

I toured several different classrooms, and it appeared the student population was representative of Martin County. There were white kids, black kids, and Hispanic kids. In almost every room, there were special needs children. It wasn’t any different that what you would expect in most school classrooms in the county.

What was not usual was that the kids in the third grade, for example, recited a poem by Maya Angelou and, in another room, the Preamble to the Constitution. They were studying literature and history by learning about the Roman Republic, not from a textbook but by reading original works. Math was tied into reading, even in the earliest grades, by solving word problems.

There is music and art taught every week to every child. P.E. is mandatory for every child in every grade — and they participate. The school is not overly concerned with teaching to state tests though each child will have to take the very same tests as any student in the state.

Like many schools, there is a “uniform” but here it seems the kids are wearing it. Ms. Swearingen, the principal, walks the campus gently asking students to tuck in their polo shirts or thanking them for walking quietly. She has a keen eye as she scans a classroom to see if every student is engaged with the lesson.

In the classroom, there is a desk for every student and the students work together as a class. Since kids are not handpicked, there are classes for those that need extra help just as in any public school. And, that is what the general public needs to understand. Contrary to the propaganda that you may have heard, this is a public school only without the many layers of bureaucracy dictating to the teachers.

Teachers are respected. They have a higher degree of control in preparing their lesson plans than those in the schools controlled by the District. Is this teaching method the best for every kid? No, it isn’t, and that is the point I am trying to convey. Parents and their children should have many different educational formats and options from which to choose.

Perhaps instead of calling these institutions “charters,” they should be known as magnet schools with a specialized curriculum.  Every teacher has the same qualifications as any other Martin County educator. Any Martin County kid can enroll. There is no tuition. Children that attend are not chosen by tests, grades, or geographical area. It is a public school where all are accepted.

As a society, we need to break up the educational monopoly. One size meant to fit every child has not worked. The United States has a broken system that has resulted in some of the worst rankings in the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). Despite Florida’s mania for testing, we continue to have sub-par outcomes.

Education is meant to open the mind to all possibilities. Elementary education doesn’t teach a trade, occupation, or profession. It is to provide the student with the tools to be able to learn those things later. “The purpose of education is to give to the body and to the soul all the beauty and all the perfection of which they are capable.” Plato understood that formulaic dictum would not deliver the desired results.

Treasure Coast Classical Academy is one place that Plato will be studied. Not from a textbook but from reading Plato’s works. Whether the students of that school go on to be attorneys, writers, or welders, they will have learned not what to think but how to think for themselves.

Some in the educational establishment would argue that this is not a “true” public school. To me that argument is one that is more about control of educational dollars than public education. As a parent, grandparent, and citizen, I want to make sure that all children have the tools to be productive.

While I disagree with Mao Zedong about most things, he was correct when he said, “Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting the progress of the arts and the sciences and a flourishing culture in our land.”

 

From The October 13th Friends & Neighbors Newsletter

Posted on by

THE PELICAN CAFÉ

There is a reason why I am against governments owning property for uses other than their own. The reason for owning property given by municipalities is that by having a rental stream, you can diversify the government’s dependence on ad valorem taxes. The Pelican Café is a prime example of why it doesn’t work.

Instead of looking at it as the business it is supposed to be, it is easy for Commissioners to end up on the wrong side of a public relations campaign. While the current tenant may believe it is his property, it actually belongs to the people of the City of Stuart. Paul Daly trying to renew the lease two years before its expiration is not, as he claims, “the end of the line” if it doesn’t happen now. Unless there is a sale in the lease’s future.

Sometimes, Commissioners want to use these opportunities to ingratiate themselves with the owner of the business. It isn’t their money, so making sound business decisions aren’t foremost. That is the bottom line with government…they don’t care. For elected officials, it is political expediency and for staff it is survival until retirement.

Who will remember that the last Commission gave away a sweetheart deal to George Hart who was the then owner of Mulligan’s? In that lease, the Commission promised him millions if the City ever wants to develop the property. Hart has since sold that lease, along with Mulligan’s, to investors. In that case, the profit is going to them and not the City. Good deal for the taxpayers? I think not.

Politicians believe they need to make everyone happy…that is, everyone but the taxpayer. Maybe, just maybe, there are a few Commissioners that think the taxpayers should get the right deal. The old line in the “Godfather” movies rings so true because it is business and not personal. Would you sell your car or rent your house and not want the most you could obtain?

Paul Daly may be a very nice person. The ten-year lease with two five-year options would be a gift that the City cannot afford. The rent is below market even after receiving 3% of sales. If it went out to bid, I am sure the offers would be better than that. Even if another $1000 per month was offered, that alone would translate to $240,000 additional over 20 years.

By not getting the most that Stuart can, the taxpayers are left holding the bag. No amount of publicity, public relations or talking is justification for taking money out of the pockets of Stuart taxpayers. The Commission and the staff need to maximize the citizens’ investments. Every time someone says it doesn’t matter…it does. There is no public purpose in any of this. The Pelican Café is a money-making business that is banking on getting a sweetheart deal using the citizens’ money.

If you read the current lease and addendum, it states that Daly and the City can continue to renew this lease in 5-year increments beyond 2021. Further, it goes on to state that since the lease was signed before the charter review that mandated a referendum, Mr. Daly could have his renewals without going to a referendum.

The purpose of the referendum that was held was to allow the City to sell the Northpoint property to Geisinger. Mulligan’s was added because they wanted their own lease instead of the assignment from the Spoto lease. Since the City was already going through the expense of a referendum, it made perfect sense to add the Pelican in case Daly did not renew. That is why the language “the property known as” was added.

If the Commission does nothing else, it should make sure the lease and business cannot be transferred to any other person or entity. That way it cannot be sold. Mr. Daly keeps the restaurant and when he retires, it comes back to the true owners, the citizens. I hope there are 3 votes to do what is best for the taxpayers.

TO READ THE ENTIRE NEWSLETTER CLICK THE LINK BELOW:

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A4fb0e8d2-d9d4-465d-8c91-abdb9dbab60e

TO SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR OWN COPY SEND EMAIL TO THOMASFCAMPENNI@GMAIL.COM

Why Do We Ignore How Elected Officials Vote

Posted on by

How many of us have disagreed with the votes of our elected leaders?

I would suspect that each and every one of us has. How often we do and what we do about it is what concerns me. For we often disagree with an elected official’s votes on issues but then decide to cast our vote for that same person at the next election. This is especially true in local elections.

We may do so out of loyalty to a political party. Or because we personally know the person as our next-door neighbor or the person in our pew at church. The personal touch is more important than the votes they render from the dais or chamber even if we disagree.

Why is it that we often vote for people that may seem to espouse our points of view but then, when elected, will do the opposite to what they promised? Politics and governing are two different things. While the elected official knows the difference, those of us who are civilians don’t always realize that fact. Politically, when you run for office, you speak in generalities. As Mario Cuomo used to say, “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.”

In Washington and Tallahassee, for the most part, the elected representative has no choice but to vote along party lines if they want campaign funds or to have their bills heard or their projects funded. When it comes to County or City officials, it is just that the average person doesn’t know how their council or commission members actually voted. Yes, it is televised, recorded and available, but how many of us listen, watch, or read the minutes to know what happened at the meeting. Most of us would be surprised by their votes and how different that vote was from their campaign rhetoric.

It is awfully frustrating to know and understand how and why a commissioner voted the way that he/she did. We have so very much to do in our own daily lives. Many Martin County residents no longer read the local newspaper; and every action does not receive media coverage, much less comprehensive coverage. Radio and television coverage are rarely seen in Martin County. We retreat into our shells, look at social media and hope for the best. Besides, we think, “I can vote for the guy that I see in church or at the Elks.”

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.