This is the first of three articles regarding the Kanner CPUD.
When I was actively engaged in the real estate business, I would occasionally testify in court as an expert witness. I was a licensed real estate broker, a licensed insurance broker, I had designations as a Certified Property Manager from the Institute of Real Estate Management and a Certified Commercial Investment Member from the CCIM Institute.
Those various designations meant I had taken classes and had passed exams in my field. I took licensing exams and more education for the different states in which I was licensed as a real estate broker. But the most important aspect of being an expert witness was that I was currently and had for decades been engaged in the commercial real estate business as an owner, broker, and manager. All the certifications and licenses just proved my dedication to my profession. My testimony was valuable because of my experience.
EW Consultants has been in business for 25 years in Stuart. Edward Weinberg and his team have been used hundreds of times as expert witnesses for environmental and wetland matters in development projects in Martin County. They do the inspections and obtain the permits that are necessary to ensure that the law and rules are being followed. After authoring their report, it becomes part of the developer or landowner submission to the governing body.
If it is a contentious approval, someone from EW Consultants will testify, usually Weinberg, as to the contents of their report. In the Kanner CPUD (Costco) project, the developer hired Weinberg and EW Consultants to handle that part of the process. It was the developer’s expert witness.
One of the professional affiliations Weinberg had listed on his resume is being a member of the Society of Wetland Scientists. They have a certification program and Weinberg had been a member. Weinberg did not renew his membership in 2019. Does that disqualify him from being an expert and is that certification necessary?
On January 10th Robin Cartwright, who has opposed this project at every turn, sent an email to the Stuart City Commission and others stating that Weinberg was no longer certified by that organization. She went on to request that any action that was taken because of his lack of certification be reviewed and a third party be hired to review Weinberg’s reports.
Once again, there is no law that states Weinberg must be a member of the organization. There is no Florida agency that requires a license. Weinberg has put himself out there as an expert based on his experience and education including a Masters in Oceanography from FIT. Since he was certified by the Society of Wetland Scientist at one time, he had met their criteria. He did not want to continue with the organization for whatever reason. And there is no requirement that he does.
Since the report came from EW Consultants, the other members of the firm contribute to the work product. One of those members, Arnaud C. Roux, has that certification. Therefore, how many members of the firm need to belong to an organization that costs a substantial amount of money?
Further, the City of Stuart had EW’s report reviewed by a third-party consultant, Kimley Horn. It is true that Weinberg worked there but not since 1997. In his letter dated January 26th to the commissioners, the city manager correctly stated that if EW Consultants did not have what was required neither, the South Florida Water Management District or DEP would allow the company to pull permits on behalf of their clients. It is important to note that Florida Fish and Wildlife also allows the company to pull permits.
I go back to my statement about what an expert witness is. Much of that depends on what the trier of fact thinks of the individual purporting to be one. I know when I testified as one, I would be questioned on my credentials and experience first and then be asked about the case. The judge and, in some circumstances, a jury would decide how much credence to give my testimony.
And, besides, the Kanner CPUD has already been decided. The commission voted 5-0 to move forward with the project. There was an administrative state hearing regarding the land use which was instituted by Cartwright. Presently there is no decision on that matter. There are appeals that can be made but it is not likely the state or district court will go against the decisions of an elected body if all procedures were found to be followed.
You can find the city manager’s letter, resumes of Weinberg & Roux, and Cartwright’s email here