Below is an excellent editorial that recently appeared in the Press Journal..
Kenric Ward: Is Indian River County for sale?
By Kenric Ward
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Even in the midst of a deep housing slump, real-estate interests are spending freely in Indian River County.
A Press Journal examination of second-quarter campaign finance reports shows three County Commission candidates - Wesley Davis, Gary Parris and Sandra Bowden - receiving a combined $33,100 from donors affiliated or allied with the real-estate industry.
For the purposes of this analysis, the "real-estate industry" includes Realtors, brokers, land dealers, contractors, builders, engineers, citrus/ranch/packing concerns and related family members.
Cash from these contributors represented 42.7 percent of Davis' second-quarter fund-raising total, 36.4 percent of Parris' total and 58.3 percent of Bowden's total.
On top of that, the electioneering group, Common Ground, which advertises for these candidates, is backed by many of the same sources. Developer-driven donations accounted for 72.9 percent of Common Ground's bankroll.
This interlocking network of corporate and family donors wields financial clout far beyond its modest ranks. Indeed, if you broaden membership in the "real-estate industry" to encompass lawyers, CPAs, investment firms and sundry suppliers who depend on development for a sizable share of their business, industry contributions account for 84 percent of Davis' second-quarter war chest and 71 percent each for Parris and Bowden.
While unaligned commission candidate Bob Solari also enjoys developer support, industry contributors heavily targeted their spending to the Davis-Parris-Bowden troika and Common Ground.
Not surprisingly, the three opposing Indian River Neighborhood Association candidates - Susan Boyd, Honey Minuse and Gary Wheeler - were all but shut out. Even by the loosest definition, this slow-growth threesome received less than 5 percent of its second-quarter funding from development-related sources.
Cumulatively, the Common Ground candidates have built up a nearly 2-to-1 fund-raising advantage over their IRNA rivals since the campaign began ($147,409 vs. $79,953).
The industry's aggressive, concentrated political effort is not unique to Indian River County.
Through May, mortgage bankers, brokers, real-estate companies and homebuilders gave more than $95 million to federal candidates and political parties. That's up 67 percent from the 2006 election cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsible Politics.
Although the National Association of Realtors lost 93,000 members since last year, the group is on track to surpass the $8.8 million in political donations it made two years ago. The Florida Realtors PAC gave the maximum allowable $500 contributions to Davis, Parris and Bowden.
As industry-connected donations ramp up despite a down economy - or perhaps because of it - they've raised concerns about undue influence.
On the heels of a development binge, Loudoun County, Va., supervisors voted this year to stop accepting campaign contributions from builders and others with projects before the board. The panel was embarrassed by a Washington Post report, which detailed close relations between developers and some supervisors, and triggered a federal investigation into potential public corruption.
"We are holding ourselves to a higher standard than (candidates) who might challenge us. I think that it will help build the public trust, not only for the people, but for the applicants," Commissioner Lori Waters told the Post.
A ban on developer contributions doesn't seem likely here - not as long as developer-friendly, charter-phobic politicians keep winning. But county voters can at least educate themselves by checking out the names of donors posted on the supervisor of elections Web site: tcpalmelections.com or voteindianriver.com.
Residents who regularly watch commission meetings will surely recognize several of the political players (including Joe Paladin, the convicted felon and builder who, on May 20, pitched a token $300 to Parris from a Melbourne Beach P.O. box).
ken.ward@scripps.com
© 2008 Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers
Editorial: Communications blitz fires wildly as political group's biggest target becoming itself
By: TCPalm Staff
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Like clockwork, the County Commission race has taken an ugly turn. With less than a week before early voting begins, last-minute fusillades are flying.
The biggest, baddest barrage is coming from the oxymoronically titled Common Ground. Bemoaning the political "polarization" of this community, Common Ground's advertisements and a recent mailer create confusion and drive the wedge even deeper. The latest in a series of newspaper ads shouts "S.O.S. - Save Our Seniors." The half-page spread claims that charter government would "threaten affordable living opportunities" and "could raise taxes." These unfounded allegations are speculative at best, and CG provided no evidence to substantiate them. Last week, Common Ground stuffed Republican voters' mailboxes with a flier depicting a looming Miami skyline. The message: "Call County Commission candidates Sandra Bowden, Wesley Davis and Gary Parris and thank them for...advocating for policies that will manage our growth, create jobs and lower our taxes." CG's mailer applauded and promoted the staunchly anti-charter troika for fighting "special interests." This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Common Ground is entitled to its free-speech rights, of course. But CG operatives dishonor the First Amendment when their campaign materials skirt state election law. As an "electioneering communication organization" funded largely by corporate contributors with real-estate interests, the group has raised $80,707 and spent $66,030 on political activities through mid-July. Both figures are tops among local "non-partisan" political organizations. The cash piles up quickly because the state exempts ECOs from the $500 contribution limit that applies to "political committees," such as the Indian River Neighborhood Association. But state statutes (section 106) also bar ECOs from "expressly advocating" specific candidates. You wouldn't know that from CG's ad blitz. Its fliers and advertisements explicitly and repeatedly tout Davis, Parris and Bowden for election. Still, the state Division of Elections, which has issued advisory opinions restricting candidate advocacy by other ECOs, has so far declined to address Common Ground's actions. The "Miami" mailer - postmarked West Palm Beach - goes even farther out of bounds. Its message that the Davis-Parris-Bowden triumvirate is the best hope to stop the urbanization of Indian River County is, frankly, a joke. Except it's not funny. A whopper of this magnitude evokes Joseph Goebbels' observation that people will believe the biggest lie if it's told often enough. Enlisting some of this region's biggest citrus/landholder contributions, Common Ground can buy a lot of ammunition between now and Election Day. With these kind of scare tactics and misrepresentations, it's shooting itself in the foot. It's doing what its predecessor, Concerned Citizens Inc., did two years ago: Make IRNA and the candidates it supports look like the victims. The only hope for voters - before this election gets too ugly - is for Common Ground to forgo shock value and stick to the facts. If a charter is so bad, explain exactly why. In this era of high unemployment, Common Ground ought to ask voters to look for candidates - without suggesting specific ones - who support economic development. Electioneering communication organizations are supposed to target issues. Yet honest, substantive debate is squelched by CG's shots fired at the eleventh hour. Indeed, the group's hardball tactics strengthen the IRNA's contention that there really is a connection between self-serving growth promoters and certain supine politicians.
Press Journal Editorials Thumbs up, thumbs down: What's hot and what's not in the news (Aug. 2)
Friday, August 1, 2008 THUMBS DOWN DO AS THEY SAY: There they go again. Nine months after announcing opposition to Florida Hometown Democracy, the Indian River Shores Town Council is barging into county affairs. Mailers signed and sent by the council to Shores residents claim charter-government proposals would "interpose a layer of country control." The officials' opposition is fundamentally contradictory, since their town and the county's four other municipalities govern via charter. Participatory democracy, promoted by charter and FHD, evidently is not a high priority with this council. While the letter does not go so far as to name County Commission candidates for election or defeat, there's no question where this is heading. In the interest of full disclosure, the five council signatories, led by Mayor Tom Cadden, could have divulged any real-estate, pecuniary or political interests potentially affected by growth-controlling voter referendums. Despite their fulminations, the proposed county charter would affect only lands outside the urban service boundary as of May 1, 2007 and annexed by a municipality. What are the intentions of Shores' officials? That's a letter taxpayers would like to see.
Letter: County is just three votes from destruction by: John Williams
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 There's
an old saying that people are judged by the enemies they make. If so,
then the incessant attacks on the Indian River Neighborhood Association
by the Press Journal's pathetic pundit, Russ Lemmon, should swell the
IRNA's membership by many thousands more. What sensible citizen
wouldn't want to check into the IRNA and its effort to let the voters
themselves determine the future of the county after they read Lemmon's
attacks? After all, other then at election time, his main focus is on
how many out-of-state number plates he can spot, how many Bob Evans
restaurants he added to his list during vacation, and, last but not
least, urging all to run see the latest Michael Moore movie. Now that's a literary giant if I ever read one. In
his latest ill-informed diatribe (July 8), he proves again he hasn't a
clue about Florida's history. He praises Indian River County's height
restrictions and claims we can never become "another South Florida."
Baloney. Our county looks this way because the people of Vero Beach in
the 1970s utilized their vote to put the restrictions into their
charter. It can only be changed by the people themselves. Similar
restraints in the other cities and the county itself are mere
reflections of Vero's leadership and are by ordinance only. Three votes
and they're gone. The people themselves need the right to vote on
height controls, the urban service line and the interlocal agreement.
The main thrust of the IRNA and its three endorsed candidates for this
August election is: "Let the People Vote!" Apparently this is too
radical a concept for the Wizard of Toledo. The Press Journal recently
narrowed the paper's width two inches. That was the perfect opportunity
to drop the sour Lemmon column. Why didn't you? John Williams
Vero Beach
Peter Seed: Interlocal agreement a toothless tiger
Monday, July 14, 2008 In the ongoing debate over charter government, keep one thing in mind: Granting to the county limited charter authority is the only way county voters can restore the urban service line and low-density housing restrictions on lands outside the boundary that applied before Fellsmere, through annexation, more than tripled its size (from 8 to 43 square miles) and laid the foundation for busting the restrictions to accommodate at least 150,000 residents. Those were the boundary/restrictions 71.5 percent of county voters sought to protect in November 2006 when they endorsed requiring countywide voter approval of any boundary expansion. They did so because the county's large lot 5-, 10- and 20-acre lot limits preserved the rural character of about half of the county, with another quarter set aside for conservation. At the same time, the boundary contained rampant growth and urban sprawl by encouraging smaller-scale, high-density infill. The draft charter that Commissioners Wesley Davis, Sandra Bowden and Joe Flescher torpedoed protects the urban service boundary in three ways by: - Granting the county paramount comprehensive planning authority over unincorporated lands, as well as any county lands that were annexed to a municipality after the 2006 referendum.
- Requiring that any municipal plan and ordinances applicable to such annexed lands be consistent with the county plan and implementing ordinances.
- Requiring countywide voter approval of any expansion of the boundary and lessening of the rural density restrictions.
As a fail-safe, if state law does not permit such approval, then a supermajority of the County Commission is required. Charges that such limited charter authority is a power grab are overblown. Equally specious are claims that such authority would permit the takeover of municipal police and other public services. That can only be done if the municipality's governing body requests the transfer and it is approved in a dual referendum - both countywide and within the municipality. Opponents of limited charter authority argue that an interlocal agreement between the county and municipalities provides a better way to manage growth. How? Answer: Require that there be unanimous consent of the parties to any increase in height and/or densities for lands outside the urban service boundary. This sounds good until you read the fine print and find the proposed agreement exempts from the unanimous consent requirement: - 22,000 acres already annexed to Fellsmere.
- 4,000 acres reserved for Sebastian.
- Any land outside the urban service boundary the county designates as a "new town," which allows for up to a 40-fold density increase on rural lands.
The interlocal draft also omits any building height limits within the urban service boundary and makes no provision for countywide voter approval (or a supermajority vote of the commission) before building heights and/or densities are increased outside the service line. In short, the proposed interlocal agreement is a toothless shame and no substitute for granting the county limited charter authority to restore the November 2006 urban services boundary/density restrictions and prevent existing building height limits in the county from being exceeded. Seed, a resident of Indian River Shores, serves on the advisory board of the Indian River Neighborhood Association. He practiced law in Minnesota for 36 years as a local government and public finance attorney.
Letter: 'Interlocal' maps a grim future
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Thank you for your July 9 editorial, which brought the interlocal agreement to the light of day.
This agreement is a product of denying the voters the opportunity to
not only vote on charter government, but to even read it. It was
revealed at a public hearing at which the public could not speak or
even hear the proceedings.
The law being used to set up this agreement was actually intended to
help counties create more efficient ways to deliver services through
city and county cooperation. Three of our county commissioners, who
voted down public hearings for a possible charter government, gave us
this fiasco.
Instead of uniting for efficiency, they are encouraging the breakup
of the county into zones of influence. It was clear at the public
hearing that each city was in a “protect my turf” attitude, and any
hint of cooperation for the benefit of taxpayers was absent.
The interlocal “agreement” is a ruse to keep the people of the
county from being able to have a meaningful voice in the future growth
of the county. Thousands of staff hours have been spent on this, while
we are in the midst of one of the most serious financial crises to hit
our nation and state in many years.
Why haven’t we spent these hours creating programs to attract
sustainable industry or programs to use tax money more efficiently?
Staff time is being spent on a dubious exercise that will not have one
financial benefit to the taxpayer.
As of this writing, if you go to the county Web site and try to find
the proposed interlocal agreement, a 14-page document with maps, it is
nowhere to be found. Perhaps a change is needed; in this case, the
voters can decide by voting Aug. 26.
Susan Boyd
Candidate
County Commission, District 1
Vero Beach | We Make a Difference ... testimonials | Mobile Home Parks:
"As Coordinator of the Coalition of Manufactured/Mobile Home Rental Parks in Indian River County, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for the support that we received from the IRNA in getting new County Ordinances which created a new land use designation for mobile home rental parks throughout the County. Representatives of the IRNA were with us throughout the eighteen month long process of hearings with the P & Z and the County Commission and rendered their complete support on the issue. We are indeed very grateful and appreciative of all your efforts on our behalf."
Robert BauerCement Plant Neighborhoods:
"When the opposition battle to the proposed concrete plant in Sebastian looked overwhelmingly desperate, the IRNA came to my attention. It made sense to me that an organization of 7,000 plus people in Indian River County would have a lot of experience, and perhaps could offer assistance in support of our battle...
"IRNA members attended our weekly working meetings to develop strategies and presentations for the next public meetings.
| When we got better acquainted I received an email that said when the concrete plant matters came before the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners, the IRNA would be there. And they were! The IRNA Exec Committee was represented by at least one member attending every ensuing session...advice and counsel from the IRNA leaders made a whale of a difference in our progress."
Rex NelsonWild Turkey Mine Neighborhoods:
"As life long residents of Indian River County trying to preserve the natural splendor of Vero Beach we were comforted in knowing that The Indian River Neighborhood Association had an active interest in helping us fight the Wild Turkey Mining Project. We reside in the northwest part of the county which stands to be one of the few remaining areas of unspoiled natural Florida as it was once known. The IRNA attended our meetings and took an active role in providing guidance and expressing their voice in our quest to maintain the quiet, natural beauty of our neighborhood. We thank you and look forward to working with you in the future."
Dr. and Mrs. S. James Shafer
|
Good News! The proposed landswap
opposed by the IRNA did not go through. The land in question will now
remain in conservation permanently. This is just one example of how the
voice of the IRNA makes a difference. If you are not already a member,
join today!
By HONEY MINUSE
July 7, 2007
The county produced a Vision Plan back in 2004. It cost the taxpayers $200,000.
Where is this plan today? To answer that question a brief history lesson is required.
County Commissioner Caroline Ginn became aware of rampant growth
starting in our county and called for a time-limited moratorium on
building so the county could prepare for unprecedented growth.
Commissioners did not pass the moratorium but as a compromise they
appointed a committee of 30 people to study the issue. The committee met for three intensive, facilitated sessions,
producing recommendations to the commission. The commissioners then
appropriated $200,000 for a consulting firm to formulate a Vision Plan
to guide the county's growth. The process took more than a year, workshops were conducted
all over the county and oversight was provided by the city councils
from all five municipalities, the School Board and the commission. The
plan was enthusiastically endorsed and highlights included: 1. Villages and dense populations would not be built outside the urban service line.
2. Lands outside the boundary would remain rural or agricultural.
3. Lands inside the line would be populated more densely with
provision for readily available "urban services" such as roads, water,
wastewater treatment, police, fire-rescue, etc. All five commissioners voted to proceed with the Vision Plan.
But developers and landowners were lobbying their self-interests to the
commissioners. When it was time to implement the Vision Plan by amending the
county's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and send it to the state for
approval Commissioners Sandra Bowden, Wesley Davis, Tom Lowther and Art
Neuberger voted against it. That is exactly where the Vision Plan remains, suspended in $200,000 worth of time.
The Vision Plan represents the voice of the people of this
county. In early 2006, Commissioner Gary Wheeler secured a 3-2 vote by
the commissioners (Davis and Lowther voting against) to place a
non-binding referendum on the November ballot. This resulted in 71
percent of the voters saying they wanted a voice about whether or not
the urban service line was moved. This measure was sent to Tallahassee where a special act of
the Legislature was necessary to bring it to a vote in our county. The
bill was defeated; there had been local legislative opposition. Meanwhile, Fellsmere was pursuing annexations by landowners
seeking to avoid restrictions on development imposed by the urban
service line. Once annexed, Fellsmere could increase heights and
densities. There was another way to implement the people's vision and
protect the urban service boundary: Limit height and increased
densities to development within the line by enacting charter
government. Other counties in Florida, faced with similar growth problems,
had gone charter. They, too, had faced fierce opposition by developers
and landowners and unfortunately, in most instances, rampant growth had
already taken place by the time charters were approved by the voters. Commissioner Peter O'Bryan brought forth the charter
initiative, often referred to as "Charter Lite" because it deferred to
home rule by our five cities. The current commissioners appropriated
$25,000 to research a charter, conduct workshops and prepare a final
draft to go to a public hearing. Lobbying by developers and landowners intensified. When the
final draft was completed, three commissioners — Bowden, Davis and Joe
Flescher — voted against bringing it to the public. Instead, they
promoted an interlocal agreement between the municipalities and the
unincorporated county to halt annexations. This interlocal agreement has done nothing to halt the
annexations. Fellsmere annexed 4,000-plus acres on June 21 and an
additional 14,000-plus acres is scheduled to be annexed Aug. 2. In summary, $225,000 has been spent to give the people a voice
about the future of our county and the voices have been effectively
silenced, twice, by the very same people who authorized the spending of
those monies. Our commissioners would do well to remember their promises to the people who elected them.
|
