Yesterday the Palm Beach County Commission, whose recent past members could make a quorum from the prison yard, approved land use changes sought by the Fanjul family sugar interest to industrialize the Everglades Agricultural Area. (click, 'read more')
The decision throws the matter to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the state agency that the Florida legislature is trying to kill off, thanks to the pesticide of campaign money from sugar and real estate development interests.
"We are for Everglades restoration, but we also are for economic development," Commissioner Burt Aaronson said, as reported by the Palm Beach Post; a refrain that could have slipped as easily from Miami-Dade, Lee or Collier or Broward County commissions or from any of their recent generations. The platitude recalls the horrendous battle over Scripps Institute-- where environmentalists prevailed and the state's top wetlands policy expert was asked to lie by the top state environmental official reporting to Gov. Jeb Bush -- or the Urban Development Boundary in Miami-Dade-- where environmentalists prevailed on state law-- or the Mirasol project in Collier County-- where a key panther scientist for the Fish and Wildlife Service was fired for refusing to give a blank check to a developer/ major coal miner from West Virginia.
These skirmishes have a debilitating effect on the environmental 'movement': the opposition knows this perfectly well. Year after year, scarce financial resources are drained in the fight of a thousand cuts. And Florida, the nation, the planet reflects this death by a thousand cuts perfectly well.
What I would like to do, is to conduct a poll of county commissioners whose jurisdictions surround Florida's Everglades. Here is what I would ask:
1) Do you believe that Florida's Everglades can be saved? (My view: in their heart of hearts, I do not believe county commissioners believe the Everglades can be saved or "restored".)
2) Do your zoning decisions harm the chances for Everglades restoration? (My view: county commissioners do not care about the Everglades because birds don't vote.)
3) Does the state of Florida protect the environment? (My view: county commissioners want local control but where tough decisions are needed that alienate campaign contributors, that they are perfectly willing to offload responsibility to state and federal agencies then fight them in court.)
4) Is the Florida Department of Community Affairs, that is intended to "manage" growth, effective in protecting natural resources? (My view: to county commissions and campaign contributors from the real estate and agricultural agencies, the Florida Department of Community Affairs is the easiest place to direct anger and antagonism.)
5) Would your votes on zoning changes be different if real estate and agricultural interests with business before the county were prohibited from making campaign contributions? (My view: you could never count on an honest answer to this question, but it is worth asking.)
'Inland port,' Fanjul land change get Palm Beach County's initial OK despite environmental objections
By MITRA MALEK
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 13, 2009
WEST PALM BEACH — Palm Beach County commissioners gave initial approval Monday to two land-use changes that could allow an industrial complex to be built near the southern end of Lake Okeechobee.
The county is competing with several of its neighbors to be chosen as the site of an "inland port" that would be a warehousing and distribution center serving South, Southwest and Central Florida's seaside ports, including the Port of Palm Beach.
"We can get into the posture where we are at least facing the possibility of having an inland port if all the stars align," County Commissioner Shelley Vana said.
Both votes were 6-1, with Karen Marcus dissenting. Environmentalists had urged the commission to delay, saying the changes threaten to hamper Everglades restoration.
Monday's actions could give Florida Crystals Corp. a leg up in becoming the site of choice for the port.
Commissioners voted to allow 318 acres of the sugar powerhouse's farmland near South Bay to be used for industrial development. They also changed the county's growth plan to create an industrial designation for nearly 100,000 acres surrounding and including Crystals' land.
"We are in fact favoring one landowner today," said Commissioner Jess Santamaria, whose district includes the land.
Environmentalists urged commissioners to wait until the South Florida Water Management District completes its scaled-back purchase of 72,500 acres from U.S. Sugar. The debate echoed a similar controversy from a year earlier, in which the commissioners overrode environmental groups' objections and approved more than 10,000 acres of rock mines near the lake.
Marcus dissented in part over similar concerns Monday, calling the vote "premature."
But several commissioners said they trust that the port wouldn't be built if it will cause restoration problems.
"We are for Everglades restoration, but we also are for economic development," Commissioner Burt Aaronson said.
About 20 residents from South Bay, Belle Glade and Pahokee showed their support by wearing shirts that read: "Save Our Jobs, Save Our Community, Inland Port in the Glades."
Both changes now go to the state's Department of Community Affairs for review before commissioners can make them official after holding a final public hearing in August.
3 comments:
Since you know everything, in Monday's Miami Herald, page 13A, there's an announcment of proposed amendment to the FY 2001 through 2009 Action Plans, set for public hearing on May 13, 2009, at 9:30 am. Most appropriation are directed towards Goulds, Naranja, and other black communities and organizations. At the end of the very long list it says TOTAL REDISTRIBUTION OF CDBG FUNDS. Can you enlighten us about this? I have no idea what this is, just that it adds to a considerable amount of dollars. Thank you.
There isn't a short answer to this question. But, the funding is from Federal pass-through dollars which OCED oversees. The money is distributed by grant applications and then the agencies are monitored and audited to insure that they are performing. If an agency doesn't complete the grant contract as it agreed or can't perform its obligations, the money is taken back and hopefully put to a better use. The communities are "focus areas" which by census tract are designated as areas needing extra support to have economic gains. Although, I believe each commission district can be included as/in a service area, grants that service a larger population (countywide) is a good thing.
One of the hardest things for non-profits is the fact that at times they are competing against Miami-Dade county agencies for these monies. That always seems a bit unfair to the non-profits.
I think it sad to see money taken back because it shows that there was a break-down or failure on the part of the winning agency... HOWEVER, it also shows that the county staff was paying attention to their grant contracts and that the money would be wasted or worse if the money was not recaptured.
In some cases, the money is recommended to be awarded by the CAC (an publicly elected board within a focus area) to fulfill the needs that the board has identified as important to that particular area. This process involves a workshop to prioritize the needs and then public presentations by the agencies applying for the grants, before CAC recommendations are offered.
Of course, there are some issues with the smaller communities being too close to the people applying. which is an entirely different issue from the recapturing and the distribution of funds.
Thank you for leaving this message answering our reader's question...We might not know it all, but we have very smart readers that seem to be ready and willing to help when it is needed!
Post a Comment