The worst legislative session in Florida history stumbles to an end, cheered on by those aiming to destroy government and they call it "COURAGE" ... by gimleteye

There is a daily news clipping service in Florida, by Cate Communications. An industry coalition has taken out a banner ad that's appeared for the past month or so, "The Florida Senate: Courage Under Crisis". Courage? That's the laugh of the century in Florida.

As the legislative session stumbles to an end, the House and Senate have succeeded in distorting the will of the people beyond recognition. What these Republicans leaders have proven -- by failing to enact what the people expressed through Amendment 1 (that 1/3 of the documentary stamp tax on real estate transactions to be used to purchase environmentally sensitive lands) --  is that they are only concerned about their own security.

Alan Hays, Republican chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, says that the state already owns too much land: more than 900,000 acres.

Hays' senate district encompasses agricultural lands that are spewing pollution into Lake Okeechobee (which must be why he is also on the Senate "environmental protection committee".) He asks the question, "How much is enough?" as if to dismiss the intent of voters last November. Apparently there is no one in the Senate with the courage to answer.

How is this for an answer, Senator Hays: the state will own "enough" land when every spring, every river and every community's real estate values and quality of life is protected from industry's right to pollute without adequate regulations.

The Florida state legislature interprets its work to depend, absolutely, on cultivating favor with powerful special interests like US Sugar, the Fanjul billionaires, and their proxies including Associated Industries of Florida and the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

First, they killed Growth Management in Florida; the accomplishment of bipartisan consensus over decades. "They", being business interests who are determined to plow condos and suburban subdivisions into every available parcel in Florida and use "regulations kill jobs" as their main excuse. Growth Management had turned into piñata for special interests, but instead of fixing it to make it serve the intent of voters, it was dismantled: either by inattention (Lawton Chiles, Charlie Crist) or outright acts of sabotage (Jeb Bush, Rick Scott). That was the will of the people?

In 2014 the people decided if the legislature wouldn't protect their communities from -- say -- water pollution caused by powerful Big Ag interests, they would authorize the creation of a dedicated source of funding, safe from its grubby little hands, to fund land acquisition to use as cleansing marshes for industry's pollution. 75 percent of Floridians approved, last November, exactly this provision; a funding source to -- say -- complete the land acquisition of Big Sugar lands agreed to in 2010 by US Sugar.

There is not a single elected official or Constitutional Amendment that garnered as much support as Amendment 1 by voters. But no. Your "courageous" elected legislature is in the process of stealing all that money, nearly a billion dollars, for their own projects. 

Now that "anything goes", it is clear that everything in Florida is for sale; even values and principles that were once nailed down. They call it "COURAGE" from behind Tallahassee's very high walls.

Toxic algae, last week in St. Lucie estuary

Here is a photo of the St. Lucie River right now.  Watch the video of toxic algae that is choking the hopes for a good quality of life, even for ordinary Republicans.

Who is culpable? Every incumbent in office who sinks deep in his or her plush chair in the House or Senate while letting the predatory practices of special interests tighten their grip on taxpayers' throats. That is what they call, "COURAGE".

Who is standing up for the people? NO ONE in elected office who takes money from Big Sugar. Voters are going to have to dig deep in their pockets and invest in candidates who will take the "no money from Big Sugar" pledge. Citizens will have to sue their own government in order to establish that the Florida legislature has violated the intent of Amendment 1.

The next time you vote, remember how you have been betrayed.



For more:

As U.S. Sugar flexes muscle, environmentalists fret about Amendment 1
Michael Van SicklerMichael Van Sickler, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
Thursday, April 23, 2015 1:05pm


Stuck in limbo because of the stalemate over Medicaid expansion, environmentalists face increasingly long odds that state lawmakers will raise spending on purchasing land for preservation and conservation, setting the stage for a possible legal battle.

Lawmakers have only a week left in the 2015 legislative session and are giving little indication they will budge much from their initial offers last month to provide less than $20 million for land buys.

That’s far less than the $300 million minimum anticipated by the supporters of Amendment 1, a ballot measure that 4.2 million voters approved in November.

“It’s pretty doggone clear that the intent was to acquire more land,” said Sen. Thad Altman, R-Rockledge. “We’re not even close. It’s a Ponzi scheme and it will never work. I don’t think any court in the land can uphold that. If we don’t put meaningful dollars in land acquisition, it will go to court.”

Less than six months ago, Amendment 1 passed with 75 percent of the vote. It requires not new money, but 33 percent of existing revenue from documentary stamps be directed to preserving environmentally sensitive land and improving water quality.

Supporters of the amendment say that means that Florida Forever, a state program created in 1999 to fund public land acquisition, should have its initial authority to spend $300 million restored. But the House budget provides about $10 million for land buys through Florida Forever. The Senate provides about $17 million.

One land purchase in particular, about 26,000 acres south of Lake Okeechobee and another 20,000 near Clewiston, appears to be in the most trouble. Environmentalists had identified this property, which is owned by U.S. Sugar, as crucial in helping clean the Everglades. The land could be used for a reservoir that captures dirty discharges, improving the quality of water that drains into the Everglades.

But Senate Budget Chief Tom Lee, R-Brandon, said support for buying that piece is waning, a position that falls in line with House leaders who have always opposed it.

"There is a belief that acquiring land in this moment in history is probably not the best bang-for-the-buck," Lee said. “I’m not sure if we want to go out in the first year of (Amendment 1) and blow a bunch of money and throw in a bunch of projects without going through a process that identifies the best scientific use of these limited resources.”

But that deliberate process of ranking and evaluating individual projects -- which House Speaker Steve Crisafulli, R-Merritt Island doesn’t support -- would take time that the U.S. Sugar property doesn’t have. The option to buy it expires in October. The impasse over the budget, which may not get resolved until June, is already posing enough of a delay, said Eric Eikenberg, CEO of the Everglades Foundation.

“The calendar isn’t our friend,” Eikenberg said.

Neither is the owner of the land, U.S. Sugar. Eikenberg was chief of staff for then Gov. Charlie Crist when he helped negotiate a deal with U.S. Sugar where the state would buy the property at a market rate. At the time, U.S. Sugar executives Malcolm “Bubba” Wade and Robert Buker wrote op-eds in 2010 urging the deal.

But they now oppose it. They want to develop 18,000 homes and 25 million square feet of stores, offices, warehouses and other commercial buildings on the company land instead. In November, the Department of Economic Opportunity objected to the project, giving the company until later this year to appeal.

If lawmakers bypass the purchase, that would give U.S. Sugar a stronger case that its property no longer provides an opportunity for conservation or Everglades restoration activities.

Since the end of December, the company and its executives have showered Republican and Democratic lawmakers with $550,000 in campaign contributions for their 2016 races.

“U.S. Sugar has put so much energy into killing it,” Eikenberg said. “And they’ve accomplished it.”

U.S. Sugar’s campaign against the purchase of its land has imperiled the overall Florida Forever program, said Eric Draper, executive director of Audubon of Florida. When Altman proposed an amendment last month that would put $300 million into Florida Forever, U.S. Sugar lobbied against it out of fear that it would be used to purchase its property, Draper said.

“The sugar lobby has pushed lawmakers so hard that they’re confused,” Draper said. “A lot of them think they’re the same thing, the U.S. Sugar property is Florida Forever.”

In recent meetings, Draper said he’s been encouraged by Senate leaders who have shown support for increasing the amount of money to be spend in Florida Forever.