|
Home
Up
| |
Archives for
Opinion Page
Don’t bury our issues!
Vote NO on the Charter referendum!
CFOF urges our fellow citizens to vote “NO” on the City Charter amendment that
will result in extending a commissioner’s term of office from 3 years to 4
years.
·
This referendum will change our current spring election cycle
·
If passed, city elections will be held in the Fall every even
numbered year
Will the City save money? According to figures from
the City Clerk’s office, there will only be an average savings of $7,800 over
the next ten years.
This savings is greatly outweighed by the cost!
·
Local City issues will lose their visibility among federal, state
and county issues.
·
Co-mingling our city elections with federal, state and county
elections could possibly encourage a level of partisanship that is currently
absent from City elections
·
Changing the terms of office causes three Commission seats to come
up for elections at one time; leaving our Commission vulnerable to special
interest groups
·
If a majority of the commission seats come up for election at the
same time, major directional changes could occur within our City government
every four years.
·
Any experienced organizational leader – whether political or
business – will tell you that having such a level of turnover at one time is
higher disruptive to an organization.
At a time when Fernandina is facing a number of
long-term major issues, a smooth and orderly transition of elected officials is
critical.
We have a special city with special needs requiring a special level of
attention. It is extremely important that these needs and how our elected
officials propose to address them remain a focal point for our community.
We believe the issue is not one of timing with the calendar; but one of voter
education.
Keep our elections separate so we can have the quality of debate and discussion
that is needed to keep our beautiful City moving forward.
Save our city! Vote NO on the election
referendum.
____________**___________
Dear CFOF:
I greatly appreciate your
dedication and commitment to trying to preserve as much as possible of
the remaining quality of life in our beleaguered community, and agree
that public outcry is valuable. In a perfect world, the measures you
suggest would have the desired effect on the elected (by default)
officials, who clearly have no respect for the dreams and desires of
average Nassau County natives and immigrants. Their (City and County
Commissions) attitudes are the product of years of aiding and abetting,
with impunity, the depredations of "developers and other
entrepreneurs", in their determined rush for power and profit.
Because they have no fear of
consequences for their malfeasance and incompetence, they will continue
to behave as always, giving little more than lip service to our pleas
for protection from the bulldozer brigades. Until and unless we
demonstrate the ability to win electoral battles, little change is
likely. The county commissioners, unlike City commissioners, are immune
from the petition / recall process. They will remain so if we don't
organize ourselves into a working force to provide the citizens with the
necessary tools for self-determination.
The latest judicial
travesty - striking down the "Hometown Democracy Amendment" - will only
embolden the "equal opportunity destroyers" to commit further excesses.
Now is the time to direct energies to recruit as many frustrated
individual citizens as possible to do the needed grassroots work . I
firmly believe that the only way we can hope to conserve anything of the
former natural ambience of our county is to bring about a
county charter
petition referendum that provides a recall process. It may make some
impression on those arrogant commissioners if protesters of the Chester
Road 'development'
publicly suggest the
possibility of a growing "line-in-the-sand" attitude among county
voters.
John
S. Glenn, Membership Chair
Nassau County Sierra Club
__________**__________
-
4 Feb
05
Tree Ordinance
After reading the recent Viewpoint about the
impracticality of the City’s current tree ordinance, I felt a need to offer
a different perspective based on my personal experiences. The City’s recent
actions to properly interpret and enforce the City’s tree ordinance can be
directly tied to a lawsuit by a developer against me, my neighbors, my
entire subdivision and the City. This developer initiated a lawsuit to
overturn a deed restriction that designated a “L” shaped natural buffer
easement - 30-foot wide on the western side of the property and 50-foot wide
on the southern side that abutted Lakewood Subdivision - on their 5.6 acre
parcel off Will Hardee Road. This developer had already clear-cut the
northern 4.7 acres of the property. Yes, they completed a tree removal
application in which they stated there were only 4 trees that were 12 inches
or more in diameter to be removed. They did not submit a tree survey as
required by the City’s ordinance to validate their claim. The City issued
the tree removal permit in November 2003, based on the information supplied
by the developer in the application and with no inspection by the City. The
City has subsequently been provided with photographic evidence showing that
the property that was clear-cut contained an estimated 1,000 – 1,200 oak
trees with a diameter of 5” or greater that were protected under the City’s
tree ordinance. As of this writing, the City is still considering what
action, if any, will be taken against the developer for this flagrant
violation.
But back to the main story.
Not content with the land they had already cleared, the developer wanted to
encroach on the buffer areas and filed suit against the adjacent property
owners (including me), our homeowner’s association and the City claiming the
deed restriction was illegal. After incurring substantial legal fees that
drained our homeowners association’s bank account, we agreed to a
court-approved mediated settlement. This agreement granted the developer
the right to clear trees into the first 15 feet of the buffer; BUT the
removal had to be conducted in full compliance with the City’s tree
ordinance. To accurately record the number of protected trees in the
buffer, the City paid for a certified tree survey to be completed. This
survey documented that there were more than 250 protected (5” diameter or
greater) trees in the total buffer area. The developer has removed
approximately 500 diameter-inches of trees from this buffer area to this
point; still without submitting a tree replacement plan and getting it
approved in accordance with the tree ordinance requirements. Had the City
not done the survey, there would not have been any undisputable evidence of
the exact number of trees that were removed from the buffer.
Immediately after the
settlement was accepted, I took on the responsibility to ensure that the
developer fully complied with the tree ordinance. The task was more than I
ever imagined it would be. It quickly became obvious that the City staff
member I was dealing with did not have a correct understanding of the tree
ordinance requirements. This was not a matter of interpretation of a gray
area, it was a flat-out incorrect understanding of some of the ordinance’s
main requirements such as requiring the replacement of trees and the need to
submit a tree replacement plan BEFORE the trees are removed. If the trees
are removed before the survey and replacement plan is submitted, who’s to
say how many trees might be removed?
After stories were spread
about me being a “crazed man patrolling the property with a hatchet” (I had
retrieved a hammer and nail from my house so the City employee could nail a
Stop Order notice); and being passed around from the Planning Dept. to the
City Manager and City Attorney, I realized this was too much for one
person. I enlisted the aid of Concerned Friends of Fernandina and they have
been magnificent in helping to clear through the bureaucracy. They have
facilitated meetings with Commission Ken Walker and the City Manager as well
as with the new members of the Planning Department responsible for the
review of tree removal applications and enforcement of the City’s tree
ordinance. All of these efforts have resulted in the City’s Planning
Department now having a complete and accurate understanding of the Tree
Ordinance requirements AND, most importantly, a willingness to enforce it.
While one can offer arguments
as to whether the current tree ordinance’s objective of “no net loss of
trees” is economically practical, there can be no argument that to achieve
that stated objective then there has to be a one-for-one replacement of
removed trees. This is what the tree ordinance requires and this is what
all property owners should be held accountable to until such time as the
ordinance is changed. ALL ordinances should be enforced 100% of the time,
as a failure to do so only encourages favoritism and a disregard for
compliance with other important ordinances.
Bob Moore, Fernandina Beach
_________________**___________________
| News-Leader
Viewpoint
The rapid pace of development and redevelopment that has
plagued other sections of Florida has finally reached
the idyllic, quiet places of Northeast Florida and our
own community of Fernandina Beach. Because of the strong
and continuing effort by some unscrupulous money people
trying to find guaranteed ways to speculatively invest
in our community, it is imperative that our local
government and its citizens be fully aware of any
changes to our system of governance.
Over the last few months we have seen the following:
suggestions to change our local election cycle and terms
of office; changes to our land development regulations,
perhaps without oversight committees being given
adequate review time; the abolishment of five citizen's
advisory boards; a proposed restructuring of the city's
major planning boards; and repeated breakdowns in
communication abilities from one city department to
another - especially in relationship to the enforcement
of our ordinances related to the preservation of our
historic area and our trees.
With so much change occurring in our community, much is
at stake. At some point in time Fernandina Beach will be
faced with a staggering wake-up call as we are impacted
by increased density, increased population, increased
number of vehicles on our streets, resulting in
unmanageable congestion and a distinct loss of natural
space and greenery. The quality and beauty of our city
will have been eked away piece by piece until one day we
awake only to find what we love and care about in
Fernandina has become an endangered species.
Currently we have good building and zoning regulations
that regulate height, width and how much density can be
built within our city and where. If our regulations
would just be enforced adequately without constantly
making exceptions to the rule, densities would be being
controlled and our tree ordinance would be protecting
the ambience and air quality of our city.
The growing size of Fernandina
Beach demands many competent department heads at every
level of city government. To expect one individual to be
responsible for the administration of our city's
day-to-day operation and simultaneously act as the
community development department head is foolhardy and
unrealistic. The city manager of any growing city the
size of Fernandina Beach has an overwhelming
responsibility requiring many hours of total committed
involvement in managing just the day-to-day functions of
the city. Attempting to balance both roles is inviting
the dereliction of one, or both, of these
responsibilities.
Because of Mr. Bob Mearns' competent dedication to both
roles, the citizens have previously only been
inconvenienced by some miscommunications and slight
delays in responses. But we are greatly concerned about
the increasing rate of situations where these small
inconveniences have developed into larger and more
serious mishaps?
Wouldn't it make more sense to hire another competent
individual for the community development position and
free up Mr. Mearns to administer to the city's needs in
a more focused and deserving manner.
If we have allowed this arrangement because it has saved
the city money, then it is time to re-evaluate if the
dollars saved are worth the risk that is being taken. No
matter how dedicated and capable an individual is, there
is only such much that one person can do.
At this point if we lose one city manager we will in
essence be losing two vital functions - a city manager
and a community department director. Wouldn't the money
people just love that? Unscrupulous people thrive on
chaos and confusion and our community cannot risk our
quality of life because of a few dollars saved on
payroll.
We urge the city commission to
separate these functions and hire an experienced
community development director.
Joan Altman, Fernandina Beach
is a member of Concerned Friends of Fernandina. |
|
|
________________**__________________
-
12 Jan 05 If you have an ordinance,
enforce it
Many of us are understandably concerned about ways in which prudent growth
and preservation of our island's natural beauty can occur in our city
andcounty. There are some simple ways that can help to achieve the goal of
judicious growth.
One is to prevent the transfer of density rights from developer to
developer. This practice, currently under consideration in the case of Crane
Island, is being used to undermine the zoning protections of our community,
and it should be stopped. Although the practice may be deemed legal, it
should be opposed, especially in the case of Crane Island, which is
designated a Coastal High Hazard Zone and has conservation zoning.
Many citizens rightly disagree with allowing AIP and Civitas to join forces
and use AIP surplus development density authorizations to change Crane
Island from conservation zoning to medium residential densities. Having
developer-to-developer density transfers using old and surplus density
authorizations from another area is equivalent to allowing "developers" to
approve new development density and zoning changes and undermine the
county's need to manage judicious growth management.
Two other simple ways to promote sound growth management is to limit
variances that encourage higher density units on existing parcels of land
and to enforce our ordinances, such as our tree ordinance.
The tree ordinance is designed to prevent the cutting of mature trees and to
require replanting of trees by the developer when they have cut down mature
trees on their building lots. We have been at commission meetings in which
individual homeowners have been strongly challenged about their request to
cut down a single tree that overhangs their home and, in some cases,
approval was denied. However, examples exist where no similar challenge or
fine or replanting has been enforced for a developer who has cut down
hundreds of trees.
Despite the incredible rate of development and the amount of trees that have
been cut within our city limits, we have asked city officials if any fine
has ever been assessed against an offending developer. We have been told
that there is no record of a fine. Hard to believe, isn't it? No developer
has ever transgressed this ordinance? It begs the question, why have an
ordinance if you don't want to enforce it?
In order to keep us on the path to sane and prudent growth management, we
can oppose developer-to-developer transfers, enforce our existing ordinances
and limit or eliminate variances for higher density. In other words, uphold
the law.
Are we missing something?
Jan and Thomas Cote-Merow, Fernandina Beach
__________________**___________________
News-Leader
 |
|
|
THE NO SPIN ZONE -- By Ron
Sapp
I don't know about you, but I'm looking
forward to the New Year, 2005. I look forward to another
spring training in Tampa, a family tradition, another
season of spectacular surf fishing and the mental image
of Georgia Bulldog players hoisting the national
championship trophy skyward (well, actually that will be
in January 2006) dances joyfully in my brain. The old
Carly Simon tune, "Anticipation," comes to mind.
But it also promises to be a great year politically,
especially locally. At the county level, decisions
postponed for many years will finally have to be made.
Commissions began painting themselves into a political
corner several years ago and the current commission has
simply run out of room. And voters in the city of
Fernandina Beach will get to vote on several ridiculous
questions posed to them by their commissioners.
I can visualize the commercial now, "Anticipa-a-tion is
making me wait . . ." Well, unlike the stuff in the
commercial, the political catsup is about to start
pouring out. Consider just a few examples of what awaits
the local political enthusiast:
-- How's the county going to fund necessary
infrastructure (growth) costs and make that $2.3 million
a year bond payment?
-- What's going to
happen to the mediated county/city settlement that
called for a new county building on the 14th Street
site? County commissioners were to tear down the old
building and construct a new one, a $1 million city
contribution was to ease the pain. The new county
coordinator has recommended selling that property to
help address
county debt problems, so what happens to the agreement?
-- Without the new county building at the 14th Street
site, constitutional officers (clerk of the court, tax
collector, etc.) will not have their primary offices
within the county seat, Fernandina Beach. This violates
the Florida constitution. Will city commissioners let
this happen, or will they, seeing $1 million
non-expenditure, just look the other way?
-- How is the county commission going to re-build the
$10 million in reserves squandered by previous
commissions? This re-building is crucial, not only to
the taxpayers of Nassau county, but to re-establish
confidence in the financial community.
-- How much longer is the county commission going to
allow the "cycle of the absurd" to continue? The cycle
looks something like this: 1) encourage rampant growth
in order to increase property tax revenues, 2) rampant,
poorly planned for growth requires massive
infrastructure costs, 3) unprecedented county spending
spree siphons tax dollars out of accounts necessary for
infrastructure spending, reducing available tax dollars,
4) county decides to increase tax revenues by abandoning
growth management practices and - go back to 1.
-- Will the city
commission finally make a decision on the future of the
marina? What's going to happen to the CRA? Will our city
marina be exclusively a commercial enterprise, or will
there be room for small boaters?
-- What's going to happen to Crane Island? Will the city
grant access? After all, the consent order creating the
possibility of an access was allowed to die after the
owners failed to seek another extension. Will a south
end resort purchase the island? Will that same resort
purchase the Royal Amelia Golf Course? Could that resort
then access Crane Island from Royal Amelia? Would that
resort be able to increase residential densities on
Crane Island by swapping units-per-acre with another of
their projects? Hmm . . .
-- Will the city sell undeveloped lands in order to
finance various projects? Will city elections be thrown
into a grinder along with federal, state and other local
elections? Will terms for commissioners be extended to
four years and three seats come up at the same time,
allowing for instantaneous seismic ideological shifts
within the commission?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see on all of these
things, but I think you'll agree, 2005 has the potential
to be an exciting year.
I do hope that all of us will be not only watchers,
spectators as the year unfolds, but active participants
in the political decision-making process. Inject
yourself into the fray. Help create the dialogue. Be
part of the debate. Be a citizen.
We can all sit by, fingers crossed, hoping our elected
officials make the right decisions, or we can get
involved and help craft the outcomes.
Again, let's be citizens.
Ron Sapp served on the
Fernandina Beach City Commission for 21 years. His
column appears regularly.
|
|
|
_________**________
-
02 Jan 05
Port/HDC/City , Who's right?
Our government is built on many
premises. One of these is that with more authority comes more responsibility.
When a citizen is elected to office or
appointed to a high-level job, his actions are no longer the actions of a normal
citizen, but those of an higher authority. He is looked to by the
citizenry for legal, and ethical solutions to the problems of the day.
So it is with our Port Authority, and with our Historic District Council. At
this time, two radically opposed branches of government, each wishing to
assert itself over the same plot of land. We all know the story; of how the Port
demolished historic homes without the proper authorization, and how now
they place that blame upon the City. My, what a tangled web!
Each of these positions seem to have merit:
1. The HDC blames the Port for not having proper authorization.
2. The Port blames the City for not telling the Port what to do.
3. The City blames the Port for not knowing what to do.
Who is correct?
Clearly, if you are familiar with the issue, the Port is way out of line by
placing blame on anyone. They agreed to a document called the Port Element (
a sort of rules and regulations with the City) which stated they agreed to
contact the HDC before any demolition occurred in the Historic District. This
Element was drafted years ago to allow the Port to open for business here. It
was their way of softening the impact, by agreeing to be a friend and
good neighbor.
The manager of the Port has been here since the beginning, and is very familiar
with the Element. All of the Port Commissioners should be familiar
with the Element, as it is their agreement with the City. They wrote it.
Now, the Port is claiming ignorance, and trying to shift the blame for this
house demolition back onto the City Building Dept. The City should in no way
accept the responsibility for this mistake. There is an old expression, "It is
easier to apologize, than to ask permission".
There has been some speculation that the Port may not have gotten permission to
tear down the houses had they asked. With this in mind, is anyone
surprised with the results so far?
Responsibility. Authority. These are the issues of the day. The HDC has the
responsibility to enforce strictest penalty in light of the higher authority
and responsibility which the Port claims as their own. The citizens are waiting
to see if the HDC is serious about the Historic District. Certainly,
this case will show the citizens what the HDC is made of.
For a citizen to claim ignorance is one thing, but for an experienced manager,
and a high-level Commissioner to do so is quite disingenuous. Truly
there is more here than ignorance. Please do not allow this action to be treated
lightly.
Chuck Hall, Fernandina Beach
___________**____________
-
17 Dec 04
Changing the Rules (Viewpoint from News-Leader)
I would like to bring to the attention of your readers yet
another attempt by local developers to set aside current zoning regulations and
land designations for their financial gain. The affected properties consist of
three undeveloped pieces of land, part of which are designated as "wetlands,"
and are located toward the eastern end of Sadler Road.
The developers currently have applications on file with both the St. Johns Water
Management District and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers seeking permission to
fill in the wetlands. They also have a hearing date of Jan. 12 before our city
Planning Advisory Board. The purpose of the hearing is to begin the process of
altering the permitted uses for the properties. This will be the initial step to
convince the city to allow construction of a three-story 83-room hotel.
I have watched in dismay as more and more island land is cleared and developed
in a manner that puts profit and greed first, concern for our ecology and
quality of life a distant second. This particular proposal has literally "hit me
where I live." My property and home back up to the proposed hotel site. I have
been in this home for nearly eight years and have enjoyed the relative solitude
that these woods and wetlands have provided, as well as the wildlife that
inhabit them. Raccoons, rabbits, red-tailed hawks, herons, possum, armadillo and
other wildlife currently inhabit this land. They will all be gone if the
developer gets his way. Gone too will be the quality of life that my neighbors
and I have enjoyed in our residential development. Along with the loss of woods,
wetlands and wildlife, we can look forward to increased traffic and noise,
drainage problems and 24-hour high-intensity lights to illuminate parking lots.
I knew when I purchased my house that the properties in question were designated
C-1 commercial and that at least part of this land would surely be developed
someday, especially the tracts not designated as wetlands. I have no problem
with responsible development. The problem I have is when developers seek to
change the rules in the middle of the game. Just as I knew when I purchased my
property what could and could not be done on these tracts, so did the developer.
One of the commercial ventures that is expressly not permitted on these
properties is the construction of a hotel.
A number of years ago, developers attempted to put a hotel at this same site.
That attempt was soundly rejected by the residents of Amelia Island and by our
city officials. What has changed since then that would make it desirable to
allow such a project now? If anything, it would seem it has become even more
imperative that we nip plans for this type of overdevelopment in the bud. Do we
need another mega-hotel on the island at the expense of our island's
ever-diminishing natural habitat and quality of life?
If you would like to voice opposition to this project you may
e-mail St. Johns Water Management District (application #4-089-87067) and the US
Army Corps of Engineers (application #2003-9595) through their respective web
sites, reference the pertinent application number and ask to be registered as an
objector. The city Planning Advisory Board hearing on Jan. 12 is open to the
public.
USACE Contact:
Beverlee.A.Lawrence@saj02.usace.army.mil
SJRWMD Contact: Cara Perron (904)
448-7902
Andrew K. Johns, Fernandina Beach
__________**____________
By Steve Nicklas
News-Leader Columnist
To some, it might be
considered just a flagpole, or a tree, or a minor change in zoning.
To others, it is a matter of principle, precedence and
adherence to the rules. Time and time again, someone stretches or ignores or
defies the rules. At some point, enough is enough.
Consider these examples:
A local business constructs a 100-foot-tall flagpole out
front of its building. However, county codes state that a flagpole is a
structure, and as such must conform to a 30-foot limit. In response, the county
attorney declares that a flagpole is not a structure and must not conform to the
height restriction Ñ in stark contrast to what county growth-management
officials contended.
Major and minor developers mow down trees in pursuit of
an easy-to-build arrangement for subdivisions. In the city of Fernandina Beach,
in fact, there is a tree ordinance that restricts such behavior. The developers
act and ask for forgiveness later, with maybe a stinging slap on the wrist or a
measly fine as repercussion. It is an instance of when the fine is cheaper than
following the rules.
A company (there are too many to mention) buys a plot of
land that is zoned a definitive way. With little intention of adhering to the
zoning, the new owner requests a change in the landÕs status (a variance). Faced
with a decision, certain county and city officials wield a rubber stamp of
approval, giving carte blanche to such requests. ThatÕs just how often it
occurs.
There was a time when local officials had to cater to
developers and businesses in pursuit of additional tax-paying enterprises. Is it
necessary to tell these same officials that this is no longer the case? Are
these supposed political policemen blind, senseless, or just apathetic?
Everywhere you look, there is development. Major
retailers, restaurant chains, hotels. An explosion of new houses. A case of the
demand clearly outstripping the supply.
This is not an argument to stop all development. Many
people enjoy the convenience of having a LoweÕs here in the county, for
instance, and not having to drive to Jacksonville to visit one. Additional
development also helps to buoy the tax base, creating revenues for desired
public services.
But this pandering by public officials has to stop
somewhere, sometime. The rules must be followed. If the rules are too lax or too
restrictive, change them. Otherwise, there should be specific and delineated
consequences.
It is said that some developers recognize how passive or
accommodative the elected officials are in Nassau County. They plan accordingly,
knowing they can bully their way and threaten lawsuits to accomplish what they
want.
The flagpole incident was minor, but the zoning scraps
and tree-clearings are widespread. There are other violations also that are
ignored or overlooked. At some point, elected officials must make a stand and
enforce the rules they themselves have adopted.
That would certainly be an exception Ñ a variance you
might say Ñ to what has become the rule.
Steve Nicklas is a financial adviser who lives on Amelia
Island.
_________________**________________
- 04 Aug 04
Brave enough to say no
The city owns land adjacent to the airport which was leased to the
Royal Amelia Golf Course. At the July 20 city commission meeting, the commission
unanimously approved a proposal that the lease be picked up by a developer who
would construct a golf resort that would include a clubhouse, 60-unit lodge and
conference center, 90 golf villas and an additional 9-hole golf course.
Did the commissioners think it would be a good idea to provide more competition
for the city golf course? Did the commissioners forget that building residences
next to an airport sets up a conflict of interest that would affect expansion of
airport operations? Some commissioners raised questions about this project but
still approved it. We need commissioners who are brave enough to vote No.
City land is in trust for the highest and best use for the citizens of
Fernandina Beach. A look at the 2000 Census shows us that the biggest deficit in
our city is affordable housing ($80,000 and under) and good paying jobs.
If there is to be a new lessee of the city's airport property, why not consider
a business park? The current zoning would allow research and development firms,
government and professional offices, commercial schools and studios. The city
manager could assign staff to develop a brochure and aggressively pursue these
uses.
In return for a temporary tax break and development facilitation, these firms
would provide job opportunities at several levels for young people of
Fernandina, and tax revenues for the future. The real estate industry would
profit due to employees seeking homes near work.
Should the city lose its income or jobs from either of the mills, the business
park would help mitigate the loss. Commercial businesses would not complain
about noise from planes taking off or landing, and might utilize the airport for
business purposes.
Another misuse of city land is on the horizon, namely the sale of 25 wooded
acres north of the city golf course for a market-rate subdivision. This would
pay for a new irrigation system at the golf course, but is this what public land
is for? Couldn't the improvements be phased and paid for out of the golf course
contribution to the enterprise fund?
Going back to what the 2000 Census indicates that the city needs, why not have
the city manager assign staff to pursue a developer of affordable housing such
as Post Oaks on the land north of the golf course and set aside some of the
woods as a linear park. As we continue to annex land south of Sadler Road, the
city may need some recreational land in that area.
Public land is a precious resource and should not be sold to balance the budget
or facilitate projects that do not meet the needs of Fernandina Beach citizens.
We do not need another golf resort or high-cost subdivision.
Fernandina residents need good paying jobs and affordable housing. We need city
commissioners who recognize the needs of their constituents and think about the
future.
Joan Cory, Fernandina Beach
Take the monthly quiz
In this month of national political saturation and overkill, this is a
brief quiz to judge your position on local Fernandina issues. Select 1, 2 or 3
regarding the statements listed below: (1) Democratic (2) Republican (3)
Bipartisan (both parties).
___ are concerned about maintaining what s left of the natural landscape in the
city and on the island.
___ have an interest in fairness and accuracy in choosing candidates in local
elections.
___ would prefer to have less rather than more traffic congestion in the city.
___ would like to maintain the charm of our historic downtown and help support
local merchants.
___ have a strong interest in limiting high density development in existing
building zones and recently annexed county property.
___ are against high rise building on our beaches, along our rivers (marina
included) and generally in the city.
___ should be suspicious of long-term financial arrangements committing the city
to plans that are confusing and lacking in detail.
___ are generally interested and concerned about the well-being of their fellow
citizens.
If you scored a total of 24, it is my guess that
you are among the large majority of folks who
live in Fernandina Beach. Congratulations, and get involved!
Bob Howat, Fernandina Beach
_________________**________________
______________**____________
ORLANDO
SENTINEL
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpfarago14041404apr14,1,1595972.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines
COMMENTARY
Florida
economy and environment in balance?
By
Alan Farago
Special to the Sentinel
April 14, 2004
What has come of the wrecked balance of the economy and
environment in the state of Florida
-- whether it ever existed or not is an entirely separate question
-- might be commemorated in a gold coin inscribed with the words,
"socializing risks and privatizing profits."
The images of three men would be embossed on the front: President
George W. Bush and Gov. Jeb Bush, flanking a man in slightly higher
relief: finance chair for the Republican National Committee, past
chair of the governor's re-election campaign, and Florida developer,
Al Hoffman.
Hoffman, who recently led a blue-ribbon commission proposing to
capture and redistribute Florida's water supply, is now promoting
the effort of the Association of Florida Community Developers to
insert a spigot into water reserved for the Everglades. Its
lobbyists worked for the Enron subsidiary -- Azurix -- that tried in
1999 to shoplift Florida's water under the premise that, if your
target is big enough, there is no video recorder with a lens large
enough to capture the crime. The public wasn't invited to their
opening party. They called it "Liquid Gold."
Socializing risk and privatizing profits are a quick way to describe
the wholesale surrender of the Florida Legislature -- dominated by a
Republican majority -- to the flimsy theory that the profit motive
protects people better than government itself, leading to a new role
for government: protecting business from people.
The president of Florida's Senate, Republican Jim King of
Jacksonville, expressed this new golden balance in the last day of
the 2002 legislative session when he single-handedly modified an
Everglades funding bill and radically changed the relationship of
ordinary citizens to government. King's bill, which Jeb Bush signed
into law, strips citizens' rights to challenge bad development
decisions. The hundred-million dollars obtained for the Everglades
was a tiny fraction of what the state had committed to -- but the
loss of citizen rights was 100 percent final, period.
The "balance" was expressed again in last year's session, when the
Legislature helped Big Sugar, again, socialize the risk of restoring
the Everglades while ensuring profits. Gov. Bush signed the new law
that blesses sugar's continued pollution through "averages"
determined by "mixing zones" on public land, avoiding entirely the
requirement of using its own, private lands to clean the Everglades.
The Bush White House stood by, mutely.
It's not that the public can't express the "balance" between the
economy and the environment in clearly understood terms; it is just
that government refuses to listen. In 1996, Florida voters
overwhelmingly approved a statewide referendum holding sugar
primarily responsible for cleaning up its pollution of the
Everglades. Not a single elected official has lifted a finger to do
what the people wanted.
Which brings us to the reverse side of our commemorative coin, which
would bear the picture of a sugar farm, Talisman -- the 50,000-acre
tract in the Everglades Agricultural Area we bought to take out of
sugar production and which Big Sugar continues to lease under terms
provided by the federal and state governments that the public would
never have agreed to.
We need Talisman Farm to be converted to a cleansing reservoir, as
it was meant to be, so downstream coastal estuaries and billions of
dollars of real-estate values would not be destroyed. But sugar
won't let go. Sugar needs Talisman to make money now, and more
later, never mind the risk to the public investment in Everglades
restoration.
The legend on the tail side of the coin: "The Everglades, the gift
that keeps giving."
If every Floridian had this
commemorative coin in his or her pocket, people might be reminded to
call Gov. Bush and Sen. King today, because -- with their support --
the Republican majority is about to try to make it harder, much
harder, for ordinary people to have access to the Florida
Constitution through the amendment process at the ballot box.
This week the Legislature will vote on a new bill that has been
designed with one goal in mind, although it is not expressed that
way: to halt the ballot initiative planned by Florida Hometown
Democracy that intends to take land-use changes out of the hands of
local officials beholden to developers and put those decisions into
the hands of voters.
A groundswell of grass-roots support is moving this signature
petition movement toward the ballot box, and the Legislature intends
to stop it now.
Who knows what could happen once people get it in their heads that
democracy is meant to serve them?
Click for your Hometown Petition
Alan Farago
of Coral Gables is a long-time writer on the environment and
politics. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel, and can
be reached at alanfarago@yahoo.com. Learn about Florida Hometown
Democracy at: http://floridahometowndemocracy.com/
_____________**______________
The expansion of A1A from I-95 to Scott
Road to six lanes seems as unstoppable as a steam-roller. The state has no
funding yet, but the full-court press is moving to get this project up and
running. Florida Dept. of Transportation staff pushed the long cafeteria tables
together to lay out aerial views of the project at the Yulee meeting March 25.
Proposed new stop lights, turn lanes, and the widening to six lanes were all
there for the public to view.
After the video presentation, the procedure
for taking public comment was not clarified, and only a handful of people got a
chance to speak. Of those, most spoke against the widening. The project manager
for the A1A proposal showed little interest in what they had to say.
According to DOT officials, there will be no
other public hearings. The public has been given only until April 19 to send
written comments to the DOT in Lake City.
The reality is that adding more traffic
lights and making six lanes will not solve the growing traffic concerns, as one
highway engineer admitted after the meeting. Other remarks afterward indicated
that at least four state legislators are pushing hard for this project. After
all, as we know, the Nassau County DRI (Development of Regional Impact) is the
largest single development ever to be undertaken at one time in the state of
Florida. The development dollars to be generated from a project of this scope
are huge.
Meanwhile, local residents have little to say
regarding how their quality of life will be affected by traffic congestion,
crass commercialism, or other forms of increasing development. Certainly we'll
all be saying goodbye to the pine trees and the silvaculture our area is
known for.
The FDOT gave these projections of A1A
traffic. Today there are 31,000 vehicles a day traveling from I-95 to the
Amelia River Bridge; by 2030 there will be 74,000 daily. DOT statistics say
there are 43 accidents annually between Yulee and Chester Road. Anyone who has
experience driving in stop-and-go traffic understands its frustrations. Chances
are that motorists will be racing to make it through the growing numbers of
traffic lights that will continue to spring up at additional intersections.
Accidents will increase.
Our elected officials need to be responsible and avoid the mistakes other
communities have made.. We have a chance to do some creative traffic design
before this situation worsens. There are other choices besides creating a
monster 6-lane highway – that will actually be slower to travel, thanks to the
extra lights. A one-lane access road in each direction for local business
traffic would allow A1A to remain open without stop-and-go traffic. Few of us
would like to bring Blanding Boulevard into our community – and yet, unless we
choose better options, we are creating. Blanding Boulevard nightmares for our
future .
The DOT will only accept written public comment until April 19th. Please
write and let them hear your voice: Aage G. Schroder, District Secretary, FDOT,
1109 South Marion Avenue, Lake City, FL 32025-5874
Marion B. Williams, Fernandina
Beach
___________________**____________________
Reprinted by permission of the author
and the News-Leader
In the name of private property rights
Word has it that a county commissioner who's
seeking re-election is conducting a survey. Presumably, this survey is
designed to gauge public opinion on various issues so the commissioner
might factor those opinions into his political decision-making process.
One of the commissioner's questions is interesting. Respondents are
asked whether or not they believe in the concept of private property
rights. Of course, the commissioner doesn't define private property
rights, or describe them; he simply asks whether or not you believe in
the concept. Ah, be careful with your answer. Be very, very careful.
Naturally, our initial reaction is to say yes, of course, we believe in
private property rights, just like we believe in the flag, or
motherhood. But without a definition of property rights, without a
description or understanding of what we're talking about, can we
honestly answer the question?
It all becomes even more complicated when one considers the link between
the evocative phrase - private property rights - and the actions of some
city and county elected officials. Consider just a few of the issues
where the protection of property rights was given as the primary reason
for supporting or opposing key legislation:
-- Support FOR the owner's plan for developing Crane Island
-- AGAINST the city of Fernandina Beach's tree protection ordinance
-- AGAINST the city of Fernandina Beach's creation of a coastal upland
protection zone
-- AGAINST elements of the comprehensive plans for Nassau County and the
city of Fernandina Beach that would "limit" developer rights.
So, it would seem that before we answer the commissioner's question, we
should at least know what he means by "private property rights." If we
are for property rights, does that mean we should oppose tree protection
ordinances? Should we oppose comprehensive plans? Should we oppose
zoning laws? Should we be against land development regulations? After
all, the true believers say that these are government's ways of limiting
or restricting property owners, therefore, all are ways of restricting
private property rights.
Maybe a little constitutional knowledge might help, I mean it is the
U.S. constitution which guarantees private property rights, or so say
the absolutists; the true believers.
Well, the first place one finds any reference to property rights is in
Amendment Five, right after the "double jeopardy" clause. In the fifth
amendment we read, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation." Certain property rights are
later extended to citizens of a state in Amendment Fourteen, "No state
shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law."
So, how do YOU interpret the constitution? Are private property rights
absolute? Are they defined? Are they guaranteed? Or does the
constitution simply protect us from the government "taking" our
property, and, if the attempt is made, doesn't it merely guarantee that
the "taking" has to be for a public purpose and that the owner should be
justly compensated?
Questions surrounding the issue of private property rights are extremely
interesting and highly debatable, and, I submit, will be at the very
core of local political decision-making and elections for years to come.
Should our comprehensive plans require even lower densities than they
currently do? Can local governments design comprehensive plans to
reflect maximum populations? Should we set aside green space and "no
development" zones? Should we protect environmentally sensitive lands?
My answer is an emphatic YES to all of the above.
If you remain unconvinced, if you're still a true believer in private
property rights, ask yourself this question, "How would I feel if my
next door neighbor wanted to raise pigs in his backyard, about 40 feet
away from mine?" He owns the property - does he have the right to raise
his pigs? In a rural area, no problem, but what about a suburban
setting? Or, given that the Super Bowl is less than a year away, does
your neighbor have the right to rent his home to a group of Super Bowl
revelers, even though your residential zoning prevents such commercial
activity? Do YOU have rights as an adjacent homeowner? What about YOUR
property rights? What about a situation in which there are conflicting
private property rights - are one set of rights superior? Who decides?
My position is this, a developer may own a
stand of trees, he may own a dune system, or a
hammock, but his private property rights are outweighed by the
community's right to protect its quality of life.
So the next time an elected official asks if you're a believer in
private property rights, be careful; if enough people answer "yes," that
official may claim a mandate to authorize the destruction of yet another
set of dunes or another stand of trees - in the name of protecting
private property rights, of course.
Ron Sapp
, Fernandina Beach
_______________**__________________ |
- News-Leader 19 Mar 04
(Opinion page)
Arts center is best use for church
First Baptist Church plans to
build a new, larger church on South Eighth Street. A new
community arts center would then occupy the downtown church
building.
We agree with church leaders and local business and arts
proponents that this is an exciting development for our town.
First Baptist has accepted a preliminary offer from a group of
local residents who plan to convert the former church into the
new Amelia Arts Centre. The church and arts center would share
the building while the new church is built.
After the new church opens, the sanctuary and church offices
would be renovated for concerts, public forums, educational
conferences, social events and meetings.
This would preserve a building that has graced our community
since 1925 and provide for its use by the public in a manner
that elevates both our cultural and economic standing.
The arts center will be a magnet, drawing local residents
downtown for evening performances and bringing in visitors to
bed and breakfast establishments, restaurants and shops.
The sanctuary has exceptional acoustics and is a delightfully
intimate space. Adjoining offices and rooms are a perfect
complement for an arts center.
First Baptist Church will have a new spiritual center, and its
former home will become a new cultural center for us all. The
visionaries who are making this happen deserve our thanks and
our support.
___________________**_____________________ |
|
- 19 Mar 04 (Opinion page) City
Commissioners Act or React
If PAB members are
being fired for speaking their convictions, what actions should be taken
regarding the poor conduct being demonstrated by our elected city commissioners?
The manner in which Commissioners conducted themselves at the March 16th
meeting is nothing less than a disgrace to our community.
We voters count upon
elected officials to represent the public good. The inconsistencies
demonstrated that evening may well point to the need for an independent entity
to investigate the decision making process of the Commissioners and City staff.
Instead of demonstrating rationality in the reappointment process of four
individuals for subsequent terms on the Planning Advisory Board, our
commissioners showed themselves to be petty and reactionary. The legality
of the voting process for these reappointments should be questioned by every
voter in this town.
To this viewer, the
ousting of Bob Howat was done by emotional outburst, not rational objectivity.
Mr. Howat has served on this board for several years. Members of the PAB
are unpaid Fernandina citizens who volunteer their time to form a non-political
board to advise Commissioners on issues of planning and zoning. Though
their decisions are not binding, this is a form of checks and balances, which
seems to be an important task in these days of run away growth issues.
Was it the fact that
Howat questioned whether the PAB should take the decisions and recommendations
of the City Attorney and City Staff at face value, without being able to
question or challenge part of his demise? Is this the reason Howat was
dismissed?
The PAB consists of
seven members and two alternates. Once Howat was displaced isn’t it odd
that one of the alternates wasn’t moved up to a permanent position?
Alternates have spent hours upon hours researching the City’s planning and
zoning issues, not to mention hours attending meetings. Was this a warning
to present and future board members not to question, but to follow the whim of
the City Hall Powers to be?
What could have been
discussed during the break before the Commissioners cast their 3 to 2 vote?
What happened to the “Sunshine” law?
What did the citizens of
Fernandina gain and what did we lose Tuesday night? We lost a qualified
member of the PAB who dared to speak out as a private citizen in several
controversial issues regarding the unchecked growth within our city. In
his place we will now be represented by an inexperienced citizen who has
extensive land holdings and perhaps a vested interest in development issues.
Certainly Marilyn Williamson has been involved in a highly controversial land
sale on Trapon Ave. that almost threatened to divide the residents of North
Beach last fall.
Perhaps City staff
should be required to advertise when local board positions are to be filled.
Wouldn’t it be novel that positions be filled by those most highly qualified and
without vested interests?
Richard Rothrock,
Fernandina Beach
________________**__________________
The Amelia Island
Association (AIA) position on this issues to oppose the change in the county
comprehensive plan that facilitates the factor of 10 increase in density on
Crane Island and which facilitates the opportunity for additional density
increases in the high hazard zone.
While the vast majority
of the 31 AIA homeowner association representatives have supported this
position, one homeowner association has voted against this position and one has
abstained.In
the initial county commission vote Commissioner Vickie Shamus opposed the
increased density and Commissioner Ensley Acre (from District 2, which includes
Crane Island) opposed the increased density and opposed the comprehensive plan
change that enables the increase.
However, the other three county commissioners supported the Crane Island density
increase of a factor of 10 and the change to the comprehensive plan that enables
this density increase. The Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which oversees and approves all changes
in county comprehensive plans, has rejected the initial comprehensive plan
change proposed by the county. Therefore, we have another chance for citizen
input to hopefully convince one more commissioner to oppose this change to our
county comprehensive plan.
In addition
to the 10 reasons listed with the AIA position developed last year there are now
a few additional reasons to oppose this change to the county comprehensive plan.
1.
Based on the DCA ruling the county will have no enforcement authority for the
Crane Island development agreement with the county once it is annexed to the
city. At the initial vote of the
county commissioners, those commissioners who voted in favor of the changes
considered enforcement authority very important.
2.
Given the announced Crane Island plans to annex the island to the city, the
county could simply let the city decide the proper density for Crane Island.
This would avoid changing the county's comprehensive plan for the entire county
to accommodate a single builder who plans to annex his property to the city.
3.
It seems that the other commissioners should take into consideration the
opposition vote of the AIA-represented citizens and of the commissioner in the
district being impacted by this change.
4.
During the required evacuation of Amelia Island for Hurricane Floyd in 1999
there were significant delays ingesting off the island. The county's hurricane
evacuation plan has not yet been updated to deal with this problem.
Winnow have increased density, increased traffic - and substantial number of new
homes already approved for this area.
Since my direct appeals,
on behalf of AIA, to county commissioners were not successful on the first vote,
I amassing for support from other citizens on this issue now that we have the
opportunity for another county commissioner vote.
Please ask your county commissioner to oppose this change the county
comprehensive plan and to oppose a factor 10 increase in the density on Crane
Island. Phil Scanlon is president of the Amelia Island Association, which
represents 38 percent of all homeowners on Amelia Island.
10 reasons to say no:
The Amelia Island
Association (AIA) position on Crane Islands that Nassau County should not make
changes or amendments to the Nassau County Comprehensive Plan that will result
in accelerating environmental pressures, particularly on Amelia Island or
connected small islands. The Future Land Use Maps(FLUM) is a key part of the
comprehensive plan and also should not be changed to facilitate accelerated
environmental pressures.
Reasons to say NO to changing the county comp
plan to allow big development on Crane Island
1.
Nassau County already has an above average growth rate.
2.
Amelia Island had 24 percent of the unincorporated population in 2.2 percent of
the Nassau County area and hashed a higher growth rate than the rest of the
county. The residential density of Amelia Island is already 3.5
persons per acre. (per 2000-2010 comprehensive plan data)
3.
Above average growth rates result in above average increases in taxes.
(Based on over 700 studies, including many Florida studies.)
4.
Amending the comprehensive plan would allow an increase of a factor of 10 in
density on Crane Island. (Current allowed density = 1 unit/5 acres, low density
residential =2 units/acre)
5.
Changing the comprehensive plan to facilitate a higher density development on
Crane Island will allow all coastal zone areas to apply for higher density
development.
6.
Crane Island is at the end of a highly used airport runway, used to reduce noise
over existing residential areas. The construction of over 200 units could result
in noise complaints that cause air traffic to be shifted to fly over existing
residential areas.
7.
Crane Island is in the Amelia River in a coastal and high hazard zone that
should have very limited development, if any.
8.
Recent Florida State University studies, chartered by there and funded by
Rayonier as a follow-on to Rayonier’s ammonia reduction in the Amelia River,
found that river life’s now being killed by development runoff on the west side
of the river. Increasing the allowable development in the river is not advisable
given this pollution problem from existing development.
9.
The purpose of the coastal management element of the2000-2010 comprehensive plan
states: "Coastal resources offer unique amenities, making them highly desirable:
however, they are finite and highly susceptible to degradation. Due to these
characteristics, coastal resources are given special consideration.
Recognizing the importance of preserving these resources the purpose of the
coastal management element is two-fold, to plan for and, where appropriate,
restrict development activities which >would damage or destroy coastal
resources, and to protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas
subject to destruction by natural forces." The proposed amendment, which would
increase density by a factor of 10, is inconsistent with this purpose.
10.
The comprehensive plan is the key document to control and restrict growth in
critical areas; it should not be amended to accelerate environmental pressures.
Phil
Scanlon, Amelia Is.
____________________________**_________________________
Currently Crane Island is designated Conservation on Nassau County's Future Land Use Map
(FLUM). This allows a maximum of one dwelling unit per 5 acres. On November 24th,
the developers are requesting that the County Commissioners change the FLUM to low density
residential so the 108 acre site can be developed with a 143 house subdivision.(This is
down from the original request to build 226 homes.) Crane Island lies within the
Coastal High Hazard Zone. The Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study places Crane Island
within the evacuation area for Catagory 1 storms, which are relatively minor storms.The
island is also shown on the Nassau County Storm Surge Atlas as being an area that would be
entirely inundated even from a minor Catagory 1 storm. The Coastal Element Objective
5.07, states that the County shall direct population concentrations away from known or
predicted high hazard areas.
Commissioners will also vote on Nov.24th whether to revise the Comp Plan to allow denser
populations in these coastal high hazard zones. It has been pointed out that residential
areas laying in such a known floodplain have
the capacity when flooded to undermine the water quality of the Aquatic Preserve and
Intracoastal Waterway due to escaping household chemicals and sewage. Coastal
Element Objective 5.05 also states, "The issuance of building permits on a barrier
island shall be restricted by the ability of the road network to serve evacuation at a
maximum of 9.5 hours." Currently, the evacuation of Amelia Island is estimated at 16
hours. FOF believes that
adding additional cars to evacuation routes already out of compliance compromises the
safety of all Amelia Island/Fernandina Beach residents. We believe that to increase the
density of development on this intracoastal
barrier island not only threatens to endanger the citizenry, but it also will destroy
beautiful and unique maritime forest and vegetation that forms the a uniquely diverse
habitat.
11/21/03 J. Ferreira, Fernandina Beach
__________________**___________________
20 Nov 03 (Opinion page)
RE: Crane Island claimed error
At the 1/7/03 Nassau County Planning & Zoning Board meeting the possibility of
changing the County Comprehensive Plan to allow future net increases in development
density in the Coastal High Hazard Zone (based on past decreases) was
considered......There were many reasons including evacuation time problems,difficulty in
proper accounting associated with this proposal, environmental pressures, and airport
safety for not making such
a change. However, the major reason proposed by the developer for making this change
is that there was an "error" made on the night of the Comprehensive Plan
submittal review which was 6/29/93 --and the plan had to be submitted to the state DCA on
6/30/93. I have just reviewed the minutes of the 6/29/93 County Board meeting
-- which are available via the County Clerk web site. I have attached a copy of the
minutes (4 pages) for your reference. As I read the minutes it is very clear that
there was not an error in the designation of Crane Island as a Conservation Zone -- which
is allowed 1unit/5 acres in development. This designation was the result of over
2 1/2 years of negotiation with the state DCA on what would be an acceptable Comprehensive
Plan from Nassau County. The DCA had specifically recommended the Conservation zoning and
it was accepted by the County Commissioners. It was stated that the County felt the
designation of Crane Island would be an error (by DCA), but after 2 1/2 years of
negotiation with DCA the County was recommending and approving acceptance of the
Conservation Zoning. The County also stated it would be possible for the County,
with the developer to file for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the future, not a
correction.
Also it was stated that a 60 day period was allowed for corrections --to errors and that
DCA was very willing to correct errors. Obviously the Crane Island Conservation
designation was not an error -- but a settlement agreement by the County with the state
DCA. Now in 2003, a decade later and while they also plan to annex the property to
the city, the developer has negotiated a means of "amending" our Nassau County
Comprehensive Plan to accomplish a factor of 10 density increase on Crane Island. (From
1unit /5 acres to 2 units/acre). However, this amendment
would facilitate accelerated development in the entire coastal high hazard zone by others
and result in a net future increase in density in the high hazard zone -- in spite
of evacuation, environment and safety problems.
11/20/03 J. Ferreira, Fernandina Beach
__________________**___________________
15 Nov 03 (Opinion page)
CRANE ISLAND LANDFILL:
According to a March 1998 warranty deed, the owners of Crane Island have
sold or leased the northern portion of the island (35 acres) to the Fla.
Inland Navigational District to be used as a spoil disposal site.
It is reported that 33 acres of trees and maritime hammock will be removed
by FIND to deposit dredgings from the waterways and channels. A deep 10 ft.
pit will be dug on this site for depositing the spoil, a 4 ft. soil berm
will contain the area. The spoil site may be visible from the Shave Bridge as
visitors and residents approach Amelia Island on A1A.
(ADD FAA INFO....)
FOF hopes to find out whether there is a plan for FIND to hold a public
hearing before the trees are cleared.
You can address your comments about this project to:
Franklin Morrison, (904) 232-1133, an engineer with Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers,
P.O. Box 4970, Jax FL 32232-0019.
11/15/03 J. Ferreria, Fernandina Beach
________________**_________________
31 Oct 03 (Opinion page)
Development problems are
amazing
Nothing these days amazes me in regards to the county or
city building and development problems.
First, from the county level: a local attorney speaking for his clients stated now that
the county commission hase voted against his clients in their massive plan to develop
Crane Island into a posh 226 mansions, they will not sue the county (that's you and me by
the way) if they will agree to let his clients build a total of 143 homes instead of the
37 that the county voted on in its latest meeting. By some thinking, that could be a
threat to the commissioners who just rejected his client's plans.
The county commissioners, in their wisdom, voted to leave the overall homes allowed to be
built at only 37 homes because of the regulations and limitations of the future land use
map and other regulatory agencies of the State. This Crane Island issue has been going on
for many years, more than what some of us have lived on Amelia Island.
After some discussion with the city, it went back to the county to be decided on. Two of
the commissioners voted in favor, while three decided to vote against. (I believe this is
and still could be an election issue next year).
I understand that a good crowd of county and even city people spoke against this being
developed in the last county meeting. The very fact that this development would risk the
lives of people on a small strip of land, with only one chance of leaving in emergencies,
is not considered to be a good idea. The other factor is this island is next to an active
city airport and will become more developed in the future years. The county commissioners
must stick to their decision and reject any further plans or threats regarding Crane
Island. The people do not want this developed!
An effort by the citizens to make this a state park or wild preserve could best fit Crane
Island. They could leave a caretaker's house on the grounds and that would then serve as a
very nice park area.
Second, after attending the city's planning board meetings and city commissioners'
meetings, voicing my objections at these particular meetings, I still find it hard to
believe what many of these developments will go through. First, it was Ocean Breeze
overdevelopment (within two days after city approval for the 195 homes and lots, many
trees were cleared at a fast pace); the Ocean View motel development (replace the ma and
pa motel) that is being presented as a 54 unit motel larger than necessary - it does not
fit the space so the developer wanted to have the unused street behind it opened, take
that area, and also a small pie-shaped city land along Tarpon Avenue for their
development.
Another questionable developer's plan called for a three-story hotel-motel-condominium or
whatever you desire to call it, 2,200-square-foot rooms (three-bedroom houses do not in
most cases exceed this).
After a number of speakers protested this development, even some testy exchanges between
commissioners and the lawyers representing the developer, the city commissioners in their
wisdom rejected the proposed building. Several reasons, but one issue was it's close to
the ocean, close to oceanfront homes to the north and Sliders to the south.
The last issue to review was the Williamson tract of land next to the overpowering (but
attractive) Ocean Park on 0.84 acre of land once deeded to the city by the federal
government for recreational purposes. This is in dispute, however, and the owners contend
that this is R-2 and should be able to build a 35-feet height multi-building.
The commissioners approved after a long line of speakers protesting, a Planning Advisory
Board decision to reject, a staff approval and a confused situation. Lawyers will be suing
each other and others so the city might be involved again in the nasty word
"lawsuit" that the city is familiar with these days. The city now says it has to
re-post this whole issue and it will come up again Nov. 10. If the City would let the two
parties sue each other and wait for a court decision would that not be more definite? The
land south of this tract was and should be now listed as recreational and in future park
land use.
10/31/03 John Megna, Fernandina Beach
_______________**____________________
13 Sept 03 (Opinion page)
I am a Developer
Let me introduce myself. "I am Developer."
I am not your ordinary developer, the kind who buys and develops the land within the
existing zoning laws.
Those guys are in the minor leagues compared to me. What I do is buy parcels of land that
are zoned low density. The property is usually lower in price because it hasn't yet
been fully exploited for the maximum financial return.
I do that. I compute the maximum development for the maximum profit. Then the game begins.
I start by having multiple feasibility studies done. Of course they will all turn out in a
positive light in favor of my project.
There are applications to be made, and I start with the Planning Advisory Board. At this
meeting there may be a group of local citizens opposing my project. I call them
"chronic complainers."
The meeting starts at 6 p.m. and the room is full. I get my turn to speak around 7:30, but
I don't mind waiting. I speak for two hours with mundane and boring statistics. By the
time I finish, at about 9:30, the room is empty. All the complainers went home because
they have families and jobs. I've worn down the audience and I've succeeded in wearing
down the PAB.
If by some chance I don't get the votes my way this evening, I'll send in my banker, my
engineers, my lawyers and realtors to speak for two hours at the next meeting. They'll be
so sick of me, I'm sure to get their votes!
Now we move to the city commissioners. I proceed to bombard them in the same procedure I
used on the PAB. When my project comes up for the vote, I really don't mind the
inconvenience of losing at this meeting. You see, I will just sue the city and continue to
sue until I get my way.
They say I'm arguing for the rights of the property owner. The joke is - everyone knows
better! I want what's the most profitable for me. Hey, I don't even live on your island!
Why should I consider your rights as a resident to keep your "quality of life"
or whatever it is you whine about? But hey, if by some chance I don't get my way with the
city, I'll just sell the land to one of my buddies who's fresh for the fight. If you don't
think we're winning this game, just look at Jacksonville.
The word is out about Amelia Island. It has low land costs and a comprehensive plan that
has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. There's some talk about a moratorium on building,
but I don't think they have the guts! I'll just see you at the next city council meeting.
You can't miss me - I'll be the one with 10 suits surrounding me.
Developer
09/13/03 Jane Bailey , Fernandina Beach
_______________**____________________
10
Nov 03 (Opinion page)
No means maybeThere should have been letters to the editor piled on
Michael Parnell's desk in response to the article about Buddy Jacobs and the "we
won't sue if . . ." story in the News-Leader on Oct. 24. County commissioners
Vickie Samus, Ansley Acree and Floyd Vanzant stood up for what was right, to not open the
door to developers to build on every beautiful island or wetland in Nassau County. They
put themselves on the line when they voted to deny the change to the county comprehensive
plan. Where are these letters applauding them for preserving what we hold so dear? Or do
we think we've won the battle? Think again. The Crane Island issue is back again. Why
can't no mean no? Why won't Nick Deonas let this go away?
The city commissioners stopped the building of a hotel adjacent to Sliders restaurant. Do
you think it ends there? There will be more developers coming forth with more plans for
more hotels and condos along Atlantic Avenue as well as Fletcher. The moratorium will hold
them at bay for six months but look out, ladies and gentlemen, they will be back. We need
to be diligent and speak out, not wait until a building appears and then complain that we
didn't know it was coming.
This is the time to continue the letters to the editor, to keep the public advised of
"what and who is coming." We need to continue to watch the buildings in
progress, to attend meetings of the Planning Advisory Board and the city commissioners. We
still need to ask questions in the public's three minutes of free speech at the beginning
of these commission meetings. Commit yourself to one meeting a month, find like-minded
people to go with you and keep your eyes and ears open.
You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to write a letter to the editor -- just write
from the heart about what's happening to the place you call home.
11/10/03 Judy Belz, Fernandina Beach
|
