IN YOUR CORNER

At its meeting on June 7, the county commission again denied a request for additional lights for two of Witham Field's taxiways, rejecting half of a $635,000 state transportation grant that would have paid for them, and deferring the issue to the county-appointed Airport Plan Advisory Team. This action came as somewhat of a surprise since these lights were part of a Capital Improvement Plan to repave and light the taxiways earlier approved by this same commission, and all was ready for implementation.

The key word in the former paragraph is 'taxiways'. The installation of taxiway lights is a safety issue. Our runway is already lighted, which determines whether or not the plane will land. Taxiway lights simply guide a pilot safely to his/her field destination after the plane has landed.

We certainly hope that, as one commissioner warned, a serious accident does not occur as a result of the commission's decision to repave but not improve the lighting. We also hope that in the event the county-appointed Airport Plan Advisory Team does advise that the lighting should be improved, the state transportation grant money will still be available.

***

The sugar industry is often in the news these days, due to federal purchase of millions of dollars worth of sugar to keep the price up. This federal subsidy program is corporate welfare at its worst. Under the present program, if taxpayers do not purchase sugar to keep it above 18 cents a pound (three times the world market price) growers can legally default on huge loans, which could cost us up to half a billion dollars in one year. What a mess!

This subsidy program is just the tip of the iceberg for taxpayers. Huge sugar industry contributions control politics at state and federal levels. It is not just the millions in contributions they make to candidates. Legislators and congressmen fear that if they do not play along with Big Sugar, they will be 'targeted' via huge contributions to their opponents. Also, readers will remember the grass roots campaign to pass a one cent tax on sugar several years ago, to pay for Everglades pollution clean up. The grass roots campaign spent $5 million, but sugar countered with a $50 million advertising campaign, and the one cent tax failed.

We suffer locally from abuse by the sugar industry because Lake Okeechobee is kept at high levels to store water for agriculture use. Then when the lake is too full, we get the dump on our estuary. This has happened two of the last three years. Even worse, the lake itself is dying from high water levels.

We taxpayers are caught in the middle of a bad plan by paying for both the water management system and for sugar subsidies. Sugar uses the water management system to destroy our environment, and the subsidy money to control our political process. Sugar has the best consultants money can buy, and everyone seems afraid to take them on.

It is time for the public to voice its opinion. If we lead, our elected officials will have to follow. We do not need to put sugar out of business, we just need the South Florida Water Management District board to treat the lake and estuaries fairly. There is enough water for the public, the environment, and agriculture. Write the governor, legislators and your congressmen, and tell them, ENOUGH! Operate the water management system for public water supply first, environment a close second, and sugar third. Then, phase out the obscene sugar subsidies from taxpayer money and water management.

***

Last year, the commission voted to approve a very stringent regulation on wetland buffers, expanding them from 50 ft. to 75 ft. for any wetland connected to any natural waterway, or to a waterway connected to a natural waterway. This added 25 ft. must be planted with native vegetation if it is not already there. Also, this additional 25 ft. buffer can be expanded to a maximum of 100 ft., plus a 25 ft. setback for wetlands of special concern, and a maximum of 300 ft. if an endangered species might be living there. We say 'might' because, even if there isn't a wood stork living there, the fact that one could is enough to alter a property owner's setback regulation.

It may take several years for the true impact of wetland protection ordinance (#548) to have a measurable effect on the county tax roll, but there is little doubt that it will have a definite and significant negative impact on certain specific property values within this county. The ordinance itself contains sections that are open to interpretation by the current Growth Management staff and the county commissioners. These areas concern density transfer (from wetland to upland areas), and the question of what exactly constitutes "minimum and reasonable use". This leaves a vacuum into which our commissioners will, no doubt, tread heavily.

***

We would like to thank Dr. Fred Carter for giving us the opportunity to discuss local taxpayer issues with the residents of Sandhill Cove last Thursday evening. In a world which is far too apathetic, it was a pleasure to talk with this interested and informed group of citizens. If your organization would like to have the Taxpayers Association speak at one of your meetings, please let us know.