IN YOUR CORNER

On July 27 th the Martin County Commission approved putting a proposal for a one-cent sales tax increase on the Nov. 2 nd ballot. The reason given by the Commissioners for this new tax has been officially defined as “land conservation”. Parks advocates immediately began calling for part of the money to go for new, upgraded parks and facilities. One of the Commissioners would like to include land for schools and other public facilities; another is against it. The only area where a consensus seems to exist is on dividing the money between inside and outside of the Urban Services Boundary (USB). However, by law, a percentage of the total funds collected will go to other local governments, such as cash-strapped City of Stuart, who may use it for any capital project they desire.

Much discussion has occurred in various public forums justifying the tax for “preservation of agricultural lands”, or “more open space”, or “conserving environmentally sensitive lands”, or “future school sites, recreational and athletic space”. All of these reasons sound good, and if the money were properly used, many of these projects would be a great thing for Martin County. Unfortunately, these discussions appear to be a way to sell the program to voters – positioning Commissioners up for election and giving every advocacy group in Martin County a reason to support it – without making any real commitment to accomplish anything.

The blueprint for utilizing the funds has been loosely described as following the ‘Lands For You” program, a previous 20-year, twenty million dollar bond program adopted in 1989. Under that plan, willing sellers offered their land to the County and an appointed committee made recommendations for land purchases to the County Commission. A review of that program’s accomplishments, for which we are still paying, is not encouraging. Some environmentally sensitive lands were preserved, but top dollar was paid, many purchased parcels were already protected under existing rules, and much of the land purchased has never been utilized for the purpose used to justify its acquisition.

In essence, our county government wants in excess of $20million per year from our collective pockets with no definitive plan on how it will be spent. To be effective, such a plan must not only address the specific land to be acquired, but more fundamentally, the inadequacies in the current version of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. This Plan was adopted nearly twenty-five years ago, and there have been many changes in the fundamental facts used in the making of it. Also, a number of its provisions, including those requiring public services be provided concurrent with controlled growth, have not been effectively utilized, or have even been ignored.

The following changes in the County have to be recognized and incorporated into future planning:

• The population within the Urban Services Boundary is rapidly reaching the maximum desirable and vacant land is running short.
• Many forms of agriculture are no longer economically viable in Martin County and preserving land for agricultural use may not be a realistic strategy.
• The price of land has increased to the point that the County could not buy enough land to make a significant difference in development patterns with the type of program currently proposed.
• The current economic climate does not lend itself to assumptions being made about available federal/state grants/cost sharing/matching funds.

The implied “trust us, we will do what is right” does not justify an over twenty million dollar per year tax. MCTA will certainly support appropriate efforts to acquire and preserve lands necessary to protect our lifestyle and the environment. However, the Commission must commit to long term planning based on realistic assumptions. Two fallacious assumptions that have become ingrained in our political process and must be revised as part of any new comprehensive plan and/or sales tax referendum:

Protect the current Urban Services Boundary (USB) at all costs is not viable. What will really make Martin County look like our neighbors to the south is forcing all growth to occur inside an inflexible services boundary. We are rapidly running out of land inside the boundary. We should be preserving sensitive land inside the USB, and requiring well-planned and controlled development to create extensive land preservation, to the west. The 20-acre ranchettes required in the current comprehensive plan are not the answer.

Limiting infrastructure inside the USB will inhibit growth. Infrastructure must keep up with growth or living here will become less and less desirable until the very situation we are trying to avoid – decreased values, crowding, and declining quality of life – occurs.

Our bottom line is this: We will support any new sales tax only when a comprehensive plan is developed to effectively utilize the funds. Until then, no plan, no more money.