Throughout the Taxpayers' Association’s 57 year history we have strived to assess and advise on the long-term health and sustainability of Martin County’s fiscal condition. To this end, in 2001, after a review of the available literature, we published a white paper expressing our concern about the long range fiscal, environmental and social costs associated with current agricultural land development options, and advised the county to look at the costs and benefits of various alternatives. This paper can be viewed on our website mctaxpayers.org. Although we were shocked at the cost of The Land Use Study, and disappointed in the lack of fiscal models, we believe it was necessary, and its conclusions warrant further discussion.

The following is our initial assessment of the Study’s report:

• We believe that the adoption of a countywide map of lands valuable for public acquisition is a good idea. However, it should also include our most viable agricultural land. This map could then be used as the basis for developing a strategy that includes incentives to landowners to protect these lands through density redistribution, transferring of development rights, or other means. This will protect the rights of landowners as well as the taxpayer. Updating the Comprehensive Plan to include a planning horizon of at least 30 years is also required.

• We agree that a clustered development pattern could provide a more connected regional habitat, protect the rural view sheds from roadways, and provide areas that are sufficient in size for large-scale agricultural uses. It also more efficiently preserves environmentally sensitive lands that have been identified for public acquisition. When combined with a development rights policy, it could also be a tool to reduce the development pressure within the urban services district. The specific criteria for dealing with lot size, density bonuses, public review and development rights found in the study warrant further investigation and discussion.

• If Martin County is serious about implementing the Indian River Lagoon Restoration Plans, continuing to aggressively pursue the acquisition of lands targeted as environmentally sensitive or needed for Everglades Restoration is absolutely necessary.

• Adopting better regulations for new 20-acre development projects and encouraging the use of the PUD process for new 5-acre developments are good ideas.

• The requirement that any clustering achieves its public benefit objectives, and meets all conditions is overly general and needs to be succinctly defined.  The idea of limited density incentives for clustering that preserves lands targeted for purchase, or that creates greenbelts, may be good, but only when combined with a density transfer policy that includes the purchase of development rights, not just density grants.

• The fiscal impact of prohibiting roadway widening through lands designated Agricultural Future Land Use requires further study. This should not occur until all environmentally sensitive lands targeted for acquisition, and all rural roadway view sheds have been protected by conservation easement.  

• The use of conservation and agricultural easements are excellent mechanisms for preservation, and agreements between multiple public/non-profit agencies to hold these easements would add to their protection.

• We believe these same policies could be used in our urban areas to procure open space, provide incentives to create affordable and workforce housing, and develop or redevelop our communities in a more sustainable fashion.

  We commend the County Commission for their decision to initiate this process. It is unfortunate that mistrust between groups and individuals in Martin County has made rational discussion of this study, and other public policy issues, overly expensive and painfully difficult. However, our collective future depends on refining, adopting, and implementing appropriate policies, so discuss we must.

********************************************************

It’s not often that you will see the Martin County Taxpayers Association encouraging the County Commissioners to spend money, but that is exactly what we want the Commission evaluate doing with Ocean Breeze Park in Jensen Beach. If the current residents do not purchase the property this becomes a rare opportunity to obtain a desirable piece of waterfront property to meet the County’s future needs and control undesirable growth. At a price of $40 million for 91 acres, a little over $450,000 per acre, it seems a bargain compared to the $510 million price paid for Briny Breezes last year. In this column we don’t have room to debate how the County might obtain the funds, but perhaps receipts from the new ½ cent sales tax could be wisely invested there.