voteheather2008.com Blog

I suppose an election in the Keys wouldn’t be complete without a little controversy over political signs. The latest, reported in The Keynoter, is in Marathon. In the past, Marathon had their seat elections in March. Their City Code allowed for political signs to be placed 45 days prior to an election.

When they moved their elections to coincide with County-wide elections, they didn’t change their sign ordinance. So folks who are in a primary have to place their signs 45 days before that primary, then pull them up after the primary, store them for about 20 days, and then place them again 45 days before the general election. While primary candidates have the inconvenience of placing, pulling and placing signs again, they also have the advantage of receiving twice the exposure of those who don’t have a primary. And all this placing and pulling is on private property, not just public rights-of-way.

Our campaign team asked about this ordinance before placing any signs, and were initially told that it didn’t matter if you were in a primary or not, you could place your signs 45 days prior to the primary. We were also told that the City recognized the illogical quality of the ordinance, and would not enforce it between the primary and the general election.

I believe in playing by the rules, and I would not want any supporter to be cited for having one of my signs up outside of the 45 days. While our campaign does not endorse disregarding the rules, we do understand that some folks may choose to exercise their right to free speech on their private property. We do hope the Marathon City Council will revisit this ordinance, and perhaps draft a revision that will take into account the impracticalities, legal and fairness issues of the 45-day rule.

Perhaps the most contentious debate throughout the Keys is the one over development. Are we built out? Do we have room for more development? If we don’t continue growth, how will we continue to be able to afford to support our residents? To avoid any confusion regarding my position on this, I’d like to share a few thoughts.

I am a businessperson and a property owner. I understand that without some economic growth, a community stagnates and flounders. I also understand that we live in a region of limited land in a sensitive ecosystem. This is both a constraint on our growth and the reason our County is so coveted by tourists, investors, developers and those of us who live here full and part-time. It’s why our land values are so high — this combination of limited supply and high demand for a unique environment and unparalleled lifestyle.

Recognizing these factors, and with the understanding that the unique qualities of the Keys are what make the Keys so valuable, I support redevelopment that complements our character, respects our environment and is consistent with our existing Comp Plan and Land Development Regulations. That’s also why I support the Area of Critical State Concern, and believe in working with the state Department of Community Affairs to balance our needs of sustainable growth with our valuable resource and national treasure.

Recognizing also that times may change, it’s inevitable that folks will come before the Commission requesting variances, and these must be considered on a case by case basis. If exceptions or changes to our Comp Plan and our LDR’s would provide a demonstrable and compelling public benefit, we’d have to give them careful consideration. It seems that many of the proposals now at issue for new commercial developments (like airport hotels) that exceed height regulations have not demonstrated to the public’s satisfaction that they provide a compelling benefit.

In sum, I support sustainable growth and logical redevelopment, not unfettered expansion at the expense of those cultural and environmental factors that make us so unique, and will consider changes to our regulations in light of any potential public benefit.

For the second time in a year, a member of the public was escorted out of the BOCC meeting (though this time it was after the meeting adjourned). And as has frequently been the case, members of the public were spoken to with something well beyond disrespect. From the dais came rude and inappropriate remarks, the phrase “shut up,” and a tone of utter disdain.

It is incomprehensible to me that anyone in a leadership position could be so disrespectful of the individuals who elect them and who pay their salaries. Maybe it’s because I was raised by a teacher who was retired Navy, but I just cannot tolerate such rude antics, and I’m dismayed that the non-offending Commissioners are reluctant to speak out against it.

As my dad used to say (a quote attributed incorrectly, I think, to Voltaire), “I disapprove of what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it.” I believe it is the responsibility of elected officials to respectfully listen to input from constituents, even when they don’t like what they hear — or maybe especially when they don’t like what they hear. The kind of language and remarks that routinely emanate from some at the BOCC are undignified, outrageous, and, if they’d been made in my dad’s classroom, would have been grounds for detention or a “private talk” in the hallway.

It is often difficult for private citizens to take the time and make the drive to attend every meeting. Perhaps the BOCC should consider allowing folks who attend a particular meeting to speak on the agenda item that brought them there, even if the item is then tabled. Their remarks could be cited the next time the item is discussed, or better yet, replayed from a recording. That way, the public is heard and their time is not wasted. And perhaps they should be treated with respect.

Once again, I sat through the County Commission’s latest budget workshop. And once again, they chipped away at any savings originally proposed by County Administrator Gastesi, and offered no alternatives for additional cuts that could be realized in the next budget. Here are a few observations:

The County Commission is proposing a 9.95% increase in the millage rate, just shy of the margin they’d need for unanimous approval. This increase doesn’t replenish our reserves, and doesn’t account for potential additional expenses should voters choose to maintain Trauma Star for another six months. The Commission passed this decision to the voters and, if approved, there is no provision to pay for it.

Mr. Gastesi suggested that he will “find” more money in the budget, and I hope he does — but why doesn’t the Commission enter the budget process with full discovery - with full knowledge of a potential and accurate budget? Granted the Commission will have another opportunity to oppose increasing the millage rate — but why start at the highest target rather than what is the ultimate goal? I believe if you start out asking for more than you know you can afford, you never realize significant savings.

The County reserve fund has been depleted over the past two years to about half of what is fiscally prudent and capable of sustaining us for three months in the event of a catastrophe or hiccup in cash flow. Rather than work to restore it, the Commission voted unanimously to take out a $10 million line of credit. Now, this may have been the only option given our current state of affairs. However, County Mayor Mario Di Gennaro suggested that maybe the Commission should double that amount to $20 million and if they did, maybe the county wouldn’t need to worry about retaining reserves. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel comfortable relying on credit to provide essential services. I don’t believe taxpayers should have to pay interest on money that’s been misspent, especially in this difficult financial climate. I consider going from a $20 million reserve to a $20 million deficit in a few short years - a $40 million swing - simply fiscally irresponsible.

As a way to raise revenue, the Mayor also proposed selling off some of the County’s assets — specifically the Gato Building and/or the Marathon Government Center. I believe it is a good idea to complete a review of the properties held by the County, and determine if any of those 90 or so parcels is expendable. But as is often the case with the current Commission, this suggestion blindsided most of its members, and was made without any comparisons, any plan or cost implications for relocating the staff and services that currently use these two buildings, any acknowledgement that we’re selling on the one hand and building and buying on the other. It did come without serious debate, and without any direction to staff on how to proceed to examine the upside and the downside of such a proposal. There was no real leadership, just the usual grandstanding.

Additionally, I believe the County doesn’t effectively utilize revenue sources. For example, I’ve mentioned the vending contracts that Mr. Gastesi brought to light in the past. Apparently vending machine contracts enable venders to utilize space on county property for profit - while the county doesn’t receive rent for this space. I’m thinking now about the Tourist Development Council (TDC), which as been much-maligned by this Commission. The Art in Public Places ordinance carved out 1% of construction cost for public artwork, and $211,000 was already committed in the budget for artwork at the new McCoy Airport. From discussions with some folks who know and from my reading of the state statues governing use of TDC funds for capital expenditures, I’m fairly confident that artwork in highly trafficked tourist spaces (like an airport) could legally be covered with TDC capital funds. The TDC District Advisory Council (DAC) 1 left $465,000 in its capital budget this year because they simply did not have enough applications for funding. What’s disappointing is that the County Commission didn’t even explore this option. Perhaps they could have saved the art at the Big Pine Fire Station, and maybe a much-needed staff position or two, if they had.

Observing this budgetary process has strengthened my resolve and commitment that , if elected, I will be fiscally responsible and watch every taxpayer dollar to make sure you receive maximum benefit from your hard earned money.