1-7-2010

Costs of Engagement

Hometown Democracy? Gulf County could use a dose.

While county commissioners rail against a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution that would put all land use issues before voters, they act as if that is precisely what this commission needs in order to toe the line.

The Hometown Democracy movement in essence would be a cumbersome and costly proviso to put on local governments, but as a recent appellate court decision, reported on in this newspaper, makes clear, county commissioners could use some oversight when it comes to land use issues.

Not to mention priorities on spending precious tax dollars.

Leave aside for now the issue of wetlands protection and how the county comprehensive plan addresses that issue. This is the one issue that the county plans on appealing to the First District Court of Appeals, though this also, judging by the appellate opinion, is the county’s biggest climb.

But consider the case of the county’s subdivision ordinance, which the appellate judges perceived as not being enforced, in particular in this case of a development on St. Joseph Peninsula.

As the judges spelled out – and the county will apparently not appeal their findings – is that the county failed in enforcing the plain language of its Land Development Regulations.

By not enforcing the clear language of the subdivision ordinance, the county provided a green light to effectively bypass other aspects of subdivision development, such as street widths and the like.

Another troubling aspect of the decision handed down by the First District Court of Appeals has to do with St. Joseph Bay and its preservation.

While the judges could not specifically rule on decisions made by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning jurisdiction of wetlands on the subject property because those two agencies were not a party to the suit, questions linger.

In particular, whether the Corps dropped the ball in its mission to protect U.S. waters when it rejected jurisdiction over wetlands that were all but adjacent to the bay, and in the opinion of one expert called to testify in the trial that is the subject of the appellate ruling, are contiguous with the bay.

St. Joseph Bay is the currently the county’s No. 1 asset. It attracts tourists. It lures buyers who have made the cape and peninsula a concentration of significant tax revenue for the county. It is one of fewer than 50 aquatic preserves in the state.

But who exactly is protecting it?

That the Corps, which has spent millions and decades making a mess of the Apalachicola River system, would shirk its responsibility in this instance is a subject worth exploring, as the appellate court suggested.

We hope that plaintiff Fred Johnson will take the judges up on a new hearing to explore those questions.

Mr. Johnson, meanwhile, provides a textbook example of why the Hometown Democracy amendment could find traction in some circles, particularly among residents discouraged by appearances of favoritism and a tin ear turned toward their input by elected officials.

This case would simply not have reached this point but for the fact that Mr. Johnson is a practicing attorney with the experience, gumption and perseverance to see the action pressed.

The Board of County Commissioners rebuffed neighbors’ complaints about the development on their road.

Commissioners and county staff again and again fell in line behind the developer and shrugged aside dissent, as they so often do.

But Mr. Johnson had the wherewithal and willingness to press, to amend his complaint four times as trial courts tossed it aside.

To appeal to the First District Court of Appeals once when the case was tossed outright and again when the trial court uniformly, and according to the appellate judges incorrectly, found for the county on all counts.

What Mr. Johnson’s costs would have been, if he was clocking billable hours surely would be in the tens of thousands of dollars over the five years the case has exhausted.

This brings us to a final point – what is the dog in this hunt for the county that it would spend thousands, surely, tens of thousands possibly, on this case?

The issues center on protection of the bay and wetlands, enforcement of the comprehensive plan and LDR and adhering to county land use ordinances.

Where is the logic in spending hard-earned tax dollars to fight such concepts? How does the county go to mattresses, with taxpayer dollars, over a court fight between property owners and one that involves the very aspects of government that elected officials have sworn to uphold?

Commissioners talk a good game about taking care of tax dollars, but spending priorities – consolidation, a court fight over doing their jobs, advertisements in out-of-county newspapers involving land use issues – don’t jibe with their words.

And, here, they have wasted taxpayer dollars on the wrong court fight.

Instead of marching into the fray of a dispute among landowners and the county’s own failures in enforcing land use issues, these legal fees could have been spent upholding the desire of voters and moving away from single-member districts to county-wide voting.

That is hometown democracy. Right now it is missing in action in Gulf County.