What's The Opposite Of A Rubber Stamp?

Remember that Steve Spratt, the Pinellas County administrator, created a citizens' panel to "advise" him on environmental issues. At the time, some people feared it would be just a rubber stamp for whatever plans the county intended to carry out anyway.

Instead, the Environmental Science Forum issued another strong recommendation on Thursday, this time against the county's leasing part of the Brooker Creek Preserve for youth recreation fields -- not the sort of thing that the word "preserve" connotes.

The forum's vote was 11-2. Previously, the forum had voted 9-4 to recommend against the county's plans for pumping water from Brooker Creek lands to irrigate a nearby golf course.

The county has delayed discussion on these matters, however, until March 15 -- two days after the upcoming Penny for Pinellas sales-tax election. I criticized that timing in this earlier column, saying the county ought to tell the public what's happening before the vote.

Comments

[Lorraine Margeson]

Well Mr. Troxler, no pumping, no ball fields as voted on by the County designed Environmental Science Forum. It seems like the March 15th Board of County Commission Public hearing and workshop on BCP should be a no-brainer for the BOCC vote to PRESERVE THE PRESERVE with these recommendations in from their own advisory board!

[Cheiri]

I've very pleased to discover that not all ESF members allow the county to dictate to them. Now let's see what the county commissioners do with this information. It is a little telling, is it not - that the ESF forum can so easily discern what is harmful to the preserve and environment and our county officials cannot? Let's hope our "leaders" now understand what is at stake. Thank you, Howard, for your insightful, witty, and frank observations - my husband and I enjoy your column very much.

[Liz]

The ESF members have done the right thing and the BOCC will be hard pressed to ignore their recommendation. The East Lake area should have included recreation facilities when it was developed, but it did not. The solution is not to now put those facilities on environmental lands. The county should never have leased those lands to the youth sports group in the first place.

[Liz]

The ESF members have done the right thing and the BOCC will be hard pressed to ignore their recommendation. The East Lake area should have included recreation facilities when it was developed, but it did not. The solution is not to now put those facilities on environmental lands. The county should never have leased those lands to the youth sports group in the first place.

[Paul Trunk]

What bothers me about this is when this property was purchased everyone was led to believe that it was going to be preserved. Now we find out that was never the case and that in fact it can be carved up to serve local interest groups that reside near the property. I no longer trust our county leaders and wish they would be up front with the citizens.

[Steve & Bonnie Jenks]

As former soccer parents of two kids who grew up in Pinellas County, we understand the need for playing facilities for children in an over-crowded county. However, we do not support the parceling off of preserve property at Brooker Creek for this purpose. As stated above, there should have been planned recreation areas when East Lake was developed. Howard Troxler has been exactly correct in opposing the Brooker Creek land grab in his columns!! If the county names land a preserve, then they owe it to the voters to be true to their word.

[Kathleen Ford]

Howard,
Thank you for highlighting some very relevant issues of elected officials' actions as they relate to the upcoming Penny for Pinellas vote. Although I voted for the last two Penny proposals, I will not this time. There are only so many resources that cities and the Pinellas County can use for operating and maintaining City and County buildings. (I am appalled that one Penny proposal is for a city manager's private residence!) Every time a new Penny project is built we know that future tax dollars will be necessary to pay for those City or County employees to operate these new buildings and the new programs offered inside them. And, we know that future city and county tax resources will be needed to maintain and replace these buildings and structures. These operating and maintenance costs do not come from the Penny because Penny money can only be used to build new projects. These resources for operating and maintenance of these new Penny projects come from our existng Pinellas County property taxes, our city taxes and fees. Since resources are limited this means tax revenue and fees used for operating and maintaining new Penny projects will be shifted from existing City and County services and programs. For example,our circuit and county courts are crowded now. If we move reveues obtained from our property taxes to pay for the operating and maintenance costs of these new Penny projects this means that, absent an increase in property taxes and fees, there will be less tax revenue available in the future to pay judicial salaries, judicial assistants' salaries, libraries, bailiffs, clerk's office employees, etc., making access to the legal system that much more difficult for residents and businesses here in Pinellas County. Justice delayed is most definitely justice denied. That is what is happening in Pinellas County today. Considering how long it takes to get to be heard by a judge in Pinellas County today, the citizens are not being served by having these resources diverted to pay for operating and maintenance costs of new Penny projects. This is just one example.

Another example is the under-funded liability for our City of St. Petersburg police and fire pensions. If we have to use city and tax dollars to pay for operating and maintenance costs for new city Penny buildings then there is less money available to reduce the millions of dollars that should have been paid into the pension plans for City employees. (The City had to close Walter Fuller pool in the winter while I was on city council because the City did not have enough money to operate this pool in the winter. How do those elected officials expect the city to pay for all those life guards and pool managers for the projected (4)pools and program managers and empolyees for the 6 additional athletic complexes?!)Further, I am disgusted by the County and City's use of projects like a new city police department building and fire stations for the City of St. Petersburg, as a teaser to get public support for the Penny. The City can issue bonds and budget for replacement buildings and equipment as part of its regular public safety obligations in annual City budgeting usually paid for through property tax revenues. The alleged savings on bond interest has been gobbled up by the new salary requirements for these new Penny projects. Hisotrically, administrators and elected officials (some knowingly, some not) collect Penny moneys, collect incredible property taxes and then move money around to pay for some new pet (and not fundamentally necessary) projects for some special constituents or for "economic development". After all there is no rquirement that the penny money be used for the projects advertised. The broad resolution is for use of penny money for "sample projects". It is amazing how special funding magically appears for projects that should be funded by the private sector. Incidentally, I have not heard of one good reason why any government tax dollars should be spent on "economic development" in a free market society. Falsely propping up one industry or business at the expense of another is the very antithesis of free market principles. Don't take my tax dollars to help another business compete against mine. Government should be limited to public safety and welfare period. Given money government officials will find a way to spend it. In my opinion, we taxpayers are inappropriately paying for a heck of a lot of City salaries and subsidizing special programs which we should not. Enough already!
Kathleen Ford

[Friends of Brooker Creek Preserve, Inc.]

The Friends of Brooker Creek Preserve (FOBCP) shout HOORAY! The Pinellas County Environmental Science Forum has taken a strong stand (11-2) against the proposed ball fields within the boundaries of Brooker Creek Preserve.

Infrastructure has once again failed to keep up with the needs of our growing population, an unfortunate and recurrent theme throughout Florida. And although there is undoubtedly a need in north Pinellas County for more ball fields, these very active places do not belong in the Preserve. Ball fields are not part of the management plan. The land is not zoned for such activities. They would indeed set a horrific precedent.

Recent hikes in the area clearly show that restoration of this land is already substantially underway by removal of the pasture grass. It currently functions well for wildlife use and the land could be further restored to provide even better habitat.

It is our desire that the Pinellas County Commission heed the ESF recommendation and break the ball field license agreement. We also strongly hope that the commission ask county staff to help the East Lake Youth Sports Association (ELYSA) find another site, an obvious win-win scenario for both FOBCP and ELYSA. It was a mistake to form this agreement four years ago - we hope the commission will make amends now and bestow March 15 as their day of atonement.