Rich Campbell Lets take fresh look at Guardians ad
Source: TCPalm.com, by Rich Campbell
December 02, 2007
Do you remember the half-page ad by the Guardians of Martin County? The one with the image of a yellow smiley face with duct tape covering its mouth?
It appeared in the News in October and ran with the caption, “Martin County residents: Keep your mouths SHUT ... OR THEY WILL BE SHUT FOR YOU.”
I reread the ad this week after the state Department of Community of Affairs released its review of the county’s proposed Land Preservation Incentives amendment (the Valliere amendment). I thought it might be interesting to compare the statements by the Guardians with the DCA’s conclusions.
Needless to say, the Guardians get low marks for truth in advertising.
While there are a number of 5-acre lots and homesteads in western Martin County — “grandfathered-in” before the comprehensive plan was adopted — the land-use regulation governing much of the county’s rural land is one unit per 20 acres.
The amendment, sponsored by Commissioner Susan Valliere, would allow landowners to cluster homes on a portion of their land if they agree to set aside at least 50 percent of the property as open space, environmentally sensitive land or agriculture.
The Guardians and other slow-growth advocates waged a public-relations campaign to defeat the proposal. The organization spent thousands of dollars attempting to persuade residents of the “evils” of the amendment.
In the smiley face ad, the County Commission was singled out for not including “hundreds of your e-mails opposing the Valliere clustering amendment in its transmittal packet to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.”
We later learned county staff, not the County Commission, was to blame for this omission.
However, it’s the Guardians mischaracterizations of the amendment itself that merit the most scrutiny.
The ad stated, “the Valliere clustering amendment is unwanted by residents and not in compliance with DCA regulations” (italics added).
Not in compliance? Really?
“We have reviewed the Land Preservation Incentives amendment,” the DCA report says, “and have identified no objections.”
As it turns out, the Valliere amendment — with minor modifications — is in general compliance with state regulations.
The Guardians’ ad pontificated the Valliere amendment creates “increased density on 191,298 acres of agricultural land use.”
The DCA report says, “it creates no additional density (other than to allow full credit for wetland areas).”
The Guardians’ ad contended the Valliere amendment “guts Martin County’s strong urban boundary.”
The DCA report says “it does not expand the primary or secondary urban service district, and it allows no uses other than those already permitted in the agriculture land-use district.”
Residents who agreed with the Guardians’ erroneous statements were encouraged to “clip and send” the mailer to the DCA.
Did you sign your name on a document replete with flawed conclusions? I hope not.
This is one of the problems in Martin County — well-intentioned people and groups distorting the truth to achieve their objectives. No wonder there’s so much hostility in these parts: It’s nearly impossible for average citizens to discern the truth.
