At least a dozen people will compete for three seats, two of which are held by incumbents - Doug Smith in District 1 (Jensen Beach-Sewall's Point) and Lee Weberman in District 3 (Hobe Sound). Michael DiTerlizzi isn't running in District 5 (Palm City) because he's seeking a seat in the Legislature.

We'll be talking about these candidates and maybe others until the Aug. 26 primary, and, in the District 3 race, where a lone Democrat is running, until the Nov. 4 election. For starters, where each stands on the controversial Valliere amendment tells me plenty.

The amendment, approved last week, opens 180,000 acres of rural land in western Martin to clusters of development on 2-acre lots, instead of the one-unit-per-20-acres the growth plan now allows. Commissioners Susan Valliere, Smith and DiTerlizzi voted for it. Opponents plan to appeal it, which guarantees that it will be a campaign issue. So, here's a first look.

I asked each candidate the same question: Do you support the Valliere amendment?

In District 1, we know that Commissioner Smith voted yes.

Former Sewall's Point Commissioner Richard Baron, graphic design business owner and a director for the Treasure Coast Children's Museum: "No. This is one of the crossroads that led to my throwing my hat in the ring. This is not a county that belongs to the people anymore. One house per 20 acres is a lot more reasonable than the direction we're taking. Clustering demands services."

Henry Copeland, member of the Jensen Beach Group, which wants slow growth: "No. I opposed it in every incarnation it's had ... It's using environmentalism as an excuse to promote urban clusters without urban services on agricultural land ... It's unnecessary; our comprehensive plan has everything we need. We shouldn't change a good comp plan with bad policy."

D. Bryan McDermott did not return repeated phone calls.

In District 3, incumbent Lee Weberman voted against the amendment.

Martha Bennett of Hobe Sound, the Democrat: "No. The language is too vague. Look at who's backing it - pro-growthers and developers ... I am a slow-growth advocate, against clustering, against density increases and bonuses and against breaking the urban services boundary."

Blake Capps of Capps & Huff Roofing: "No. I'm against the concept of clustering homes on western lands. Our existing zoning and land use rules have been effective in preserving our quality of life ... Our open spaces and forests in western lands are the fundamental difference between our county and surrounding counties. If we let development spread to western lands, we lose the Martin County difference."

In District 5, candidate Daniel Blake: "I'm going to have to take the Fifth. I don't know how I feel. It depends on who talks about it ... I'm on the fence."

John Born, a retired businessman who served on school boards in the Cincinnati area before moving to Martin four years ago: "No. It's very vague, not a clear-cut proposal. It could be interpreted in any way."

Edward Ciampi, owner of an ice-cream business who moved to Martin 4 1/2 years ago: "Yes, I am for it. But I would have liked the process to be more inclusive of others' views."

John Hockey, former general contractor who moved to Palm City six years ago from San Jose, Calif.: "No. But we need to come up with some plan to grow in western Martin ... I agree with the concept, but it's a little premature. I used to master plan large, thousand-acre sites and built airports and hospitals in New York and all over the world ... I just think the amendment is incomplete."

Ian Pollack, retired Hallandale police officer and private investigator who ran on a controlled-growth platform in 2004: "No. It's a terrible amendment. It's totally unnecessary. It creates urban sprawl. The clusters will evolve into little cities that damage the environment, harm water resources and create higher taxes for citizens already here. Most of the people who really care about Martin County oppose it."

So do the majority of candidates. That ought to interest the incumbents who voted for it.