will the epc-bocc hear you thursday?
MariellaThis is no way to go about changing our wetland regulations which have been in place for 20 years.
After voting to eliminate the whole wetlands division of our Environmental Protection Commission (EPC), along with all our local wetlands protections, county commissioners are now whimsically toying with the idea of leaving the wetlands division in place (partly, maybe) IF EPC Director Rick Garrity can come up with a plan to rewrite the regulations to suit developers. Quickly. With the threat of a whole division’s elimination (and the loss of 29 jobs) hanging over his head.
The public feels the threat as well. People have told me we’d better get behind Dr. Garrity’s compromise, his “Hybrid Proposal,” or we might be left with nothing. And the Hybrid Proposal is, certainly, better than nothing.
But who says Hillsborough County’s citizens have to settle for “better than nothing”?
I’ve outlined some problems I see in the Hybrid Proposal here on Sticks, but the biggest issue is that it is being hastily put together under duress without enough public discussion. With a scant 6 months experience in county government, Kevin White (“the developers’ councilman”) makes a surprise motion to eliminate the wetland protections we’ve enjoyed for 20 years, and Badda Bing! 2 meetings later the board is ready to vote on a major rewrite of the wetlands rule — or toss it all out.
The Hybrid Proposal’s rule amendments are still changing every other day. Citizens were allowed only 60 seconds each to address the board at the one public meeting before the coming hearing, and they had to spend most of those seconds pleading for the continued existence of the wetlands division, not discussing the complex rule changes.
Instead of choosing between two hastily proposed alternatives: total elimination or Hybrid compromise (option a or option b) this Thursday, I suggest a more measured course:
In light of Dr. Garrity’s Herculean efforts to compromise, our commissioners should begin negotiating in good faith — with all of us. They should vote, first of all, to take the threat of elimination off the table. Then, accept the initial amendments proposed as first steps toward the Hybrid Proposal. These rule changes satisfy some of the developers’ (& farmers’) major demands, while basically codifying existing policy, spelling out the exemptions for certain small ditches and cow ponds which have been allowed in practice since Roger Stewart was the EPC director. But commissioners should refrain from any further action toward the Hybrid Proposal right away.
Commissioners should stop hollering “Off with their heads!” and give us all some time to work together on any further changes to the wetland rule which has served us so well for so long. Let’s at least consider strengthening our protections in some ways while we’re at it. Why is all the talk about lowering our standards?
If the public were truly involved in the process, I think most of us could agree to this: Make the permitting process more efficient; make it simpler for developers and cheaper for taxpayers wherever we can without weakening our wetlands protections.
Of course some people will never agree with any regulations. Despite Dr. Garrity’s attempts to appease them with his compromise Hybrid Proposal, many developers are still demanding the total elimination of all our local wetlands protections, and they are planning to show up in force at Thursday’s hearing.
To those “green builders” and others in the industry who profess to care about our environment, I say: Speak up! Your silence on this matter has been deafening so far, but here’s your opportunity to defend our wetlands and shatter the stereotype of the dastardly developer.
Everyone can support our wetlands by attending the hearing, August 16, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., county center, 2nd floor, 601 E. Kennedy Blvd. You can speak if you want (get the facts first) or simply show your support by being there and letting someone throw a T-shirt on you or wearing a stick-on badge from the U-CAN folks. You can, of course, come and stand with the people on the other side, supporting, um, cement.
Loading ...
August 14th, 2007 at 10:16 am
It’s a red herring. Especially notable by people ‘warning’ you. That’s the tampa way. They’re all connected and we’re on the outside. Stand strong. Look in to recalling them. Especially hagan, blair and norman. Tell them you are doing so. THey are three people. THere’s a LOT of us. VEry unhappy residents who really didn’t want all the cranes here to build lasvegas/newyork in tampa. I’ll be there, by the way.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:35 am
http://www.co.montrose.co.us/news/story.cfm?pk_news=33
requires very few signatures there’s alot of mention of it on the web.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
This is no time to be complacent. This is your golden opportunity to make a statement just by showing up and wearing one of the T-shirts or stickers indicating you want to save the wetland’s division.
The outcome could have statewide implications. If we loose this fight, it will embolden those who want to pave over our state’s natural heritage with more big subdivisions and chain stores.
Please! Just be there Thursday at County Center before 9 a.m.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
‘Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number -
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few.’
(With apologies to Shelley that I should use this for a wetlands meeting…give ‘em hell, people!)
August 14th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Very nice level headed response Mariella.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I said I was OK with the amendments proposed for Thursday, but now they’ve changed again, opening a couple of loopholes.
1-11.10, (3) (b) now says EPC can’t require proof up front that a project won’t cause flooding problems or impact wetlands — they can only make someone fix the flooding or wetland damage after it occurs. This only applies to misc. activities permits, not major projects, but it’s stupid to write this rule so that even if EPC sees a problem coming, they can’t require someone to provide drainage calculations and have an engineer sign off on it and prevent the problem.
I’m asking my commissioners to delete a couple of the recent revisions that were just posted late last night. But this is all moving too fast for intelligent discussion. We need to slow this freight train down.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Well, I sent my email in protest and this is what I got in return.
Dear Mike (um, it’s Michelle) - the new strengthened hybrid approach is just that - a
balanced, measured, scientifically sound way to provide for strong local
control of our wetlands. I met with Dr. Garrity yesterday and was
assured of his support for the strengthened hybrid plan. I also
communicated to him that I would not support any approach which weakened
our process, something that earlier versions of the “hybrid” allowed. I
appreciate your message and hope that you will continue to stay involved
in the process. Regards, mark Sharpe
A good response, believable, perhaps. However, he missed the major piont. Just slow down, breathe, listen to the people of Hillsborough before making hasty decisions.
This was 2nd response from Deanna, Al Higginbotham’s assistant. I wonder if he even read my email.
Ms. Baker,
Thank you for your email. Al believes the hybrid is a great first step towards resolving some of the issues we face in the wetlands division, while still maintaining wetlands protection. We thank you for your thoughts and I hope you have a great day!
Sincerely,
Deanna Franklin
Aide
Commissioner Al Higginbotham
August 15th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
ALERT!!!!!
There are 2 public hearings tomorrow: One to amend Rule 1-11 (they are calling this the hybrid proposal) and one to eliminate Rule 1-11 (wetlands division) and Rule 1-14 (eliminate mangrove protection). There will be 2 sign in sheets – one for each public hearing. These sheets could say the following:
1. Those FOR the Hybrid Proposal; or
2. Those FOR elimination of the wetlands division
WE SHOULD NOT BE COERCED INTO SIGNING JUST ONE OR THE OTHER! TO BE HEARD ON BOTH, YOU MUST SIGN BOTH NO MATTER WHAT THE TITLES ARE. WE ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW TO BE HEARD ON BOTH!!!!!! THESE SIGN IN SHEETS ARE NOT PETITIONS, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD AGAINST ELIMINATION AND AGAINST WEAKENING OF OUR RULES!!!!!!!
See you at 9:00 am tomorrow!
Denise Layne
C4RG, Inc.
813-246-0485