Sticks of Fire: a Tampa blog

See for yourself on a 4-hour ecotour, any Wednesday from Feb. 6 through March 26, 11:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. Cost is $20 for members of Tampa Bay Watch, or $25 for non-members. E-mail Catherine, or call 727-867-8166 for reservations.

The environmental program starts with a classroom orientation of the estuary and then spends the rest of the day on the bay. This hands-on field trip experience includes an introduction to Tampa Bay Watch, discovering estuarine sea critters from our on-site touch-tanks and kayaking over oyster bars and through mangrove forests.

The course encompasses subjects/activities including: an overview of Tampa Bay Estuary habitats, its flora and fauna, bay impacts and restoration projects. Tampa Bay Watch’s Marine and Education Center, located on the Tampa Bay shoreline directly across from Ft. De Soto, provides an easy access toTampa Bay. We hope that both on-site and in the field, participants learn about our beautiful yet fragile surroundings in a fun and engaging way.

Tampa Bay Watch is a nonprofit stewardship program dedicated to protecting and restoring the marine and wetland environments of the Tampa Bay estuary.

The sport is so rough, it was initially called Murderball. It’s often called Quad Rugby in the U.S., because it is played by quadriplegics. But it is internationally known as Wheelchair Rugby, because

“You can’t really market ‘Murderball’ to corporate sponsors.”

From quadrugby.com:

The game is a tough, give-no-quarter game. … Any misconceptions about quads and helplessness are quickly eliminated as soon as someone sees the game…

The hometown team, the Tampa Generals, is hosting the 16th Annual Coloplast International Wheelchair Rugby Tournament this weekend, January 18 – 20, at All Peoples Center, 6105 E. Sligh Avenue, next to King High School. Games will be played indoors on two basketball courts simultaneously, from 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Friday, 10:00 - 4:00 on Saturday, and 10:00 – 2:30 on Sunday, with the Final Game starting at 1:00 p.m. on Sunday. (See schedule & directions)

The Tampa Generals boast a long, illustrious history in Wheelchair Rugby. The 18-year-old team has spawned several Paralympic gold-medal winners, including their current coach, Dave Ceruti, on the left in this photo with Justin Stark, the team representative. Justin’s the guy to contact if you’d like to support Tampa’s team with time or money, or just come help out at a Saturday practice now and then.

The Generals head into this tournament in great shape, having won their division at the annual Beast of the East tournament hosted by the Philadelphia Eagles in November. But the Phillie team came in a very close second, and 3rd-place Michigan was nipping at Tampa’s wheels, so the coming tournament promises to be action-packed and extremely competitive.

Tampa’s Ryan Kress, pictured at right trapped between two Philadelphia defensive players, was the division’s MVP at the Beast of the East tournament.

My husband, Tres, keeps trying to retire from his volunteer gig as a Wheelchair Rugby referee, but this weekend he’ll be blowing his whistle again, because he just loves it too much to quit completely. He & I have been deeply involved with this fast-paced, hard-hitting sport for many years. This September we’re going to Beijing to cheer for Team U.S.A. in the Paralympics — the Olympics for physically disabled athletes, always held right after the Olympics, at the same location.

But you don’t have to go to Beijing to see this “Elegant Violence.” This is your once-a-year chance to catch this exciting sport played in an international tournament right here in Tampa.

Quad Rugby Reading: Inkwood Books, Tampa’s only full-service independent bookstore, is offering 20% off, all month, on Gimp: The Story Behind the Star of Murderball, by Mark Zupan. (Murderball is an award-winning film about the sport. See the very cool trailer.)

Citizens raised many good questions about the proposed Agricultural Exemption to our wetland protections, and we asked our Environmental Protection Commissioners (aka our county commissioners) to refrain from any action at their last hearing, on Nov. 15. So they postponed their decision until this Thursday, to allow time for EPC to address the citizens’ concerns. Disappointingly, EPC has not improved their proposal to alleviate those concerns. If you read EPC’s defense of their position, note that much of their material is actually written by the Agricultural Economic Development Council — which perfectly illustrates the problem with this Ag Exemption.

This Ag Exemption is based — not on science or economic need — but on politics. The Ag Lobby is pushing for less regulation using their political muscle, with no real economic justification or analysis of the environmental consequences. Last August we changed the rules to exempt man-made ditches and cow ponds — the farmers’ biggest bone of contention. Do farmers really need to destroy small natural wetlands, too? Can our wildlife sustain the habitat loss? What will this cost taxpayers in terms of flood control and water quality? Our commissioners don’t know. We’ll see if they care on Thursday.

And we’ll see if they mind that this “Agricultural Exemption” has loopholes big enough to drive a bulldozer through, so it can be used by developers, too.

Check out this map I made. I took the county’s map of “Ag Lands” eligible for the Ag Exemption, and I pointed out a couple of places in my neighborhood where the so-called “Ag Lands” are not being farmed at all. In fact they’ve been recently zoned for dense development. You can see plenty of this “Ag Land” all over the urban area, already zoned for condos and townhouses, where the housing is not yet built. While the developers wait for the market to recover, they can lease the land to a sod farmer, or borrow a few cows to put on the land temporarily, and thereby qualify under this Ag Exemption to fill in some wetlands before they build their subdivisions.

Just like these tactics are used by large landowners to get an “Agricultural Exemption” from their property taxes (under Greenbelt laws), and like non-farmers sign forms swearing to use fireworks only for bona fide farming operations, this “Agricultural Exemption” from our wetlands protections could easily be used by developers.

A developer could also pressure a farmer into using his exemption to fill wetlands as a condition of sale, before the developer buys the property.

Citizens have been trying to put conditions into this Ag Exemption to prevent its use by non-farmers, with no success. For example, we’ve asked that the developer who buys farmland with filled wetlands should be required to put the wetlands back, through mitigation, before building. The EPC staff tried to compromise, saying any filled wetlands turned into a non-farming use within 7 years should be mitigated, but the Ag Industry found this modest proviso unacceptable. The Agriculture Economic Development Council voted last week to approve the exemption only if this time limit is lowered to 5 years — which just shows they want to be able to use this “Agricultural Exemption” on land that will soon be paved.

This Thursday, Jan. 17, Commissioners will decide whether to approve this exemption, at a public hearing at 9:00 a.m. in county center. I’ll be there, with other concerned citizens, to ask them to make sure this rule change has net benefits, before adopting it. You can come too, and be a voice for our wetlands.

The newspapers have all but abandoned the fight now that we’ve saved the wetlands division from elimination. But commissioners continue working to weaken our wetlands protections. They think no one will notice now that the limelight is off.

Whether you agree with this rule change or not, I hope you’ll let them know we are paying attention to what they’re doing, and we’ll hold them accountable come election time. My letter to the commissioners details my concerns, and offers some suggestions for improving the rule change. You can write them with your concerns, too.

Although he appeared calm, sitting still in the audience of the public hearing, the Executive Director of the Planning Commission, Bob Hunter, had to have been aghast as he watched the County Administrator blithely break the county’s promise to protect his agency from state-sponsored meddling. I know I was flabbergasted. Was this the blatant act of insubordination it appeared to be on the surface? Or was the County Administrator carrying out a hidden agenda, contrary to her public charge and contrary to the will of the people?

On Dec. 7, at the annual public hearing on proposed laws affecting Hillsborough County, state legislators were considering a bill that would change the balance of county and city representation on 3 local boards, to give the county more power on each: the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC), the Sports Authority, and the Planning Commission. The public has been largely opposed to this change to the Planning Commission ever since it was first proposed last year, so citizens were relieved when our County Commission seemed to respond to the public will and voted unanimously to support the bill only if the Planning Commission were removed from it.

Commissioners had asked Rep. Ambler, as the bill’s sponsor, to amend the bill so that it would not affect the Planning Commission. Rep. Ambler did so, but the amendment became controversial among the other legislators, so Ambler finally suggested that his amendment be withdrawn, and offered his bill with the Planning Commission in it after all. Even though this went against the express direction of our County Commission, the County Administrator, Pat Bean, smiled knowingly (she practically winked!) and told the legislators that the County Commission would be fine with it.

>>[County Administrator] PAT BEAN: OKAY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE BILL THAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT NOW IS A BILL THAT CONTAINS ALL THREE AGENCIES, THE EPC, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE SPORTS AUTHORITY.
…[lots of talk about the sports authority]
>>[Representative] FAYE CULP: … I HAVE A QUESTION AS TO THE OTHER TWO PARTS OF THE BILL. WHAT IS YOUR FEELING OR — ON THE EPC AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, …?
>>PAT BEAN: WELL, THE EPC WAS INCLUDED IN THE BILL THAT THE BOARD VOTED ON WHEN THEY TOOK THEIR POSITION ON THE LOCAL BILLS. … AND THEY VOTED TO SUPPORT THE BILL … THE BOARD DID NOT — AT THE TIME THAT THE BILL WAS BEING CONSIDERED, THEY ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED TAKING OUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THIS YEAR, BUT I AM CERTAIN THAT THEY WILL SUPPORT THE BILL AS — IF YOU PASS IT TODAY AS IT HAS BEEN AMENDED HERE. BUT THEY DID RECOMMEND TAKING THAT OUT. …
>>PAT BEAN: … AS I SAID, I’M CERTAIN THE BOARD WILL SUPPORT THE BILL THAT YOU’VE GOT NOW AS AMENDED [emphases added]

Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio, City Councilwoman Mary Mulhern, Bob Hunter and several citizens spoke against including the Planning Commission. (Terry Flott & I also spoke against Pat Bean’s move.) Bean was the only person to speak in support of this unpopular legislation.

>> BOB HUNTER: … AT THE PRESENT TIME, LEGISLATORS, THERE IS NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORTING CHANGE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS ASKING FOR THIS.

Not publicly, anyway.

Pat Bean is nobody’s fool. She knows her 6-figure salary would be in jeopardy if she defied her 7-headed boss, the County Commission. So why was she smiling as she told our state legislators that our county would support something the commissioners unanimously voted to oppose? Did she have reason to think commissioners would support her in her job, even after her apparent betrayal of their public position?

Bean has often been used by the commissioners to do their dirty work. In this year of painful staff and budget cuts, she proposed that their monthly car allowances should be doubled to $600 — so they wouldn’t have to propose this let-them-eat-cake raise themselves. She has also been dispatched to campaign against tax cuts, and citizen initiatives like Ruskin incorporation and the county mayor proposal. Citizens are often told “the administration” is pushing an unpopular road, borrow pit or development, while county commissioners remain politically unscathed —and unaccountable.

In speaking for legislation which the county commission had not (publicly) supported, it is unlikely Bean was acting as a renegade. It is much more likely that she was doing the bidding of her bosses while they pretended to go along with the citizens’ position. I called Commissioners Mark Sharpe and Rose Ferlita to see where they really stand. Both seem appalled that the board’s unanimous vote was dismissed at this hearing. Commissioner Sharpe wrote the legislators after the hearing, detailing his objections to the proposed legislation.

Unless the other commissioners were just pulling the wool over our eyes with their unanimous vote against this change to the Planning Commission, they all ought to direct the County Administrator to write the legislators explaining the true position of the board. And the commissioners should ensure that Bean does not intentionally misrepresent the county again.

That’s what I told them, anyway. You can tell them what you think, too.

We don’t elect Pat Bean, and she has no authority to act independently of our elected officials. We pay her (a lot!) to carry out the publicly determined positions of our elected officials, not the secret agendas of a few of those commissioners.

WMNF is the only news outlet that reported on Pat Bean’s maneuvering. (Move the time slider to 5:40 to skip to this audio story.) The Tribune reported on the legislators’ maneuvering.

Citizens won a major battle against sprawl Tuesday when the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) voted to remove the Brandon Bypass from the last planning map bearing the stain of the road which has also been called “Beltway,” “Sprawlway,” & “Green Swath of Death.”

Having recently succeeded in persuading the county to remove the Bypass from other maps headed for the county’s Comprehensive Plan, activists (including U-CAN, Sierra Club & R-LAND) finished the job by meeting with the MPO and its Policy Committee over the last few weeks, backed up by an e-mail campaign, then addressing the MPO on Tuesday prior to the final vote. The MPO map was the primary source from which this Bypass oozed onto other maps, so it should be gone for good now — at least in this alignment which would have brought sprawl to rural areas and devastated several nature preserves. (See my October article with maps and details.)

It takes a lot to move this county to carry out the will of the people when our interests conflict with development interests, so I heartily commend the citizens who participated in this effort — including the whole troop of boy scouts who stood in uniform at a community meeting in Lithia to oppose the Bypass because it would ruin the parks they love. Hundreds of citizens turned out at each of the community meetings in Ruskin, Riverview and Lithia —and this was after the county’s Planning & Growth Management Dept. tried to calm the opposition by telling the media they were going to delay consideration of the Transportation Plan & the Bypass for months.

It took special courage for the county’s Parks, Rec & Conservation Dept. to oppose the Bypass, given that they work under the county’s current developer-friendly administration; but they took a strong stand anyway, on behalf of the preserves and natural resources they are charged with protecting, lending their authority to the citizens’ objections.

We voters actually have more power than any monied special interests. It’s inspiring to see that power in action, and it’s exciting to be a part of it.

County Commissioner Al Higginbotham invited several citizen groups and community leaders to be videotaped with him today for what his staff called a “Christmas commercial” to be televised on the county’s TV station, HTV22. Higginbotham’s term ends next year so he needs to get his re-election campaign in gear now.

A televised campaign commercial featuring smiling citizens and community leaders with the candidate would ordinarily be very expensive, and most candidates would have a hard time organizing it even if they could afford it. In contrast, this “Christmas commercial” will be paid for by the taxpayers.

The Fishhawk Republican club sounds delighted to be included:

Subject: Commercial for Holiday to be filmed in Fishhawk, join us

Commissioner Al Higginbotham has invited the Fishhawk Republican Club to join him and be part of his Holiday Greeting which will be filmed on Monday, December 3 at 1:15 in front of the fireplace at Town Square. Commissioner Higginbotham requests that you join him for this television shoot. It is exciting that he has invited the Fishhawk Club to be part of his holiday greeting. Please join us at 1:15 at Town Square in front of the fireplace. Please email me or call and let me know you will join us. Also, forward this to any neighbors in Fishhawk.

Thank you.
Debbie

Debbie Cox Roush
President, Fishhawk Republican ClubCo-Chair Hillsborough County Coalition for Women, Mitt Romney for President
Event Chair HCRP

I wonder if Higginbotham also invited the East Hillsborough Democrats to be involved in his taxpayer-funded Holiday commercial? I wonder what Louise Thompson thinks of this use of our county-funded television station and film crew? (Louise is Executive Director of TBCN, the Tampa Bay Public Access television station which Hillsborough County commissioners decided not to fund anymore, while using our their TV station for their own self-promotion.) How do you, as a taxpayer, feel about your commissioner spending your taxes to film himself wishing you a happy Holiday? In an election year?

I don’t like my taxes being used to fund a politician’s self-promotional commercial during campaign season — a commercial which will discourage other candidates from coming forward to run against the incumbent, looking so well-connected with happy civic leaders and all.

The commercials were to be filmed Monday at 1:15 in the Fishhawk Town Square, and 3:15 at the Red Barn Ranch on Thonotassassa Rd. If you had known about it, you could have dropped by and made your way on TV too. After all, you are paying for these campaign spots —er, I mean Christmas Commercials.

At a public hearing next Friday, Hillsborough County’s Legislative Delegation will vote on 7 state laws affecting our county, including one that would allow half-acre wetlands to be destroyed on any land designated Agricultural, without regard for our county’s wetland regulations.

Hugh Gramling, representing the Ag industry, shocked everyone by filing for this sneaky end run around our local wetland protections WHILE he was working with our Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) on changes to our local rules to benefit farmers. In the face of this sabotage, county commissioners (who also act as the EPC) voted to delay the local changes, as requested by citizens —including me.

Commissioner Rose Ferlita felt the Ag lobby’s move was counterproductive:

“I’m very disappointed that the Ag community did that. … to me that gets right in the way of us trying to move forward with what we expected to do through our own local EPC. … That’s, again, such a disappointment to me, and Mr. Gramling, I’m talking right to you.”

State Rep. Rich Glorioso seemed ridiculously misinformed in the St. Pete Times when he tried to justify the bill he is sponsoring:

“Glorioso said some of the EPC’s regulations are unreasonable, pointing out that some farmers have had manmade ditches suddenly designated as wetlands that need protecting.”

Glorioso is wrong. (The Times should have checked). The EPC has already changed the rule to exempt manmade ditches. They voted to do this, as the first step toward the Hybrid, at the public hearing on August 16. (Furthermore, this rule change was simply codifying a long-standing EPC policy that has exempted those ditches for years. And they were not “suddenly designated as wetlands”—the state designated them as wetlands in 1994. Ever since then EPC has exempted them by policy, and now exempts them by law.)

Gramling knows this, and Glorioso should. The Ag industry has been crying about ditches & cow ponds, even though EPC has always exempted them, because it makes a good sound bite in their politicking toward their ultimate goal: NO local wetland regulations for Agriculture —which is exactly what Local Bill #4 would accomplish.

Even our County Commission opposes this environmentally horrid bill (yes, that County Commission). Last year they refused to defend our EPC against a state bill that would have gutted the agency (it died when Gov. Crist promised to veto it), and this year they tried to gut the EPC themselves, but this time they are standing up for our local wetlands protections against this state bill. (We should thank them.)

Maybe our County Commissioners are finally learning that we won’t put up with that stuff from them. Now we have to teach our state legislators that we won’t let them mess with our local wetlands protections, either.

State-level anti-wetlands lobbyists have been trying to eliminate our local wetland protections for years, and they were involved again in the most recent attack on our EPC. We need to make our state legislators believe that we will vote them out of their jobs if they don’t lay off our wetlands. Especially Glorioso.

You can write them now, to ask them to vote NO on local bill #4, and protect our EPC and our natural resources from further attacks. Then, come to the hearing on Friday, Dec. 7, 9 a.m. – noon, at County Center, 26th floor, in downtown Tampa.

This is your once-a-year chance to speak to all 16 state legislators who represent Hillsborough County—all at once, in the flesh, right here at home; instead of having to reach them one by one in Tallahassee. It’s also a chance to watch your elected representatives in action as they deal with your neighbors & local leaders, and vote on 7 local bills affecting our county.

If you want to speak about something besides the local bills (taxes? transportation? growth management?) you must submit this form by noon, Dec. 3. If you want to speak about the local bills, just arrive early on Dec. 7, and fill out a speaker card there. You don’t have to say anything, though. Your presence alone would speak volumes.

While we were hammering out a deal with farmers to let them out of some of EPC’s local wetland regulations, under certain conditions, the farmers went behind our backs and over EPC’s heads to ask the state to COMPLETELY exempt them from ALL our local regulations. It was a surprise move that stunned EPC staff and commissioner Higginbotham who have been working closely with the farmers to relax EPC regulations for them; and it galled citizens like me who have been spending our time working on the local rule changes in workshops, and spending our tax dollars paying EPC’s attorneys to write and rewrite the rule changes in a futile attempt to please the Agricultural lobby. All of that time & money will be wasted if the Ag lobby’s sly sabotage works, and their proposed state law passes. (Shame on Rep. Rich Glorioso for sponsoring this bill!)

As a member of the county’s Citizens Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC), I suggested that we recommend commissioners take no action on the local agricultural exemptions until the state-level action is resolved. CEAC concurred, and will make that recommendation at the public hearing this Thursday.

We should not negotiate county rules with the Agricultural lobby while they are trying to pass a state law that would negate any local rules we write for them. Any local rule changes passed under these conditions would leave us feeling our local leaders had been bullied into giving away too much with the threat of state action hanging over the deal.

We should not waste any more time & money trying to change our local rules to suit the Agricultural lobby, now that the Ag lobby has revealed the local rule change is merely their Plan B, in case their Plan A—NO local regulations—does not pass. Let’s see how their Plan A works out for them first. If their bill passes, there is no need for us to change our rules for them, as our rules will no longer apply to them. If their bill fails, then hopefully they’ll be willing to lay all their cards on the table, and negotiate with us in good faith.

The good thing is that if they do decide to deal openly with us, without the threat of state action, we no longer need to rush to change our 22-year-old rules for them. Their state legislation wouldn’t be passed until next spring, so there is no reason for us to change our rules immediately. And we certainly need more time—the draft rule change is simply not ready.

Contrary to the original promise that only quarter-acre wetlands would be abandoned to the Ag industry, this amendment would allow half-acre wetlands to be impacted without justification. (Keep in mind that anyone can damage wetlands under EPC rules if necessary for the reasonable use of their property; and man-made wetlands, like ditches and cow ponds are already exempt.)

There is controversy over the number of years the land must remain Agricultural in order to remain free of the obligation to mitigate (or compensate for) any wetland destruction accomplished under the Ag exemption. If we are going to change our rules to allow farmers to fill wetlands that developers can’t, then we should at least require mitigation once the land use changes from agriculture to development. This doesn’t prevent a farmer from developing the land, it just requires mitigation at that point, and provides an incentive to keep the land in agriculture after we’ve allowed the wetlands to be destroyed. Farmers want to be let out of the requirement to mitigate if they farm a certain number of years before developing. They say 3–5 years is plenty, but anything less than 10–20 years is just giving an “agricultural exemption” to land that will soon be paved.

We need more time to work out these sorts of issues in the proposed rule change. There are substantial problems: see this former EPC scientist’s analysis for more detail.

Furthermore, there is no reason to bypass the new Technical Advisory Group in order to rush this Ag exemption into the law. The whole purpose of this committee of wetland scientists is to review ALL the Hybrid rule changes, but they have not been given time to meet and discuss this important rule change.

This is the first board of county commissioners to change our wetland rules in 22 years. They have promised, on the record, that the Hybrid would streamline the process without weakening our wetland protections. Commissioner Higginbotham’s published letter promised that the Hybrid will “maintain the strong protections our wetlands enjoy today,” adding “the hybrid is no compromise.” EPC’s Hybrid proposal is titled “EPC Wetlands Protection: Improving the Process, Maintaining the Protection.”

Contrary to those promises, the proposed Agricultural exemptions would weaken our protections.

Commissioners are set to vote on the Ag exemptions at a Public Hearing this Thursday, Nov. 15, 9:00 a.m. in County Center. I’m asking them to refrain from any action on the proposal at this time. You can e-mail your thoughts to your commissioners & EPC staff, and speak at the Public Hearing, or simply attend to support those speakers you agree with.

Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio has written your state legislators to say the City of Tampa does not want to do what the Tampa City Council says the City does want to do.

Although the Tampa City Council voted unanimously to write this letter (on City of Tampa letterhead) asking state legislators to change the composition of the EPC board to include representatives from the cities, Mayor Iorio wrote this letter (on City of Tampa letterhead) saying:

“the City of Tampa does not support changing the composition of the EPC.”

She emphasized her point by repeating it, using more bold type:

“Again, the City of Tampa opposes any change to the composition of the EPC Board.”

This must be perplexing to the legislators who have now received two letters speaking for the City of Tampa, asking them to change—no, wait! don’t change—the EPC. The mayor’s letter doesn’t mention the city council and their position at all.

She says she’s “had several very productive meetings with [county commission] Chairman Jim Norman and [county] Administrator Pat Bean on a variety of topics.” Not this topic, though. Her letter says they have not discussed the issue of board representation, on which they disagree, but they have “opened up a healthy discussion on common issues.”

So she’s fine with leaving the county commission in charge of the Environmental Protection Commission. And she goes so far as to say the City of Tampa is fine with it. No matter what those pesky City Council members say.