OSOB

WE WON!!!

Judge Leroy Moe, in a great victory for the voters of Deerfield Beach, upheld the constitutionality and legality of both November 2002 Charter Amendments proposed by the Original Save Our Beach committee and approved by a 75% voter plurality. The first Charter Amendment protects the main beach parking lot from an oversized garage. The second Charter Amendment protects the beach area from the overdevelopment that was seen between 2000 to present.

A legal challenge against the power of the people to protect their beach area from overdevelopment was brought. Documents discovered during the suspension of the City Manager showed that the City Manager was secretly involved in assisting the attorney suing the City.

The Charter Amendments were initiated through the referenda process begun by residents of Deerfield Beach who, in 2001, saw a distressing pattern of overly friendly developer decisions by the commission.

The history of the elimination of floor area ratio requirements came in 2000 when the then City Commission, under the over-development fervor of the City Manager and Mayor, granted excessive variances for decreased setbacks and higher density.

A neighbor objected and brought suit against the developer and the city for this failure to follow the Code. The City Manager and Mayor, knowing that the variances could not be justified and would lose in Court, as there was no hardship involved, and thus, no reason for a legal variance, urged the city commissioners to ignore the city residents and the current building codes. This was done, the commission, supporting that developer and overdevelopment on the beach, voted to eliminate the sections of the building code that covered the violations (and eliminated the grounds for the suit).

With this pattern of granting developers what they wanted and ignoring the citizens' misgivings, the previous City Commission continued to make changes in the Code to favor developers.

In response to a growing fear of what more such irresponsible overdevelopment would do to the beach area and in an effort to preserve the quality of life for Deerfield Beach residents, two referenda were initiated by Original Save Our Beach. Signatures were gathered and the matter was legally required to be placed on the ballot, despite some eleventh hour efforts to block it being put on the ballot.

In November 2002, the voters overwhelming voted in favor of the referenda, and by their vote told the city commission that they did not want massive building on beach property.

Developer friendly residents who have had close relations with the City Manager and Mayor sued Original Save Our Beach and the City to overturn the vote of the citizens. Deerfield Beach's city manager encouraged the lawsuit and even tried to solicit additional people to sue the City. The Mayor even has publicly referred to the lawsuit as a "friendly" lawsuit, meaning that the Mayor wanted the City to lose the lawsuit and the vote of its citizens to be ignored.

The voters and the residents who worked to protect the quality of life of the citizens of Deerfield Beach were vindicated. In announcing his ruling from the bench, Judge Moe said that the large percent of the voters who were in favor of the restrictions played a great part in his favorable decision.

Constitutional Rights Trampled

On the 4th of July, 2004 Tom Connick, the OSOB Lawyer was contacted by Pam Militello about a problem at the beach, it appears that Larry Deetjen, the Deerfield Beach city manager, gave an order concerning OSOB not being allowed to distribute literature or gather signatures inside a certain area. That order was passed on through a Mr. Fisher. The police officers apparently obey the Mayor, City Manager and staff unless they are given contrary orders from higher up in the administration of the sheriff's office. The officers told the OSOB group, who had started to pass out literature, and had set up a canopy that they could not do that and that they had to move.

It must be stressed that OSOB acted at all times in a polite and orderly fashion. The police from the sheriff's department were polite and courteous. The police were following instructions.

Those instructions from the city manager were unconstitutional.

Mr. Connick then tried to contact the police chief. It took 2 hours before the chief finally called him. For a period of time on July 4th, our country's Independence Day, constitutional rights were taken away by the police who were following the inappropriate orders of the city manager.

This was the second time this week that the city manager has given the order to take away the citizen's constitutional rights by involving the sheriff's department.

City Manager Deetjen's first instruction concerning citizen's being able to express themselves through paper plates expressing their views against the Boinis' pier restaurant proposal will not be carried out.

City Manager Deetjen's second order to limit the passing out of literature and gather signatures in a public place, was carried out for at least 2 hours because there was not a mechanism in place to get through to someone in authority in the sheriff's department to countermand a constitutionally inappropriate order from City Manager Deetjen.

Mr. Connick met with Chief Ruffett on Wednesday to discuss the improper things which have been happening at recent public meetings, such as the use of "Reserved" seats being enforced by deputy sheriffs for 3 trolley cars of people bused in by Boinis at the Planning and Zoning Meeting so that they would take seats meant for the public.

In that discussion, the Chief asked if there would be any picketing or demonstrations during July 4th. Mr. Connick told him the next day (Thursday) that there would be no picketing or demonstrations, but there would be the handing out of literature. The primary focus of the conversation was the paper plate prohibition that was ordered by City Manager Deetjen.

He thought that there was no issue concerning the ability of people to hand out literature or obtain signatures at a public place, especially on Independence Day, and was therefore totally surprised concerning the stifling of free expression on Independence Day.

We have a great empathy for sheriff deputies who are trying to carry out orders. Having police power is a very important responsibility. City Manager Deetjen has ruthlessly abused that police power by denying citizens their constitutional rights. Mr Connick will be speaking with the sheriff's department about instituting a procedure so that this misuse of police power by the City Manager does not occur again.

What happened July 4th was serious. The City Commission has shown no oversight concerning City Manager Deetjen. With City Manager Deetjen violating or attempting to violate the constitutional rights of citizens twice in one week, and being successful on Independence Day in violating those constitutional rights, the Sheriff is going to have to institute a procedure so that this kind of police action by the sheriff's department does not happen again.

Letter from Tom Connick, hand delivered to City Commissioners.

LAW OFFICES
BOUTWELL & CONNICK
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
POST OFFICE BOX 1186
DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA 33441

ROBERT E. BOUTWELL, P.A. TELEPHONE: 954-428-0300
A. THOMAS CONNICK, P.A. FACSIMILE: 954-428-6506

HAND DELIVERY

July 6, 2004

Mayor Albert Capellini
Commissioner Peggy Noland (District 1)
Commissioner Gwyndolen A. Clarke-Reed (District 2)
Commissioner Amadeo Trinchitella (District 3)
Vice Mayor and Commissioner Stephen Gonot (District 4)
City of Deerfield Beach
150 NE 2nd Avenue
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Re: Constitutional rights

Dear Commissioners:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." – Edmund Burke

There comes a time when each of you, as elected public officials, have a duty to stand up for what is right. If you fail in that duty, you have failed as elected officials. Our most precious public rights are the rights guaranteed all of us under the United States Constitution.

The City Manager, with the approval of the Mayor, has infringed upon the United States Constitutional Rights of free expression of those whose opinions the City Manager and Mayor do not agree. It is sadly ironic that these infringements on constitutional rights occurred during the occasion of the celebration of our country's Independence, and even on Independence Day itself. These events are:

1. The City Manager, with the Mayor's approval, instructing the Chief to have deputies forbid citizens with paper plates from entering the Commission Chambers, lobby and old school house with those paper plates at the July 6th City Commission meeting. As you know from the last meeting, some in opposition to the Boinis 54 year lease proposal had paper plates that said "NO" on them. It is my understanding that, at the instruction of Sheriff's Office, the Chief is appropriately refusing to follow that order.

2. The City Manager, with the Mayor's approval, instructing the deputies on July 4th to disallow the distribution of literature and gathering of signatures in opposition to the 54 year pier lease. Members of OSOB were told of being prohibited from distributing in an area that changed from being in the festival area, to being in the entire beach area, and then being allowed. For two hours on July 4th, our country's Independence Day, citizens' constitutional rights were violated by the order of the City Manager.

You have to make a determination as to where you stand on the constitutional rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This is a serious matter. This issue is beyond the proposed outrageous 54 year sweetheart lease deal to a Boca Raton restaurateur of city owned oceanfront property, for a huge restaurant that will cause congestion to the beach area, that the City Manager and Mayor so fervently embrace and that the public so overwhelmingly opposes.

For being so adamant and intransigent in trying to stifle the free expression of those whose views the City Manager opposes, and using the police power, with the Mayor's approval, to enforce that suppression of views, you must meaningfully discipline the City Manager.

By doing nothing and saying nothing, you are in your silence condoning what happened on July 4th.

Sincerely,

Tom Connick

cc: City Manager
City Clerk
City Attorney

EDITORIAL BY BETT WILLETT

The Broward County Charter has voter-approved Countywide Land Use Provisions. Provisions voted for in 1974 because of concerns of residents over rapid uncontrolled development. Every six years a Charter Review Commission reviews proposed revisions, and some minor changes have been made. But, not one municipality proposed any changes in the Land Use Provisions during the last review in 2000.

Granted, the county has approved most city-proposed projects, the voter-hoped-for rein on development was late in coming. Content that the county would continue to rubberstamp it’s bloated proposals, the cities enjoyed the benefits of the Land Use Provisions with county monies used for: acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and open spaces, the county regional park system, protection of rural ranch communities, collection of $100,000,000 in school impact fees, over $50,000,000 in road, transit and park impact fees, developer land dedications and developer funded road improvements, preservation of the rights-of-way for the regional roadway network saving millions of land-acquisition dollars, and many other county to city perks.

Over a year ago, the County Office of Urban Planning and Redevelopment Staff was given a charge to study the Land Use Provisions for a state mandated Evaluation Assessment Report (EAR). Workshops and public meetings were held, attended by community elected officials, staff and the general public. After taking a long hard look at Broward county, researching, listening to the concerns of all representatives and consulting with various experts the report was presented. It included population projections, compatibility review changes and density recommendations. One of the recommendations was, due to increased density and emergency evacuation problems, to ban Regional Activity Centers (RACs) on Barrier Islands.

Seven of the thirty Broward County cities (Davie, Ft. Lauderdale, Hallandale Beach, Hollywood, Miramar, Pompano Beach and Weston) reacted exactly as a spoiled chubby child does when his candy is taken away. They whined and they cried. Then they got together, formed a coalition and hired expensive lawyers. (Deerfield Beach has since joined this “EAR Coalition”) Trying to justify their continuing plans to over-densify the beaches, they pretended not to understand the accuracy of the report and that the county was doing what the Charter demanded - enforcing the smart growth planning demanded by voters. Each of the cities in their EAR Coalition is paying about $5,000 per month of taxpayer dollars to fund the effort. A coalition that is trying to do the exact opposite of what most taxpayers in the cities want.

The cities wailed that their “home rule” was being usurped. Nothing was being taken away from the cities; the County was finally doing its job. BUT, with fears of reduced tax and developer dollars, and again ignoring the wishes of their residents these few cities started a smear campaign against the County and began a drive to grab all land use decisions for themselves.

During each meeting between the Ear Coalition and the County Commissioners, the cities stubbornly refused to budge on many issues including compatibility review, increased density, and RACs on the Barrier Islands. The County, knowing that these issues are vital to Broward’s effort to control over-development and protect the county as a whole wisely would not give up oversight of these countywide important-to-smart-growth issues.

What will happen if the cities succeed? Remember when Enron wanted its diesel burning, pollution belching power plant in Deerfield Beach and offered $1,000,000 to the city to grease the way? The Deerfield Beach mayor, commission and city manager lapped it up like eager puppies, paying absolutely no heed to the concerns of residents or neighboring communities. The county responded to the alarm from the adjoining cities and Deerfield residents and prevented the power plant from being built.

If the County looses the checks and balances of oversight, the cities will have free rein to change land use at a developer’s whim, build high-rises, or commercial developments wherever they want, without regard to how compatible they are to the neighborhood or neighboring communities. Keeping the Barrier Islands from added density and over-development is crucial to the quality of life to all residents in the county. However, adding development on the islands will generate millions of dollars for developers who will spend what it takes to get their way, offering inducements to each city until the islands are completely paved, traffic is worse than ever and tourists flock elsewhere. If you doubt this will happen, take a drive up A1A from South Beach to Bal Harbor.

Broward County needs county oversight as the population swells. Our current 1.7 million residents may soon be 2.5 million if projections prove correct. Cities are demanding land use changes with greater densities to accommodate this growth. Current residents have environmental concerns, traffic considerations, infrastructure and water supply concerns, overcrowded schools, lack of affordable housing and open space retention worries all which are multi-city not just one-city concerns. They rightly question whether Broward County should or can build housing for this influx.

Residents are demanding limits and voting for representatives who will control growth. However, in reality, developer friendly officials can do a lot of damage before they are voted out and getting good people to run for office is very difficult. Pro-development candidates get fat checks for their campaign coffers from realtors and developers, and buy their way into office at the city, county and state level.

The appeal of the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment which would give voter approval, statewide, to any changes in local land use plans, and County Commissioner John Rodstrom, Jr.’s proposal to put to a vote a similar measure in Broward County is understandable and given the past record and public distrust of elected officials, logical.

Whether the cities succeed in this power grab from the county or not, given the behavior of the officials, the voters will, almost certainly, take measures into their own hands and pass referenda which will put land use change requests in the voters hands.

YES

For The Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment

Florida Hometown Democracy Inc.'s Ross Burnaman of Tallahassee and Lesley Blackner of Palm Beach, attorneys who specialize in growth management and the environment have come up with an intelligent plan.

They want to put an amendment on the November 2004 ballot to require local governments to seek permission from voters before amending their comprehensive land-use plans.

The Datona Beach News-Journal, in an editorial on July 20, 2003 stated:"This state doesn't manage growth; it plays it, staking finite resources on a Ponzi scheme's final payoff. Those who condone the lie with their silence are letting land speculators profit on the subsidy of public infrastructure and buy off this state with the pauper's wages of a tourist economy while trumpeting the empty promise that growing bigger will bring everyone prosperity. Author-activist Edward Abbey warned us otherwise when he wrote, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." The cancer gets bigger by destroying the host. A generation ago…planners and scientists concluded the state…could sustain a population of 6 million to 7 million. Today Florida has 16 million residents…The resident population has doubled every generation since 1940 and is projected to do so again by 2030. But that's not the worst of it. Local governments and state planners have already approved developments under existing growth management laws for a population exceeding 100 million."

If Florida Hometown Democracy Inc. gets 500,000 valid signatures on petitions, voters would decide whether to amend the state constitution to require local referenda for changes in land use plans (which Florida politicians currently override on a regular basis).

If this amendment does not pass, Florida will be destroyed, one comprehensive growth plan change, at a time. The developers and politicians who benefit from the status quo will try to stamp out the amendment drive with bribery and bluster.

With this amendment they would have to prove to the community that their land-use changes were for the community good. Go to The Florida Home Town Democracy site for more information about this issue and a copy of the petition.

"PLEASE PRINT OUT AND SIGN THE PETITION Click here for a printable copy AND MAIL IT IN NOW!"

Print out the form, make copies and pass them around. This is a legitimate grass-roots effort by people who care about this state.

Chamber Head Snubs Cove Businesses

Janyce Becker's performance at Deerfield Beach Commissioner Militello’s Dist. 1 meeting shows how out of touch the Chamber leadership is with the small business community.

As a Cove resident and member of the Chamber of Commerce, I and many others were appalled by her comments. At least 200 people gasped for air when Ms. Becker announced that she doesn't send people to shop in the Cove because it isn’t "jazzy, classy, or sexy" enough. This was not only insensitive, but downright insulting, and financially detrimental to the hard working Cove businesses.

This raises the question: How many other businesses does Janyce Becker personally blackball? Ms. Becker continued by commenting that she thought an upscale, "anchor business" was needed. She and the Chamber leadership just don’t get it.

The Cove businesses have the interests of their patrons at heart. They deserve to be preserved, and promoted. Livelihoods are at stake! These businesses are very important to our city's economy and the "flavor" of Deerfield Beach.

The City needs to fulfill its obligation to update and maintain the parking areas it owns and enforce the city codes. With no pedestrian crosswalks and poor lighting it is very unsafe.

Janyce should perhaps start making an amends by getting out her broom to sweep the Cove parking lot early Saturday and Sunday mornings after the late night clubbing crowd at the Cove Restaurant trashes it.

Let’s not forget that the previous City Commission granted variances to the Cove Restaurant that have exacerbated the parking situation, congestion, and trash problems in the entire Cove Shopping Center. The Chamber was OK with these variances and didn’t care about the adverse effect on the other Cove businesses.

If Janyce has difficulty sweeping, perhaps she will fly away on her broom to a jazzier, classier, sexier place of employment.

Marti Mc Geary

			E-mail: editor@originalsaveourbeach.org ISSUES OSOB Viewpoint: Chamber Snubs Cove Businesses We Won! Good News Lawsuit Facts A Voice in Decision Making Eminent Domain Bad and Good OSOB Educates TOD - Too Bad for Deerfield Important Phone Numbers Uncontrolled Growth *PIER RESTAURANT* *County Control* Click HERE: Pier Restaurant Complex FACTS *The Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment* WE WON!!! Judge Leroy Moe, in a great victory for the voters of Deerfield Beach, upheld the constitutionality and legality of both November 2002 Charter Amendments proposed by the Original Save Our Beach committee and approved by a 75% voter plurality. The first Charter Amendment protects the main beach parking lot from an oversized garage. The second Charter Amendment protects the beach area from the overdevelopment that was seen between 2000 to present. A legal challenge against the power of the people to protect their beach area from overdevelopment was brought. Documents discovered during the suspension of the City Manager showed that the City Manager was secretly involved in assisting the attorney suing the City. The Charter Amendments were initiated through the referenda process begun by residents of Deerfield Beach who, in 2001, saw a distressing pattern of overly friendly developer decisions by the commission. The history of the elimination of floor area ratio requirements came in 2000 when the then City Commission, under the over-development fervor of the City Manager and Mayor, granted excessive variances for decreased setbacks and higher density. A neighbor objected and brought suit against the developer and the city for this failure to follow the Code. The City Manager and Mayor, knowing that the variances could not be justified and would lose in Court, as there was no hardship involved, and thus, no reason for a legal variance, urged the city commissioners to ignore the city residents and the current building codes. This was done, the commission, supporting that developer and overdevelopment on the beach, voted to eliminate the sections of the building code that covered the violations (and eliminated the grounds for the suit). With this pattern of granting developers what they wanted and ignoring the citizens' misgivings, the previous City Commission continued to make changes in the Code to favor developers. In response to a growing fear of what more such irresponsible overdevelopment would do to the beach area and in an effort to preserve the quality of life for Deerfield Beach residents, two referenda were initiated by Original Save Our Beach. Signatures were gathered and the matter was legally required to be placed on the ballot, despite some eleventh hour efforts to block it being put on the ballot. In November 2002, the voters overwhelming voted in favor of the referenda, and by their vote told the city commission that they did not want massive building on beach property. Developer friendly residents who have had close relations with the City Manager and Mayor sued Original Save Our Beach and the City to overturn the vote of the citizens. Deerfield Beach's city manager encouraged the lawsuit and even tried to solicit additional people to sue the City. The Mayor even has publicly referred to the lawsuit as a "friendly" lawsuit, meaning that the Mayor wanted the City to lose the lawsuit and the vote of its citizens to be ignored. The voters and the residents who worked to protect the quality of life of the citizens of Deerfield Beach were vindicated. In announcing his ruling from the bench, Judge Moe said that the large percent of the voters who were in favor of the restrictions played a great part in his favorable decision.
			Good news: The city commission withdrew its application for an RAC on the beach. That was the little sleeper that would have made it possible to have commercial development in the residential areas east of the intracoastal. It took an almost completely new commission to rescind it in response to the item placed on the agenda by our new District 1 commissioner, Pam Militello. Pam was instrumental in the County Commission recommending banning the RACs on barrier islands. We are encouraged by the positive change that is occurring as a result of the new Commission. Early indications show that the citizens are being listened to and respected, and that the developers are being told that they must comply with the Land Development Code. This situation is not the way it has been in Deerfield Beach for the past 4 years, and is still not the way it is in many coastal cities. This is a result of voters bringing about change. You have the power to effect change. on May 5th, at Contacts that may be of Interest: City of Deerfield Beach www.deerfield-beach.com Department/Division Telephone City Commission 954-480-4263 Pam Militello – Dist. 1 Commissioner 954-553-1465 Office of the City Manager 954-480-4263 Office of the City Attorney 954-480-4265 Office of the City Clerk 954-480-4213 Broward Sheriff's Office 954-480-4300 Code Enforcement 954-480-4241 Fire Rescue/Bldg. Insp. Svcs. 954-480-4350 Building 954-480-4250 NE Focal Point 954-480-4441 Intergenerational Childcare 954-480-4473 Thrift Shop 954-480-4468 Parks & Recreation 954-480-4433 Special Events 954-480-4428 Ocean Rescue 954-480-4413 Public Works/Environ. Services 954-480-4391 Engineering 954-480-4270 Recycling 954-480-4391 Solid Waste 954-480-4391 Utilities Maintenance 954-480-4400 Broward County County Commission www.broward.org Broward County Property Appraiser, Lori Parrish - www.bcpa.net 954-357-6830 LAWSUIT FACTS It might be of interest to the readers to be given the facts concerning the lawsuit in which a few people have sued our City and Original Save Our Beach (OSOB). As many of you know, the voters voted by 75% of the vote in favor of two Referenda in November, 2002. One Referendum was to try to protect the beach area from over-development that has been going on. It mandates that certain development requirements, such as height and floor area ratio, be at least as strict as are in the referendum now a part of the Charter. The reason that they are part of the Charter is so that the Commission cannot allow over-development without voter approval. This Referendum was partially a consequence of the previous Commission's changing the Land Development Code by eliminating floor area ratio and there being a desire by some developers to increase the height of buildings. The other Referendum was to put restrictions on the Main Beach parking area, so that it would not be developed as a massive structure to benefit commercial development. It protects this city owned property for the public's safe and convenient access to the beach. A very small group of pro over-development people sued both our City and OSOB to have these two Referenda declared a nullity, to have our vote declared as invalid. This litigation has progressed so that the final hearing is tentatively scheduled for this August. You may have read about the City Manager secretly communicating with the attorney suing the City. OSOB considers this behavior on the part of the City Manager to be inexcusable. This communication, both written and oral, with the attorney suing the City was without the knowledge of our City Attorney. The letters reflect the City Manager's efforts to assist the attorney suing the City to have your vote nullified. OSOB respects the will of the voters. OSOB's core principle is the empowerment of the people to have the public's voices heard by government. We happen to believe that the majority of the people agree that there has been over-development in the beach area and threatened in other areas of the City, and that this over-development in the beach area has made safe and convenient access to the beach more difficult, and that the over-development in the beach area has created unacceptable traffic congestion. It was because the City Commission was ignoring the wishes of the public that the OSOB sponsored the two Referenda in November 2002. 75% of the voters in November 2002 agreed with those Referenda. We believe that when the two Referenda became the law, that the City Manager was obligated to protect the will of the voters, instead of what he did, which was to try to collaborate with the opposing attorney to have your vote declared as meaningless. OSOB are regular citizens who care about what is best for our City. We are not rich developers who contribute a lot of money to campaigns and who hire large out-of-town law firms to lobby the City Commission. We are like you. We do not have a financial interest in development projects coming before the City Commission. But, we, like you, have an interest in preserving our quality of life from over-development. The next time that you hear someone criticize OSOB, ask what is the financial interest that OSOB has in the outcome (we have zero financial interest), and ask what financial interest those on the other side has in the outcome. When those questions are asked and answered, you will find that OSOB is acting from its belief that what the OSOB does is supported by the public and is for the public good. Citizens All Across Florida are Calling For Better Communities and a Greater Voice In Decision-Making Deerfield Beach's Original Save Our Beach committee (OSOB) is continuously contacted by citizens and citizen groups in many of Florida's communities who are angry about the impact over-development is having on their cities and are angry that their elected officials and city staff ignore the citizens in favor of the developers. They want some direction on how to halt over-development. Florida's fast rate of growth has affected many communities throughout Florida and growing numbers of citizens are voicing discontent. Traffic concerns, higher taxes, pollution, less green space, and other growth effects have left many furious with such changes to their quality of life. Discontent with government decision-making on growth and development has caused many to band together to put greater control into the hands of the people and initiate challenges to proposed new developments in their local areas. Citizens have an important role to play in shaping the destinies of local communities and the quality of life for Floridians. Florida Hometown Democracy Inc.'s Ross Burnaman of Tallahassee and Lesley Blackner of Palm Beach, attorneys who specialize in growth management and the environment, came up with an intelligent plan. They want to put an amendment on the ballot to require local governments to seek permission from voters before amending their comprehensive land-use plans. The original Florida Hometown Democracy Petition was first proposed two years ago, and over 50,000 verified petitions were accepted by the state. However, on March 17, 2005, a sharply-divided Florida Supreme Court narrowly ruled (4-3) that the first sentence in the required "ballot summary" was an "editorial comment", (although it was a direct quote from the Florida Constitution!), and struck the proposal. Notably, all of the Justices found that, other than the first sentence of the ballot summary, the rest of the original Petition met all legal requirements. Signature collection has to start all over again. There is now a NEW Petition identical to the original Petition except that it strikes the first sentence of the ballot summary that was disapproved by the four Justices. One of the best protections to the public in stopping the destruction of Florida's future is to put the voters in charge of their hometown land use plans. Florida's Hometown Democracy Amendment puts the decision concerning changing comprehensive plans in the hands of the citizens rather than the county or city commission. The referendum election will be held at the same time as the general election, so that no special elections will be necessary. Florida's Hometown Democracy Amendment gives greater stability and certainty to comprehensive plans by locking in existing land use categories and giving the keys to the voters. THIS AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION MEANS THAT THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE IF A PROPOSED CHANGE WILL MAKE THEIR COMMUNITY A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE. IF THE MAJORITY VOTES YES, THE CHANGE HAPPENS. IF THE MAJORITY VOTES NO, THE CHANGE DOESN'T HAPPEN. Go to the www.floridahometowndemocracy.com site for more information about this issue and a copy of the petition. Eminent Domain Dangers Government used to use Eminent Domain power prudently, usually to build schools, highways, parks or other established public uses. Not anymore. Eminent Domain is the power to force citizens from their homes and small businesses. Because the Founders were conscious of the possibility of abuse, the Fifth Amendment provides a very simple restriction: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” But, the increasing trend is for cities to seize a citizen's property so it can be turned over to a private developer to build luxury condos, shopping centers or other projects that are supposed to add money to the cities tax coffers. In its dreadful “Kelo” decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this is a legitimate use of Eminent Domain by effectively changing the wording of the Fifth Amendment, the Court opened a Pandora’s Box. In Florida, Republican and Democratic leaders immediately attempted to expand Eminent Domain. The Florida Senate moved quickly to pass procedures for local government officials to group private property together, seize it by Eminent Domain, and sell it to a developer. The bill would have allowed corporations to seize people's homes and businesses if they can promise higher tax revenue. Fortunately, this time, watchdog groups alerted members and mounted a heated campaign. They deluged legislators in the House (which expected speedy approval as the bill was worded carefully and did not use the words Eminent Domain) news media, and affected groups with a phone, fax and e-mail campaign that drew attention to the bill's language. This bill, with a companion bill, would essentially have revoked private property rights in the state of Florida. Just days before the end of the legislative session, the House bill's sponsors, Gayle Harrell and Kevin Ambler, withdrew their support of the bill and it died in the House without going to a vote. Our state legislature tried to slip this bill by and no one noticed the potential dangers of the legislation until it was almost too late do take action. Make no mistake: Florida developers are desperate for buildable land. This bill will be camouflaged and be back before our legislature again in the near future. Without the traditional Eminent Domain safeguards that required that there be a legitimate public use before government could take a person's property, people lose the homes they love and watch as they are replaced with condominiums. People lose the businesses they count on to put food on the table and watch as they are replaced with shopping malls. And all this happens because governments find condos and malls more lucrative than modest homes and small businesses. Currently, to claim Eminent Domain, Florida governments have to show blight. But in the definition of “blight” comes much abuse. Properties are routinely taken when there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, except that some well-heeled developer covets them and the government hopes to increase its tax revenue. One city is trying to condemn a subdivision because the road is in poor repair, even though the houses are in excellent condition. Consider: Sunset Hills, Mo. On July 12, less than three weeks after the Kelo ruling officials voted to allow the condemnation of 85 homes and small businesses for a shopping center and office complex. Riviera Beach, Fla. Officials of this poor, predominantly black Florida town plan to relocate about 6,000 residents to make room for a billion-dollar yachting and housing complex. Oakland, Calif. A week after the Supreme Court’s ruling officials used Eminent Domain to evict John Revelli from his downtown tire shop to make way for a new housing development. Said Revelli of his fight with the City, “We thought we’d win, but the Supreme Court took away my last chance.” Hollywood, Fla. For the second time in a month officials have used Eminent Domain to take private property and give it to a developer for private gain. Emboldened by the Kelo ruling, City commissioners took a bank parking lot to make way for an exclusive condo tower. When asked what the public purpose of the taking was, City Attorney Dan Abbott didn’t hesitate before answering, “Economic development, which is a legitimate public purpose according to the United States Supreme Court.” In a New Jersey town officials have voted to seize 143 acres of valuable real estate to give it to a politically connected developer -- even though the land owner already wants to build exactly the kind of warehouse distribution center the city wants. On August 19, 2005, a court in Florida relied on Kelo in upholding the condemnation of several boardwalk businesses for a newer, more expensive boardwalk development. Using Eminent Domain so that another, richer, better-connected person may live or work on the land you used to own tells Americans that their hopes, dreams and hard work do not matter as much as money and political influence. Eminent Domain abuse must be prohibited to prevent the taking of private property for the benefit of private developers. Eminent domain should only be utilized for a public benefit, such as a needed highway or school. The taking of private property for private development should be prohibited. Bad and Good By Bett Willett Original Save Our Beach Co-president Wilma crashed through Deerfield with punishing results. It was a really bad week; a really bad week during which I met some really good people. - Twelve marvelously good people. When Commissioner Pam Militello called me and said that the Salvation Army food distribution location needed volunteers to serve lunches and dinners I said sure, why not, I have time and it was only a short drive to Westside Park. Marti McGeary also agreed so we drove out and found a big white trailer with red letters "Salvation Army Disaster Services, Florida Division, BASE CAMP KITCHEN" next to an L shaped row of tables under a tired white canopy. A number of busy people wearing golden colored shirts and hats were energetically organizing the lunch service. We were welcomed briskly, given the low down - must wear plastic gloves - fill the Styrofoam containers just so - and put to work. As I dished out food from large plastic bins I had a chance to chat with the staffers. They were from Michigan, that's right, the state of Michigan. They had flown in to Florida, leaving husbands, wives and children behind, to camp out in a hotel and work from dawn to dark preparing, serving and cleaning up thousands of lunches and dinners. They were members of the Southern Baptist Conference Disaster Relief asked by the Salvation Army to help out. Some of them were fresh from serving food for victims of Katrina for the Red Cross, and were now here, in Deerfield Beach, offering hot lunches and dinners for Wilma's afflicted. All the way from Michigan; I had thought a while about whether I wanted to drive a mile and give up a few hours. The group was working from an unfamiliar kitchen; their usual well equipped facility was in use elsewhere. They had only one working burner and foodstuffs were in erratic supply, nevertheless, they did the job. When I mentioned how great they were and what a good job they were doing one worker casually mentioned that in Texas and Mississippi they did much better as they had a better kitchen truck. I was fascinated by their matter of fact attitude. Texas, then home for five days, Mississippi, then home for two weeks, long enough to cut the grass and do a few chores, and now they were here in Deerfield Beach. In our hectic days of filling food boxes with chili or sandwiches or beef stew or pasta and meatballs, or meat loaf, I made some new friends; we joked and traded family stories. We were frenzied during the dinner rush, hoping the food would hold out and thankful for the infrequent lull when we could sit for a few minutes. We chuckled when the brisk post-Wilma breeze ripped the foam boxes right out of our hands, and good naturedly teased when one section of the line lagged behind another. The Sunday joke was that we were getting double time pay, twice times zero! On Tuesday it poured all day but clad in flimsy plastic ponchos, under the skinny canopy, they dished out hundreds of lunches and dinners, I learned that if you tuck a plastic bag in your hat and let it hang over your neck the rain won't drip down your collar. I gave a few of the women a ride to Walgreens to get some burn salve, (One got a nasty burn from the finicky stove) and some snacks for their hotel room. They thanked me; imagine that, they came a thousand or so miles here from Michigan, spent days eating on the fly and helping us, and they acted as if I were the one doing something special. Imagine that! These are good people, when they left, I was very sorry to see them go, I need them. I need them to remind me about being good and unselfish and about being happy to be useful. To remind me that giving doesn't require payback and that even if I am being taken advantage of by some, the vast majority are appreciative and even if they are not, so what. There was a need and these good folks showed up to fill it. Thank you Pete Blythe, Mary and Oscar Chantrenne, Bob Hays, Elwyn and Grace Hensen, Lee Mays, Heather Mydloski, Carla Stzunk, Dawn and Julia Teller, Chris Tunton, Win Williams, Rose Zaleski thank you for the residents of Deerfield Beach with no electricity, but with hot meals, and thank you, from me, thank you so much from me. The Original Save Our Beach Committee exists to help preserve the quality of life in Deerfield Beach; one way that is done is through education. Recently members of the Committee attended a meeting of the Nature Club in Century Village and presented a program on preserving our reefs. Marti McGeary was the speaker and stressed the importance of the coral reefs. She told how Florida's reef tract is composed of outer barrier reefs and patch reefs and is the only living barrier reef system in North America. Our coral reef ecosystem is complex, consisting of coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds. Each of these communities plays an important role in the life and health of the reef, from providing nurseries for young reef creatures to filtering water and trapping sediments. The delicate marine environment of the reef itself relies upon the interaction of many different forms of life: hard and soft corals, algae, fish, sponges, crustaceans, worms, turtles, dolphins and other sea life. Corals typically grow only one-half inch per year. Soft corals such as sea whips and sea fans lack the rigid exoskeleton of the hard corals and they sway in the ocean currents, but are comprised of living animals as well. Coral, for all its sturdy appearance, is extremely fragile. The lightest touch with fins, hands or equipment can crush or destroy the living coral polyps, leaving the coral vulnerable to disease and bleaching. Coral bleaching occurs when stressful conditions occur and the zooxanthellae leave the host coral and the coral then appears white, or colorless. Coral reefs need clear, clean, nutrient free waters to thrive. Florida's delicate coral reefs are literally being destroyed by cumulative impacts-from declining water quality from agricultural runoff and inadequate sewage and storm water treatment, to physical impacts from accidental boat groundings, anchors, marine debris, fishing gear and even the careless touch of a diver or snorkeler. Add to that the global impact of sea temperature change and global warming and you can understand why it's said "We are loving our reefs to death." Marti also showed a video which depicted the different stages of the reefs. Another way the OSOB committee champions Deerfield Beach is by supporting its youth. Recently committee members attended the Deerfield Beach High School football playoffs. The Deerfield Beach team put on a gallant effort, supported by the cheerleaders who were an extremely enthusiastic and engaging group, they cheered throughout the entire game tirelessly! The marching band was superb, the music was upbeat and the half-time show was a joy. They are all truly champions indeed.
			Constitutional Rights Trampled On the 4th of July, 2004 Tom Connick, the OSOB Lawyer was contacted by Pam Militello about a problem at the beach, it appears that Larry Deetjen, the Deerfield Beach city manager, gave an order concerning OSOB not being allowed to distribute literature or gather signatures inside a certain area. That order was passed on through a Mr. Fisher. The police officers apparently obey the Mayor, City Manager and staff unless they are given contrary orders from higher up in the administration of the sheriff's office. The officers told the OSOB group, who had started to pass out literature, and had set up a canopy that they could not do that and that they had to move. It must be stressed that OSOB acted at all times in a polite and orderly fashion. The police from the sheriff's department were polite and courteous. The police were following instructions. Those instructions from the city manager were unconstitutional. Mr. Connick then tried to contact the police chief. It took 2 hours before the chief finally called him. For a period of time on July 4th, our country's Independence Day, constitutional rights were taken away by the police who were following the inappropriate orders of the city manager. This was the second time this week that the city manager has given the order to take away the citizen's constitutional rights by involving the sheriff's department. City Manager Deetjen's first instruction concerning citizen's being able to express themselves through paper plates expressing their views against the Boinis' pier restaurant proposal will not be carried out. City Manager Deetjen's second order to limit the passing out of literature and gather signatures in a public place, was carried out for at least 2 hours because there was not a mechanism in place to get through to someone in authority in the sheriff's department to countermand a constitutionally inappropriate order from City Manager Deetjen. Mr. Connick met with Chief Ruffett on Wednesday to discuss the improper things which have been happening at recent public meetings, such as the use of "Reserved" seats being enforced by deputy sheriffs for 3 trolley cars of people bused in by Boinis at the Planning and Zoning Meeting so that they would take seats meant for the public. In that discussion, the Chief asked if there would be any picketing or demonstrations during July 4th. Mr. Connick told him the next day (Thursday) that there would be no picketing or demonstrations, but there would be the handing out of literature. The primary focus of the conversation was the paper plate prohibition that was ordered by City Manager Deetjen. He thought that there was no issue concerning the ability of people to hand out literature or obtain signatures at a public place, especially on Independence Day, and was therefore totally surprised concerning the stifling of free expression on Independence Day. We have a great empathy for sheriff deputies who are trying to carry out orders. Having police power is a very important responsibility. City Manager Deetjen has ruthlessly abused that police power by denying citizens their constitutional rights. Mr Connick will be speaking with the sheriff's department about instituting a procedure so that this misuse of police power by the City Manager does not occur again. What happened July 4th was serious. The City Commission has shown no oversight concerning City Manager Deetjen. With City Manager Deetjen violating or attempting to violate the constitutional rights of citizens twice in one week, and being successful on Independence Day in violating those constitutional rights, the Sheriff is going to have to institute a procedure so that this kind of police action by the sheriff's department does not happen again.
			Letter from Tom Connick, hand delivered to City Commissioners. LAW OFFICES BOUTWELL & CONNICK A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS POST OFFICE BOX 1186 DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA 33441 ROBERT E. BOUTWELL, P.A. TELEPHONE: 954-428-0300 A. THOMAS CONNICK, P.A. FACSIMILE: 954-428-6506 HAND DELIVERY July 6, 2004 Mayor Albert Capellini Commissioner Peggy Noland (District 1) Commissioner Gwyndolen A. Clarke-Reed (District 2) Commissioner Amadeo Trinchitella (District 3) Vice Mayor and Commissioner Stephen Gonot (District 4) City of Deerfield Beach 150 NE 2nd Avenue Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 Re: Constitutional rights Dear Commissioners: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." – Edmund Burke There comes a time when each of you, as elected public officials, have a duty to stand up for what is right. If you fail in that duty, you have failed as elected officials. Our most precious public rights are the rights guaranteed all of us under the United States Constitution. The City Manager, with the approval of the Mayor, has infringed upon the United States Constitutional Rights of free expression of those whose opinions the City Manager and Mayor do not agree. It is sadly ironic that these infringements on constitutional rights occurred during the occasion of the celebration of our country's Independence, and even on Independence Day itself. These events are: 1. The City Manager, with the Mayor's approval, instructing the Chief to have deputies forbid citizens with paper plates from entering the Commission Chambers, lobby and old school house with those paper plates at the July 6th City Commission meeting. As you know from the last meeting, some in opposition to the Boinis 54 year lease proposal had paper plates that said "NO" on them. It is my understanding that, at the instruction of Sheriff's Office, the Chief is appropriately refusing to follow that order. 2. The City Manager, with the Mayor's approval, instructing the deputies on July 4th to disallow the distribution of literature and gathering of signatures in opposition to the 54 year pier lease. Members of OSOB were told of being prohibited from distributing in an area that changed from being in the festival area, to being in the entire beach area, and then being allowed. For two hours on July 4th, our country's Independence Day, citizens' constitutional rights were violated by the order of the City Manager. You have to make a determination as to where you stand on the constitutional rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This is a serious matter. This issue is beyond the proposed outrageous 54 year sweetheart lease deal to a Boca Raton restaurateur of city owned oceanfront property, for a huge restaurant that will cause congestion to the beach area, that the City Manager and Mayor so fervently embrace and that the public so overwhelmingly opposes. For being so adamant and intransigent in trying to stifle the free expression of those whose views the City Manager opposes, and using the police power, with the Mayor's approval, to enforce that suppression of views, you must meaningfully discipline the City Manager. By doing nothing and saying nothing, you are in your silence condoning what happened on July 4th. Sincerely, Tom Connick cc: City Manager City Clerk City Attorney
			E-Mail to the OSOB Inc. Membership: Hello everyone. Thought you would be interested to read the letter from my husband Sandy and my comments. Susannah Bryan is a staff writer for the Sun-Sentinel. - Pam Militello The paper plates should become a symbol of Freedom of Speech for the citizens in Deerfield. I am considering putting one in my living room window and one in the rear window of my car as an expression of the free speech our Mayor and City Manager are trying to take away. Maybe if we all put this simple paper plate with the word "NO" in our windows and on our cars, this commission and city manager will finally "get it". It is certainly worth a try. To: Susannah Bryan Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 9:59 AM Subject: Freedom of Speech in Deerfield Hi Susannah. Below is a letter my husband wrote regarding the events which took place during the July 4th holiday. Sandy and I are both very troubled by Larry Deetjen and Mayor Capellini's behavior. They are both so pro-development and blinded by the "BS" every developer feeds them, that they have lost sight of what their duties are. They have lost sight that people are allowed to have opinions, which will be different from their opinions. They have lost sight that we have a constitutional right to freedom of speech, even if Larry and Al do not like what we have to say. They have lost sight of what the people in Deerfield Beach want. The paper plates incident is an example of the arrogance these two men display. Their attempt to stifle our freedom of speech by trying to deny us the right to display paper plates emblazoned with NO is outrageous. Larry, Al and Trinchi did not have a problem with signs in the commission chamber when they "secretly" negotiated Larry's contract a couple of years ago. In fact, there were "Long Live Capellini" signs in the city hall lobby and Trichi had instructed Burgess to pass out large signs to select members of the audience, which showed support for Larry's decision to not go to Daytona and stay in Deerfield. Sandy & I were at this commission meeting and saw what Burgess was doing. We asked him who gave him permission for the signs and he told us Trinchi. We told him that Larry was not an elected official and it was totally inappropriate for a commissioner to be placing "support Larry" signs in the audience. Larry's attempt to take away our right to freedom of speech on the Fourth of July was the ultimate in arrogance and shows how blinded he has become in his quest to destroy our community. He absolutely cannot accept the fact that people do not share his vision for our community so he had decided to take away our constitutional rights in an attempt to shut us up. He has apparently convinced some of the police in this community that he has the right to take away our rights. It is very discouraging to see your quote from our police chief in the paper " Our deputies are not well versed in First Amendment rights. Considering their job is to uphold the laws and protect the rights of citizens, it is very scary that the Police Chief would offer this excuse for the behavior of his department on the Fourth of July. The chief also told one of his officers to videotape the people at the commission meeting. I asked the chief why and he said that he gave that instruction so there could be no allegations of misconduct at the meeting. The videotaping certainly seemed to concentrate on the "NO" people more than the "YES" people, especially in the commission chamber. I do not know if you saw this or not, but when Channel 10 showed up with their camera, the videotaping officer was discreetly asked to step down from the dais, moved to the chamber door and slowly backed out of the chamber. Guess he did not want Channel 10 to video him videotaping the citizens in a commission meeting. In a nut shell, Larry Deetjen, with the blessing of Al Capellini, is out of control. They have their own agenda and vision for Deerfield and are obviously upset that the vast majority of the citizens do not share their misguided vision. Since we won't go away and will not be quiet and are asserting our constitutional rights, the only way they can fight us is to take away our rights. Well, it will not work. The innocuous paper plate with "NO" is going to become a symbol of freedom of speech in this town. We will not allow Larry, the mayor, the commissioners or the police to trample on our rights! Thanks for your articles Susannah and please continue to seek the truth about what is really going on in Deerfield. Pam Militello Sandy Militello's letter to the Sun-Sentinel: The smoke has temporarily cleared but by no means will it completely go away until the Pier Project sanctioned by local Deerfield officials and a developer is defeated. It is unfortunate that our Mayor Al Capellini, City Mgr. Larry Deetjen and Chief of Police Ron Reffett apparently are totally unaware of the U.S.Constitutions first amendment which states “ Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Firstly, on the 4th of July, 2004, Independence Day when we celebrate our constitutional rights and freedom our elected Mayor and appointed City Manager usurped their powers by taking away a persons rights of freedom of expression and speech. They tried to disallow freedom of expression and assemblage by misinforming and directing law enforcement to take away individuals constitutional rights by removing them from assemblage in a festival area that is public property. Secondly, I read a statement, which was published in the Sun Sentinel that the Broward County Sheriff Chief of Deerfield Beach stated “ Deputies are not well-versed in First Amendment rights”. I find this a very disturbing statement. These are the individuals who are responsible to enforce and protect the given rights of every citizen. This should be a requirement that every Deputy be well informed and learned on the rights of citizens protected by the Bill of Rights. As our Mayor Al Capellini has time and again said, “ leave it to the professionals”. My question is, if these elected and appointed officials who are supposedly the professionals are not familiar with the Constitution of the United States to uphold our rights then why do we need them? This issue boils down to a quote taken from the Grand Haven, Michigan Tribune,” there is a lack of communication, and a lack of trust” necessary to conduct city affairs. It may be time to consider and explore other avenues to find a representational government and an appointed public official who understands and listens to the people. IT MAY BE TIME TO REDRESS GRIEVANCES. Sandy Militello
			From: "Maria Pflug To: Sun Sentinel July 2, 2004 RE: The privatization of the Deerfield Beach Pier The city manager, Larry Deetjen and the mayor Al Cappellini, tried to take away our right to speak at the Deerfield Beach City Commission on July 6, 2004 @7pm. We want to express our disdain at the city's attempts to ram the Deerfield Beach Pier Project down our throats and hide the facts about the true cost of this project. We decided to take paper plates and write the word "NO" on them and use these plates (in lieu of the Mayor's and City Manager's decision that there would be no public statements at the July 6th meeting.) Mayor Cappellini and City Manager Larry Deetjen issued a decision "No paper plates will be allowed at the July 6,2004 meeting and this decision will be enforced by the police department." This is about more than a city's bragging rights for who has the best beach and the best city in the state. This is bigger than another restaurant project on the beach. This is about our right to express ourselves and letting our city government know how Deerfield Beach City residents feel about this project. This is about a power- abusive city manager who wishes to sign his name on the city map of Deerfield Beach and be infamous. This is about a mayor and city manager who wish to squash the hopes and dreams of small business entrepeneurs in favor of large sweetheart deals. This is about power, and money, and the trampling of the average citizen's right to free speech. This is about a small hometown beach where you can go to enjoy the ocean, with your family and friends. This is about a small piece of heaven where tranquility still exists and you can be alone with your thoughts. This is about a place called America.
			EDITORIAL BY BETT WILLETT The Broward County Charter has voter-approved Countywide Land Use Provisions. Provisions voted for in 1974 because of concerns of residents over rapid uncontrolled development. Every six years a Charter Review Commission reviews proposed revisions, and some minor changes have been made. But, not one municipality proposed any changes in the Land Use Provisions during the last review in 2000. Granted, the county has approved most city-proposed projects, the voter-hoped-for rein on development was late in coming. Content that the county would continue to rubberstamp it’s bloated proposals, the cities enjoyed the benefits of the Land Use Provisions with county monies used for: acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and open spaces, the county regional park system, protection of rural ranch communities, collection of $100,000,000 in school impact fees, over $50,000,000 in road, transit and park impact fees, developer land dedications and developer funded road improvements, preservation of the rights-of-way for the regional roadway network saving millions of land-acquisition dollars, and many other county to city perks. Over a year ago, the County Office of Urban Planning and Redevelopment Staff was given a charge to study the Land Use Provisions for a state mandated Evaluation Assessment Report (EAR). Workshops and public meetings were held, attended by community elected officials, staff and the general public. After taking a long hard look at Broward county, researching, listening to the concerns of all representatives and consulting with various experts the report was presented. It included population projections, compatibility review changes and density recommendations. One of the recommendations was, due to increased density and emergency evacuation problems, to ban Regional Activity Centers (RACs) on Barrier Islands. Seven of the thirty Broward County cities (Davie, Ft. Lauderdale, Hallandale Beach, Hollywood, Miramar, Pompano Beach and Weston) reacted exactly as a spoiled chubby child does when his candy is taken away. They whined and they cried. Then they got together, formed a coalition and hired expensive lawyers. (Deerfield Beach has since joined this “EAR Coalition”) Trying to justify their continuing plans to over-densify the beaches, they pretended not to understand the accuracy of the report and that the county was doing what the Charter demanded - enforcing the smart growth planning demanded by voters. Each of the cities in their EAR Coalition is paying about $5,000 per month of taxpayer dollars to fund the effort. A coalition that is trying to do the exact opposite of what most taxpayers in the cities want. The cities wailed that their “home rule” was being usurped. Nothing was being taken away from the cities; the County was finally doing its job. BUT, with fears of reduced tax and developer dollars, and again ignoring the wishes of their residents these few cities started a smear campaign against the County and began a drive to grab all land use decisions for themselves. During each meeting between the Ear Coalition and the County Commissioners, the cities stubbornly refused to budge on many issues including compatibility review, increased density, and RACs on the Barrier Islands. The County, knowing that these issues are vital to Broward’s effort to control over-development and protect the county as a whole wisely would not give up oversight of these countywide important-to-smart-growth issues. What will happen if the cities succeed? Remember when Enron wanted its diesel burning, pollution belching power plant in Deerfield Beach and offered $1,000,000 to the city to grease the way? The Deerfield Beach mayor, commission and city manager lapped it up like eager puppies, paying absolutely no heed to the concerns of residents or neighboring communities. The county responded to the alarm from the adjoining cities and Deerfield residents and prevented the power plant from being built. If the County looses the checks and balances of oversight, the cities will have free rein to change land use at a developer’s whim, build high-rises, or commercial developments wherever they want, without regard to how compatible they are to the neighborhood or neighboring communities. Keeping the Barrier Islands from added density and over-development is crucial to the quality of life to all residents in the county. However, adding development on the islands will generate millions of dollars for developers who will spend what it takes to get their way, offering inducements to each city until the islands are completely paved, traffic is worse than ever and tourists flock elsewhere. If you doubt this will happen, take a drive up A1A from South Beach to Bal Harbor. Broward County needs county oversight as the population swells. Our current 1.7 million residents may soon be 2.5 million if projections prove correct. Cities are demanding land use changes with greater densities to accommodate this growth. Current residents have environmental concerns, traffic considerations, infrastructure and water supply concerns, overcrowded schools, lack of affordable housing and open space retention worries all which are multi-city not just one-city concerns. They rightly question whether Broward County should or can build housing for this influx. Residents are demanding limits and voting for representatives who will control growth. However, in reality, developer friendly officials can do a lot of damage before they are voted out and getting good people to run for office is very difficult. Pro-development candidates get fat checks for their campaign coffers from realtors and developers, and buy their way into office at the city, county and state level. The appeal of the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment which would give voter approval, statewide, to any changes in local land use plans, and County Commissioner John Rodstrom, Jr.’s proposal to put to a vote a similar measure in Broward County is understandable and given the past record and public distrust of elected officials, logical. Whether the cities succeed in this power grab from the county or not, given the behavior of the officials, the voters will, almost certainly, take measures into their own hands and pass referenda which will put land use change requests in the voters hands. Uncontrolled Growth Local governments are making lots of money from over development. Their campaign chests swell with contributions while they are royally wooed by development's lobbyists and, as a result, have entered a state of denial about the future. If the county control over land use is eliminated, each city will be at the mercy of city managers and commissions whose tunnel vision on land use may well lead to destruction of any green or open space left and massive over-development, under the guise of re-development. A generation ago, planners and scientists concluded that Florida's fragile natural resources ideally could sustain a population of 6 million to 7 million. Today Florida has 16 million residents and tens of millions of visitors. The resident population has doubled every generation since 1940 and is projected to do so again by 2030. The current 16 million is twice what we should have, BUT local governments and state planners have already approved developments under existing laws for a population exceeding 100 million - even if everything stopped now, 100 million - already approved and in the works! This wasn't supposed to happen. The state mandated Local Land Use Plans. Cities were expected to reject proposed developments that didn't fit within required land-use designations or didn't show a favorable public cost-benefit return or didn't protect open lands important to water supply, wildlife and agriculture. It could have worked, and for a while in the late 1980s it seemed to be working, with the state watching over the local governments. But the understaffed Department of Community Affairs, became overwhelmed by amendment requests, and got a not so subtle message from Tallahassee about biting the hand of the housing industry. As a result the oversight gradually became little more than a wink and a nod. Local governments recognized the shift and soon began rubberstamping growth, while shrugging as if helpless to say no to bad development. Most current local politicians and city managers have no intention of protecting Florida's quality of life or future from bad development, they are making too much money today for the future to matter. So uncontrolled, willy-nilly growth continues unabated, even though our schools can't take it, our roads can't take it, our water supply can't take it, our remaining beautiful places can't take it and most locals don't want it, as witness every recent election where anti-over-developmentcandidates and save-our-beaches referenda were overwhelming supported. We the people are saying STOP, no more givebacks, no more winks and nods. Not only do we want the local governments to consider quality of life in our cities and the protection of our precious natural resources, and safeguard the few bits of green and open space we have left - above all profit, and tax base gain, - but we insist that the county and state governments make this abundantly clear by enforcing the protective laws, not by introducing bills such as Senator Geller's which take away the role of the county in land use decisions of cities.We need holistic oversight; we need protection. Politicians, who have a track record of voting in favor of granting developers favors and allowing public lands to be used for private gain should be afraid. It may take a few years, but the people are speaking, shouting, and voting.
			YES For The Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment Florida Hometown Democracy Inc.'s Ross Burnaman of Tallahassee and Lesley Blackner of Palm Beach, attorneys who specialize in growth management and the environment have come up with an intelligent plan. They want to put an amendment on the November 2004 ballot to require local governments to seek permission from voters before amending their comprehensive land-use plans. The Datona Beach News-Journal, in an editorial on July 20, 2003 stated:"This state doesn't manage growth; it plays it, staking finite resources on a Ponzi scheme's final payoff. Those who condone the lie with their silence are letting land speculators profit on the subsidy of public infrastructure and buy off this state with the pauper's wages of a tourist economy while trumpeting the empty promise that growing bigger will bring everyone prosperity. Author-activist Edward Abbey warned us otherwise when he wrote, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." The cancer gets bigger by destroying the host. A generation ago…planners and scientists concluded the state…could sustain a population of 6 million to 7 million. Today Florida has 16 million residents…The resident population has doubled every generation since 1940 and is projected to do so again by 2030. But that's not the worst of it. Local governments and state planners have already approved developments under existing growth management laws for a population exceeding 100 million." If Florida Hometown Democracy Inc. gets 500,000 valid signatures on petitions, voters would decide whether to amend the state constitution to require local referenda for changes in land use plans (which Florida politicians currently override on a regular basis). If this amendment does not pass, Florida will be destroyed, one comprehensive growth plan change, at a time. The developers and politicians who benefit from the status quo will try to stamp out the amendment drive with bribery and bluster. With this amendment they would have to prove to the community that their land-use changes were for the community good. Go to The Florida Home Town Democracy site for more information about this issue and a copy of the petition. "PLEASE PRINT OUT AND SIGN THE PETITION Click here for a printable copy AND MAIL IT IN NOW!" Print out the form, make copies and pass them around. This is a legitimate grass-roots effort by people who care about this state. Chamber Head Snubs Cove Businesses Janyce Becker's performance at Deerfield Beach Commissioner Militello’s Dist. 1 meeting shows how out of touch the Chamber leadership is with the small business community. As a Cove resident and member of the Chamber of Commerce, I and many others were appalled by her comments. At least 200 people gasped for air when Ms. Becker announced that she doesn't send people to shop in the Cove because it isn’t "jazzy, classy, or sexy" enough. This was not only insensitive, but downright insulting, and financially detrimental to the hard working Cove businesses. This raises the question: How many other businesses does Janyce Becker personally blackball? Ms. Becker continued by commenting that she thought an upscale, "anchor business" was needed. She and the Chamber leadership just don’t get it. The Cove businesses have the interests of their patrons at heart. They deserve to be preserved, and promoted. Livelihoods are at stake! These businesses are very important to our city's economy and the "flavor" of Deerfield Beach. The City needs to fulfill its obligation to update and maintain the parking areas it owns and enforce the city codes. With no pedestrian crosswalks and poor lighting it is very unsafe. Janyce should perhaps start making an amends by getting out her broom to sweep the Cove parking lot early Saturday and Sunday mornings after the late night clubbing crowd at the Cove Restaurant trashes it. Let’s not forget that the previous City Commission granted variances to the Cove Restaurant that have exacerbated the parking situation, congestion, and trash problems in the entire Cove Shopping Center. The Chamber was OK with these variances and didn’t care about the adverse effect on the other Cove businesses. If Janyce has difficulty sweeping, perhaps she will fly away on her broom to a jazzier, classier, sexier place of employment. Marti Mc Geary Fire Deetjen Deerfield Beach City Manager Deetjen should be fired, one commissioner, point blank, asked him to resign. The three commissioners who did an evaluation report on him all said they had trouble trusting what he said. Recently, he was asked not to attend a district meeting, after agreeing, he barged into the meeting and as much as called the commissioner a liar. His wife (and I have no doubt, he also, behind the scenes) is involved in the recall smear attempt on Commissioner Gonot. A recent newspaper editorial wondered: "Why aren't Deerfield Beach residents, armed with pitchforks, storming City Hall and demanding to know whether Mayor Al Capellini and City Manager Larry Deetjen work for the city or for their own interests and those of developers?" I assume some of the reasons behind the editors' opinions are that Deetjen: sent a letter to the County to assist Mayor Capellini's client Lanzo Construction in which he falsely indicated that the City approved the loss of part of a flow easement (the flow easement means that water has to stay there instead of the water being filled in), when the City Commission never approved the loss of the flow easement; encouraged Enron despite the pleas of the residents of Independence Bay, it took the county to step in to stop that mess; promoted housing development of the golf course at Tam O'Shanter as well as high rise condominiums of the golf course at Deerfield Golf Club, totally ignoring the pleas of the residents around those golf courses to retain the open green space. supported give-aways to developers (e.g. the Main Beach Parking Lot), to the detriment of the public; " backed the Boinis Bad Deal Pier Proposal. The City Manager schemed with the Boinis group for innumerable hours to get the bad deal through despite overwhelming public opposition to this financially unrewarding, massive pier restaurant bad deal. was reprimanded for backing the proposed lease on a partnership in a parking garage and his inappropriate appearance before the Planning and Zoning Board to promote the project; caused citizens to have to petition for 3 referenda in 6 years to protect the beach area because Deetjen and Capellini didn't listen to the people; promoted the Ocean "Park" Referendum, a commercial development on the beach which the public had to defeat at the election in 2000. " advocated the Fire Fee tax for Churches and other tax exempt organizations, public outrage was needed to reverse that decision cost the city millions in law suit settlements with more to come. (Firefighters, Pocket Parks, Referenda 2002); solicited funds and people to sue the city and join the lawsuit against the city. Deetjen corresponded and communicated with the attorney suing to have our vote declared invalid; was instrumental in trying to deny residents our First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech during the pier restaurant issue, during commission meetings and the election campaign. Citizens had to go directly to the Sheriff's Department to prevent the city manager from denying them freedom of speech. The citizens of Deerfield Beach need to demand, Deetjen's removal, or, at the very least, his suspension until his contract is up, and then a quick boot out the door. TOD - Too Bad for Deerfield Deerfield Beach voted a zoning change and designated the approximately 8 acre parcel immediately east of the Tri-Rail Station on Hillsboro Boulevard as a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) area, changing the zoning from an allowable 25 residential units per acre to 75 units of mixed use per acre. Before the area was even voted on a developer already had a plan for 372 apartment rentals, 282 condominiums, and a 200 room hotel. A TOD Workshop was held to discuss the new zoning. Literature was handed out which said that a "TOD is the creation of compact, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. This makes it possible to live a higher quality life without complete dependence on a car for mobility and survival." It also stated that factors driving TODs are "mind-numbing traffic congestion …desire for more walkable lifestyles… and smart growth"; it goes on to reemphasize the traffic congestion problems. The Deerfield Beach TOD area does not have a high quality train system, and even if in the next five years or so Tri-rail improves, it still does not go east/west. What it does have is massive increased density along a corridor which cannot handle the traffic it now has. Very few things in the planned Deerfield Beach TOD will be walkable. Schools will not, doctors will not, supermarkets will not, shopping centers will not, in short the massive increase in density will increase traffic congestion radically. A city representative defended the project saying that the transportation will eventually come to meet the need, but agreed in the short term, 10-15 years, the traffic will be a problem. Hillsboro Boulevard is already an F (worst traffic rating) rated road. We cannot afford to wait, we must not add to the congestion and pollution. First supply the transit, then the housing, not the cart before the horse. TODs are designed to provide livable affordable workforce housing, not second homes for snowbirds or upscale housing for the wealthy. The TOD handout also said that a TOD will have: "Reduced household spending on transportation, resulting in more affordable housing." Not likely here, each household will most assuredly have the usual 2 cars increasing the already nightmarish traffic, not to mention the increase in traffic caused by trips to the beach and Flamingo Gardens and Lion Country from the 200 room hotel. Working people will not be able to afford the rental units or the prices of the condos. The developer said that the already high projected prices might have to go up depending on construction costs. Unlike the ideal TOD, the Deerfield Beach TOD is not designed to upgrade a deteriorating urban area which already has stores, schools, markets, jobs, and multiple modes of transit. Additional density is allowed in this type of TOD to make it possible for a developer to build housing and make a profit while keeping prices of homes affordable for working people. The additional density in the Deerfield Beach TOD will make massive profits for the developer and massive traffic and pollution problems for Hillsboro Boulevard.
			Site © 2002 by "Willett World Designs" HOME \| HISTORY\| PHOTOS \| MEMBERSHIP \| NOTICES \| ISSUES

LAWSUIT FACTS