Florida Sentry

xxxxxVolume XV Number 27xxXxxxxx X x xxx x ((954) 532-2000xxxxxxxxxxxxx X X X X2 July 2009

In My Opinion

by Ed Stanton

The June 23rd commission meeting didn’t last long but the Commissioners dealt with several very important subjects.
Term Limits
At a previous meeting the Commissioners directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance giving the voters the opportunity to vote for or against term limits of eight years.
Members of the Coalition For Ethical Government and other residents had been requesting that opportunity for over four years.
When the ordinance came up for a vote, Mayor Fisher and Commissioner Portier surprised everyone by changing their previous position and voted with Brummer to defeat it.

Fisher attempted to justify his change of position saying that he had asked a resident advocate of term limits why term limits is needed. The resident advocate answer was that at election time incumbents had an unfair advantage because they could raise more campaign funds than their opponents. Fisher then cited a number of instances in which incumbents were defeated despite the fact that they raised and spent more money than their opponents.
Because of this Fisher concluded that there was no need to have term limits and that the voters should not be given the opportunity to express their views.
The facts stated by the Mayor were correct. We, the voters, were able to defeat incumbents Hardin, Bill Griffin and Susan Foster despite the fact that they raised more money than their opponents. But Fischer’s conclusion is invalid because he considered only one of the several reasons why term limits should be adopted.
He conveniently ignored the other arguments in his attempt to justify his refusal to comply with the voters’ wishes.
The editorial page of the September 16, 2008 Sun Sentinel gives a few of the reasons why we should have term limits.
1. 86% of lobbyists oppose term limits because lobbyists and special interests lose their power and influence which comes from developing long term relationships with incumbents;
2. N.Y. City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “Yes, you throw out an occasional good person, but you also throw out a lot of people who have just gotten stale and haven’t had any new ideas.”.
3. History shows that junior legislators are more careful about how they spend the public’s money ... many legislators who start out as sincere fiscal conservatives tend to become liberal with other people’s money the longer they’re in office. Term limits nip this problem in the bud.
And finally, this writer in response to the same question as to why term limits is needed replied, “Because the voters want it and you are supposed to represent the public’s interest not your selfish power preservation interest."
Fisher and Brummer don’t want to give voters the opportunity to approve or disapprove eight year term limits. Brummer has publically stated that the voters would overwhelmingly approve term limits if given the opportunity to vote. Our President, Governor, State Legislature, Broward County Commissioners and 13 Broward Cities have adopted term limits of six to nine years.
In every community where given the opportunity, more than 70% of the voters have approved term limits. Commissioners Dockswell, Burrie and Hardin should be congratulated for representing the people’s interest by voting to put the question on the ballot.
All voters, those for or against, should remember at election time that Fisher, Brummer and Portier have denied us the right to determine whether or not we want term limits.
July 4th Fireworks
Neither the Mayor or other Commissioners gave any consideration to Commissioner Burrie’s suggestions that the City could save $100,000.00 by eliminating the fireworks or that more than $50,000.00 of our money could be saved by moving the show inland. Only resident Barbara Gordon spoke in favor of keeping the fireworks on the beach. She spent most of her three minutes expressing annoyance with all the protection given to the survival of the turtles. She opined that action could be taken to protect the turtles on the beach.
I remind the Mayor and Commissioners that we are in a depression with unemployment exceeding 10%, that families are losing their homes and their health benefits and that we have a 3.8 million dollar shortfall in next year’s budget. Taxpayers want a reduction in taxes and fees and not an increase. I suggest that the Mayor and Commissioners eliminate all non-essential services before firing nine employees and reducing other services which they plan to do.
The fireworks display is only is only one example of an unnecessary expense. Moving the fireworks inland would save more of our tax money.

Fourth of July fireworks will go on as planned in several South Florida coastal cities despite earlier concerns from environmental experts over the impact the throngs of boaters would have on a newly protected species of coral reefs.
U.S. Coast Guard officials say they will issue permits to several communities in Miami-Dade and Broward counties to proceed with their offshore fireworks display.
To receive permits, city officials agreed to launch a public service campaign to educate the public about protecting the reefs and the turtles.
Though the fireworks permits have traditionally been approved, this year the Coast Guard considered a recent U.S.-issued threat designation for two species of coral that stretch from Palm Beach to the Florida Keys. Also coming into play: The holiday coincides with turtle nesting season.

The Army Corp of Engineers has signed off on a request by Lauderale-by-the-Sea for a high tech conservation project which uses electricity to stimulate the growth of coral reefs.
Working with the Massachusetts based Global Reef Alliance, metal structures that used low voltages of electricity would be installed on the sea floor off the beach at Lauderdale by the Sea.
Living coral, broken off from reefs by ships or storms, would then be attached.
The electricity, which would be powered by two solar panels attached to the metal structures by insulated cables. By using electricity, minerals in the water would be dissolved and build up on the metal structures.
According to the Global Reef Alliance this allows the coral to grow up to five times faster and stand a better chance of surviving stress.
The group says they have used this patented Biorock process to successfully build artificial reefs in Jamaica, Mexico and Indonesia.
Richard Dodge, executive director of the National Coral Reef Institute at Nova Southeastern University, says while the use of Biorock has not been subjected to rigorous study, experimental evidence shows the technology can enhance the growth and survival of the corals for the first months after they are transplanted.
Before the structures can be built, the city will first need permission from the county’s Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department.

The fees that the Broward Sheriff’s Office charges for its civil deputies to serve eviction notices, subpoenas and other civil documents will double beginning July 1 because of a new bill enacted by the Florida Senate.
Senate Bill 412 mandates that all sheriffs’ offices in the state must increase civil process service fees from $20 to $40. Additionally, BSO will begin charging a $40 fee for alias and pluries, which are additional attempts to serve documents when the first attempt was unsuccessful. In the past, these had been done at no additional cost. BSO’s Civil Division encourages everyone to ensure that all documents are accurate, current and contain all updated information to avoid the need for returning of process for corrections.
As with all such fees, the money will be remitted to the county.
Any residents with questions about the new fees can contact BSO’s Civil Division at (954) 831-8787. For more information online, visit the division’s web page at www.sheriff.org/civil.

State troopers are planning to strictly enforce a new seat belt law.
The law going into effect Tuesday makes failing to buckle up a primary offense.
Police previously could write seat belt tickets only if they stopped motorists for speeding or other offenses.
Florida Highway Patrol Lt. Chris Miller said troopers will write $30 tickets for anyone caught not wearing a belt. He said they won’t be giving any warnings.
The National Highway Safety Administration has estimated the new law will save 124 lives and prevent 1,733 serious injuries in Florida every year.

Gov. Charlie Crist on Wednesday vetoed two bills that would have created new public record exemptions.
One measure (HB 7093) would have exempted “proprietary business information” obtained from a telecommunications or broadband company by the Department of Management Services.
Crist wrote in his veto message the term used was overly broad and suggested that lawmakers try again next year to craft language that protects business interests “while still respecting the state’s strong public policy for open and transparent government.”
The other bill (SB 166) would have exempted information that identified a donor or prospective donor to a publicly owned building or facility who wants to remain anonymous.
Crist noted a similar federal law includes reporting requirements that provide public oversight without compromising donor confidentiality. The Florida bill lacks that kind of mechanism, he wrote.
The governor signed a bill (HB 7051) making changes in a law that allows commercial entities, including the news media, to obtain access to Social Security numbers on file with state and local government agencies.
One change, taking effect Oct. 1, would permit access to entire Social Security numbers instead of just the last four digits. The numbers would only be provided to businesses to verify a person’s identity.
Under the new law, they no longer will be allowed to obtain Social Security numbers simply to provide “a lawful product or service.”

In addition to raising energy prices, the climate legislation that’s winding through Congress would create a parallel financial system with a carbon-based currency.
The House on Friday narrowly passed landmark legislation meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, voting 219-212. President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to follow suit.
Everyone from small farmers to nuclear energy companies would be forced to re-evaluate their place in the new order. Power plants, factories and refineries would feel the first impact if the federal government moves ahead with plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent near the end of the century.
The sharply debated bill’s fate is unclear in the Senate. A major struggle is expected with 60 votes needed to overcome a certain Republican filibuster.
How much it will affect other industries is still a matter of intense debate, though the primary winners and losers are already emerging.

The Losers:
Anyone who pays an electric bill will feel the harsh impact of climate legislation.

Utilities will raise rates as they invest in cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already announced plans to do so. Petroleum companies also will import more of their refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which will raise costs.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs.
The non-partisan CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household.
The American Petroleum Institute disputes the estimate, saying the bill could cost the average household up to $3,300 by 2020.
“That is more than a few postage stamps,” API President Jack Gerard said in a slap at Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Markey has compared new energy costs to a postage stamp per day.
According to experts, the Democrats have forced through a job killer bill that would choke off efforts to pull the economy out of recession.
“While we support creating new jobs, the legislation offers an unnecessary and false choice of eliminating good jobs in the oil and natural gas industry to create green jobs,” Gerard said.
Oil and gas companies have spent record amounts of money lobbying Congress recently as they try to blunt the impact of the bill.
Refiners, in particular, say the inherent costs in the legislation could shift some fuel production outside the U.S., where refiners would not be bound by its provisions.
The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association also says the legislation hurts them two different ways, by capping emissions from refineries as well as emissions from the fuels they produce. But refiners say they are not recieving enough credits.
The association says the legislation could cost U.S. refiners as much as $58 billion a year.
Coal miners are worried because it will cut into demand for coal, which is loaded with carbon. Mining also uses a lot of energy, so the rise in energy costs would hurt their bottom line.
The country gets about half of its electricity from coal. Some utilities that rely on coal to generate much of their electricity worried about initial versions of the legislation that they said would lead to skyrocketing rates.
Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power said the legislation will send rates about 25 percent higher by 2015.
“While the EPA may have the technical expertise to create environmentally sound regulations, it lacks the explicit legislative authority to craft an environmentally sound program that minimizes costs to consumers and our economy,” the letter said. “So leaving the EPA with the responsibility to develop and implement a program that will touch every aspect of our daily lives is neither appropriate nor in the best interest of our nation.”
Rogers said the initial legislation would have required consumers in states where fossil fuels make up the majority of electric generation to pay double - first to purchase the allowances to keep current generation operational and then for investments in low-carbon technology.

Many Democrat legislators who have invested heavily recently in environmental concerns geared to exploit the carbon emission bill including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy companies, including nuclear, are some of the obvious winners in a carbon economy.
In addition to the billions of federal stimulus dollars they expect to receive, those industries and the Democrat legislators who stand ready to pour tax dollars essentially into their own pockets, can expect to see a huge boost in investment as utilities and power companies are forced to cut their carbon emissions.
Companies like Florida Power & Light Co., Arizona Public Service, Southern California Edison and others are already investing in solar farms and other renewable energy projects, and they’ll likely spend even more to increase the mix of carbon-neutral energy sources.
Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon “offset.”
Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon.