“A Different Vision” by Nathaniel Reed

**SOLD OUT**

"A Different Vision"
A History of Jupiter Island and the Creation 

of the 

Hobe Sound Company and the Jupiter Island Club 

by Joseph and Permelia Reed.

                              Reed Publishing Company LLC

11844 SE Dixie Hwy. #C

Hobe Sound, FL 33455

Garden Club of America-Elizabeth Craig Weaver Proctor Medal Acceptance Speech

Nathaniel P. Reed on May 15, 2010 in East Brunswick, New Jersey

Mrs. Harris George: President of the Garden Club of America, Mrs. Gongaware, Members of the Awards Committee, Distinguished Members of the host Zone 4 Clubs and my sponsors and supporters, members of this distinguished club of clubs.

My grandchildren are at the stage were ‘awesome’ is a common expression. I echo that word – that expression of awe combined with delight as I stand before you. The citation and the Elizabeth Craig Weaver Proctor Medal are breathtaking.

I am rarely ‘overwhelmed’ and as I am at a stage in life’s mysterious journey where accolades usually mean that one is finished with their work and that they have accomplished some goal. In my case, although the last chapter’s pages may be turning, I feel energized with multiple projects that fascinate me and are worthy of long days of sometime tiresome work. The Everglades Restoration effort alone is a monumental task, as great an effort as building the Panama Canal. Progress has been slow, but now, suddenly, with extraordinary vigor the federal and state agencies are working as one and great progress is being made. I have never been more excited or energized. Yes, there will be stumbles but if the project is funded, we will live to see a revitalized everglades ecosystem.

I am the most fortunate of a cadre of environmental leaders who worked during a period where the administration and the Congress agreed on a multitude of laws that literally changed America and gave the rest of the world ethical targets to attempt to achieve.

The Clean Water, Clean Air Acts alone where monumental achievements, but add to that list the national forest acts, the land management acts, the great expansion of the system of national parks and national refuges in Alaska, think of it 95 plus million acres forever protected. Let’s not forget the all important National Environmental Policy Act or the Marine Mammal Act! There were many decisions that have shaped our national environmental foundation representing eight magnificent years of progress.

We added thousands of acres of wetlands for waterfowl production areas and thousands more for wintering grounds. The numbers of birds, far beyond waterfowl that utilize these areas are countless.

Working with one of the greatest groups of women and men ever assembled by an administration, we secured presidential executive orders banning the use of the terrible poison, 1080, that was designed to kill coyotes, whether or not any of them had ever killed a sheep. 1080 indiscriminately killed thousands of non target animals and nearly decimated the western Bald and Golden eagle populations. We worked collectively to obtain a ban of the use of DDT just in time to stop the doomsday prognostications of eggs shell thinning so brilliantly explained by Rachel Carlson.

Perhaps the most lasting, the most important legislation that passed with hardly a whimper was the Endangered Species Act. Dr. E.O. Wilson and many others of our nation’s most prominent ecologists have declared the Act the most important environmental action of the 20th century. The hours spent negotiating and word-smithing every word, every sentence and every paragraph was worth the toil. We ended up, those of us that had a hand in its creation, as a Band of Brothers.

We shared Teddy Roosevelt’s strongest belief that ‘humans should never take more from the earth than they put back’.

The most amazing part of these historic, far reaching efforts was the incredible era where Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate could disagree, often vehemently, but always with a sense of responsibility and admiration for the other members’ points of view. Yes, there were compromises, now a seemingly detested word that allowed these sweeping changes for a new more responsible American environmental ethic.

I am the beneficiary of that period because except for a very few individuals in Congress, whose attitudes were Neanderthal, we worked together in surprising harmony. Members listened to each other, cared about each other and worked collectively with each other and those of us who managed the key environmental agencies.

I pray that after this current period of constant controversy another era will begin that brings educated and well meaning men and women together in our legislative halls to work for the betterment of our beloved country.

Working with Secretary Salazar and his staff gives me great hope that his leadership can bridge the great divides that are now common in the halls of our Capitol.

The Garden Club of America has championed the vast majority of the objectives that are the foundation of our country’s environmental ethic. Each of you and your predecessors are partners in cultivating a lasting vision of an America that we can be jointly proud of.

That vision, those goals must never be lost and should be a driving force behind you: you, who are an extraordinary membership of caring, resourceful, knowledgeable, energized and caring individuals working together to improve the quality of life for our fellow citizens.

I reiterate: I am honored by this prestigious award and promise you that I will attempt to continue that great observation from Gone with the Wind: “What better way can an old man die than doing a young man’s work.”

An Overview of the Development of America's Environmental Foundation

by Nathaniel Reed before Trinity College on June 12, 2010

The Environmental Era Begins

Public indignation over years of the discharges of untreated sewage and industrial chemicals threatens rivers, lakes and oceans come to a head. There are a minimum of 68 major initiatives that the Congress examined and resolved in the next 20 years. I cannot take time to examine the 68 major initiatives that were confronted and most passed into law to be managed by either the states or federal governmental agencies.

The short list of the most important issues is 37 - an overwhelming number to discuss today. I cut the number to 20 and last night cut it down to ten - probably too small a number to explain the genuine concerns expressed by the American people over the issues that impacted their health, the quality of their lives and the well being of our national lands.

I am prepared to discuss all 68 major initiatives that led to the creation of the American Environmental Foundation, but I have selected four to give you the breathe of the concerns that were addressed during this 20 years period and a chance to grasp the importance of these efforts.

Water Pollution

In 1960 the nation's first Clean Water Act passed. Progress was depressing by slowly leading to the 1963 Clean Air and Water Act an effort championed by Senator Muskie.

Due to continued water pollution, public health issues became a major national issue.

In 1965 Congress was dissatisfied by lack of progress and passed yet another Water Quality Act with a major grant program destined to cut down on raw sewage discharges nationwide.

In 1969 the Cuyahoga River bursts into flames - five stories high - from chemical and oil pollution.

In 1972 Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Act over President Nixon's veto. His concerns were federal costs and federal authority over admittedly fathering state programs.

In 1980 President Carter announces relocation of 700 families from the Love Canal area which leads to the passage of the Superfund. The program was torpedoed by President Regan and his successors. Only 84 of 1,245 sites have been cleaned up.

With the notable exception of the Superfund, our nation's waterways, lakes and estuaries are much cleaner than they were in 1960. It is time for another giant step forward which will require both state and federal funding. This is a major problem, as both state and the federal budgets are in serious imbalance.

Major Federal Programs

In 1969 the sweeping program named the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the creation of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) forced all federal agencies to review their proposed plans and expose the environmental consequences of the selected action. Failure to adequately publicly admit to adverse environmental consequences led to decades of litigation, and many of the legal actions led to cancellation of proposed actions. In my case the primary targets were the Corps of Army Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Forest Service, DOT and even the military.

Provisions within the Clean Water Act and NEPA as the National Environmental Policy Act were known, became tools for those of us who wanted to stop the annals of 'Pork Barrel' congressionally authorized projects that sat on the books awaiting a congressional appropriation. I had nothing to lose so our team took on projects across the country with vigor and enthusiasm endearing us to the budget masters at the Office of Management and Budget, but gaining the enmity of the congressional sponsors who decided we were ‘undermining’ an ancient system of ‘get along and then get your reward’.

Russell Train, who had began his career in the Nixon Administration as Undersecretary of the Department of Interior for Wally Hickel the embattled former Governor of Alaska, became the champion of the federal government's environmental movement. Russ carefully selected a highly qualified staff and began to make major decisions that crossed agencies boundaries.

Collectively we came together and discovered willing or knowingly that the Nixon Administration had attracted some of the brightest, most talented federal appointees ever assembled. Russ became the quarterback. He was not without critics who thought that ‘environmental progress’ was occurring with lightening speed and without congressional approval. Russ, the great gentleman, could stand up to the harshest critic and deflect their outrageous assertions with ease.

Working with Russ and his staff was a rare pleasure.

I urged my staff to challenge Corps, Bureau of Reclamation and even the Soil Conservation Agency plans to dredge, dig and dam wherever across the country.

We finished off the Merrimack Dam in Missouri over the screams of then Governor Kit Bond. I briefed then Governor Reagan on why the proposed Sacramento Dam designed to be built on a major fault line; if it failed it would wipe out the Capitol. He considered that report and retorted: “Not a bad idea as long as I am at my ranch!” We challenged successfully major projects coast to coast.

We failed to stop the final Corps plans to dam the Colombia and the Snake River forever imperiling the greatest native salmon and steelhead runs in the world.

I threw caution to the wind in opposing the construction of the earthen Teton Dam that made the glorious Teton River another reservoir. I thought I conclusively proved that the material to build the dam and its location would stop its construction. When it collapsed, thankfully without killing humans, I could not rejoice at the utter foolishness of the senior senator from Idaho insisting that the Teton Dam be built as ‘payment for his consistent support of the Vietnam War’.

The construction of the Tellico Dam that buried the last remaining free running stretch of the Little Tennessee River was a loss that I will never forget. It was the infamous snail darter, one of the first on the list of ‘endangered species’ that held the dam up until the little fish was discovered living in tributaries where the dam and huge reservoir would not endanger the little fish. It was a foolish project with no redeeming features.

The National Environmental Policy Act managed by a skilled administrator with the support from the White House can be one of the most progressive environmental initiatives of the 20th century. It can flounder depending on the level of presidential support and the qualities of the appointees.

The Creation of the Environmental Protection Agency

In 1970 the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency became law.

EPA brought together key federal programs including health, education and welfare - national air pollution, administration, and the inept Department of Interior's Water Quality Administration.
Headed by Bill Ruckelshaus, one of the most talented and ethical members of the Nixon appointees, he fought with assistance from me at Interior and Train at CEQ to defeat constant efforts by Big Ag, the Chamber of Commerce's and every major industry, including Big Oil to enforce both air and water laws. EPA was the answer to my personal prayers, as the failure to enforce the national clean water acts had dramatic adverse impacts on our nation's wildlife resources.

Its successes and failures depended on congressional appropriations and the appointment of a committed administrator and the regional directors.

It is worth mentioning the single greatest source of pollution today is no longer municipal sewage or industrial waste, but the non point discharges from our city streets after heavy rainfall events and the constant runoff of nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and a host of other agricultural chemicals. Our nation's waterways, its bays and estuaries are gravely impacted by failure of the federal and state governments to enforce new standards, enforceable standards, to prevent the continuing pollution of areas like the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Sacramento Delta, Lake Okeechobee and the Florida Everglades. This is one last great hurdle to climb to make the clean water a reality.

Like it sister agencies, the congressional budget and the qualities of the appointees make or break the great promise that this key agency can have in the vital ‘quality of life issues’ that confront the American people.

Wildlife

In 1973 eighty nations signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) the ‘Magna Carta' for wildlife’.

During the lengthy debates at the United State's State Department, I was notified that a shipment of endangered species killed by poachers in Central and South America had been discovered being shipped through Kennedy Airport. I spoke to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife enforcement team at the airport and decided to fly up immediately. I informed Russ Train who headed the U.S. delegation to the convention that I might have a ‘bombshell’ for him to announce the next day if indeed the shipment contained the thousands of pelts and skins of animals that were described to me by the service's agents.

I caught the shuttle and was driven to Kennedy by agents who were dumbfounded by the size of the cache.

Shipping documents indicated that the dreadful booty was to be transshipped to tanneries in Japan and Italy.

While I was examining the collection, Hugh Downs called and inquired whether I would allow a television team to put us on the early segment of the Early Morning Show. I answered: “Hugh, you may pass the CITES Convention by showing the size and scope of the illegal wildlife trade!”

A team from the show arrived and artfully decorated a room filled with pelts of jaguars, ocelots and other jungle cats, alligator pelts, snake skins and feathers of rare birds: a cornucopia of wildlife illegally killed.

Late in the evening, the crew announced that Barbara Walters had insisted on appearing and wanted a ‘script’ prepared as to what she could show as an ‘expert’. Hurriedly, the agents and I prepared a script. I slept in a nearby motel and was at the scene at 5AM. The 7AM segment was the most watched early morning television show on any network. At 6AM Barbara arrived in a limousine with a makeup artist and a hair dresser. At 6:50AM, all power was lost. Barbara had a ‘fit’. Hugh and I were really disappointed when the television manager stated that it might take hours to uncover the cause of the blackout. With that announcement Barbara retired to her limousine and was rushed back to the studio. Miraculously, power was restored the moment her limousine pulled away and at 7:12AM, following the news, Hugh and I explained to the audience of millions that this was vitally important evidence for the need to pass the Convention. We wandered casually among the pelts, holding up jaguar skins, one of the most beautiful of all the world's great cats and handling river otter pelts destined to become women's winter coats.

We kept getting signals from the on-site director to ‘keep going’ and ended the segment as planned at 7:30AM.

Hugh and I were enjoying a much needed cup of coffee when the director rushed in and stated: “The phones at headquarters are ringing off the hooks. Hundreds of callers want more information. You two are on again in 8 minutes.” We went until 8AM reexamining the pelts and the skins. At 8AM while enjoying yet another cup of coffee, the director rushed up and said: “The phones are still ringing. You have to go for another 15 minutes.”

I flew back to Washington, glowing over the early morning's work. Early the next morning Alita and I had the Kenya delegation for breakfast to explore whether they really wanted to end all big game hunting in their country. I will never forget the sight of our three children sitting at the top of the staircase in pajamas and wrappers watching these wonderful men sitting at our dining room table debating the loss of wildlife revenue from big game hunting licenses versus changing their country over to big game viewing.

Russ made many allies and CITES is still the Magna Carta' of international wildlife protection.

The Endangered Species Act

I was involved in writing the Act with a team recruited by Russ Train. I was the administration's main witness before multiple congressional committees. Within a year after its passage I was stuck defending the habitat of the Desert Pupfish and the San Francisco Salt Marsh Mouse.

I refused Corps permits to fill the marshes within San Francisco Bay for a huge development eagerly sought by the Chase Manhattan Bank. One irate member of the Bay's congressional delegation screamed: “How can you equate the value of a mouse, admittedly a rare mouse, to a development that will employ thousands of workers?” I answered I was not in the business of making decisions that would send a life form that had existed long before man to the oblivion of extinction. Judeo-Christian ethics taught to me at my Alma Mater and the requirement to obey the law gave me no slack: I refused to extinguish one of God's creations and denied the Corps permit.

My five years in Tallahassee and five in Washington have been the highlights of a wonderful life.

I continue to work mostly in Florida on issues that impact the effort to restore the vast everglades ecosystem. It is a never ending battle: a worthy one, one worth winning.

I remain involved in land use issues - refusing to stand back from now 30 plus years involved in the creation of one of the nation's best crafted Land Use Policy Acts now under continuing assault from years of uncaring governors and the constant pressuring from the development community to maim the act.

For me, personal highlights:

1. The protection of Bald and Golden Eagles and the arrest of Herman Werner, a Wyoming mega rancher who had over 900 eagles killed and buried on his ranches.
2. The Ban of 1080 by Executive Order. 1080 was the single most potent, persistent poison ever developed by man. It was used to kill coyotes all across the west. It killed every critter that ate from the baited carcass and kept on killing as secondary poison and even much further down the food chain.
3. Banning DDT before it created Silent Spring.
4. Passage of Endangered Species Act.
5. The Alaska Land Act that preserved over 100 million acres of the best of Alaska forever in national parks, wildlife refuges and additions to the national forests.

These were triumphs of magnitude that required the dedication of the best staff ever assembled at Interior, EPA and CEQ. We were a band of brothers.

I am still working and loving every minute of it!

I can't help remind myself of that wonderful quote from Gone with the Wind: “What better way can an old man die than doing a young man's work.”

Big Cypress National Preserve

Comments by Nathaniel Pryor Reed at the 50th Anniversary of the Establishment of the Big Cypress National Preserve on March 20, 2010

Director John Jarvis, Superintendent Pedro Ramos, Mr. Chairman Colley Billie, congratulations on your election. Colonel Pantano, Chairman Buermann, Chairman Bergeron, Superintendent’s Dan Kimball and Mark Lewis, ‘Father’ Clyde Butcher, Commissioner Jim Coletta, Mayor Sam Hamilton, distinguished members of the dedicated National Park Service Staff, and distinguished guests and indispensable volunteers.

Chairman Colley Billie, we are all deeply appreciative of your presence today. We need collectively to work with you and the tribal elders to undo years of mistrust and disagreements.

How could 50 years go by so quickly?

The photographs that I presented to the Big Cypress National Preserve of the events leading up to the congressional authorization and appropriations to acquire the Big Cypress wilderness and make it a part of the National Park System don't lie.

Joe Browder and I were young men cast by fate to have our life journeys cross simultaneously, centered on the Big Cypress.

Joe had been appointed the National Audubon Society's representative in south Florida with vague instructions on what his mission was and could be.

I was the first conservation advisor appointed by a governor in our country's history. Thankfully, there are 50 environmental advisors now in our 50 states, hopefully giving sound advice.

It was the construction of the Dade County Jetport, widely proclaimed to be ‘the jetport of the future’ that precipitated the great debate that led to the creation of this Preserve.

Somehow, I missed the first chapter of the potential environmental, fiscal disaster that the boomer Mayor of Dade County had sold his fellow commissioners double dipping as the ‘Dade County Port Authority’.

I will never know exactly who promoted the deal to acquire substantial land within the Big Cypress wilderness, pass a bond issue and build a full length runway complete with a control tower capable of handling jet traffic.

Bob Padrick, my great friend and member of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, the predecessor of the South Florida Water Management District, called me and stated that then Governor Kirk had attended a brief dedication ceremony and was 'ecstatic' about the prospects of a major airport in the Big Cypress. He urged me to fly down and take a close look because it looked to him as if it was the beginning of serious trouble: from a land use stand point and from fiscal realities.

Joe Browder was already on the case. He yelled, bellowed, and mobilized the then strange fellows who lived in the swamp or used the swamp to get away from their wives or to escape the ever growing misguided effort to lure millions of unsuspecting people to Metropolitan Dade County. I remember that Joe used his annual telephone budget up in one month. Joe's problem was for everyone who believed that he was on course. That the development of a jetport in the middle of nowhere was going to bring on a land boom that would destroy the major watershed of the south western everglades ecosystem and bring fiscal ruination to the county. There was the business community aligned with the 'snake salesmen'. The traditional Florida land peddlers who saw a golden opportunity to carve up hundreds of thousands of acres of land into saleable lots for industry, farming, and cattle, citrus: you name it. And the ‘Ole Boy’ network that led the Florida boom of the 1920's was re-energized and ready for suckers.

I flew down from Tallahassee, took one long look and nearly fainted.

The most obvious first question was: how is the airport to be served? How are the passengers going to go to their flights and how were they to be returned to Miami? The obvious answer was to cross the River of Grass with a high speed train and road systems. The Port Authority maintained that a system of high speed trains would whoosh passengers to and from the jetport on tracks perched above the everglades marsh—ecological and financial madness!

What about fuel and cargo? What about the hundreds of airport workers? What about customs and immigration?

It was obvious the entire scheme was typical of an era of irresponsibility that only the then Dade County mayor and fellow commissioners could have cooked up.

The rest of the story unfolded in waves. Browder roared. I quietly convinced Governor Kirk to change his position and to his lasting credit he quickly realized that he had been ‘taken’ by an impossible dream cooked up by schemers and land peddlers. Thanks to Under Secretary Russell Train of Interior and a responsive White House staff, federal support for the jetport was cancelled. During the discussions held at the White House and the Departments of Interior and Transportation, it became clear that the development of the Big Cypress watershed would have a very adverse impact on the western everglades ecosystem, yet it was an immense piece of land and any alternative was going to be expensive.

I became Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife and National Parks. Almost immediately the administration turned to me to focus on the long range future of the Big Cypress and how to close up the jetport.

The key question: what was the future of the Big Cypress? The answer was: “Reed, prepare a major study of the potential alternatives from land purchase to limited development.” I had a superb assistant, George Gardner, who had worked with me for many years in the governor’s office and knew many of the key everglades scientists who were needed to answer various technical questions as we explored alternatives, from full purchase to limited pod developments.

It took months to prepare an environmental assessment that would withstand legal challenge. It took the hard work of the combination of George Gardner, the genius of Dr. Arthur Marshall, Florida's greatest ecologist and the world famous Dr. Luna Leopold, to prepare a document that categorically proved that the development of the Big Cypress would be the final nail in the everglades coffin.

Recognizing the importance of the Big Cypress to the future of the everglades ecosystem, to the fishery of the entire southwest coast, including the Ten Thousand Islands and the southwestern portions of the park, compromises among traditional users and preservationists had to be hammered out and became part of the legislation and legislative history.

I testified before the congressional committees in favor of the acquisition of the Big Cypress as a “National Preserve” that included in holdings, specific uses such as sport hunting, to the Congress and the American people that the Preserve was to be used for recreation and protection of unique areas without damaging its resources. It was important that the permitted uses conformed to the traditional uses by the Miccosukee Indians who had ‘rights’ that were ethically superior to any other use. I am particularly pleased that Chairman Colley Billie is here to celebrate the opening of this Visitor’s Center as evidence of his tribe’s genuine concerns for the management of the Preserve.

Initially, the preserve concept was not appreciated by the senior officials in the National Park Service who viewed the concept to be a radical junction from the traditional national park ideal.

I can state categorically, we could not have saved the Big Cypress or millions of acres of land in Alaska if the preserve concept had not been approved by the Nixon Administration and the Congress.

I leave you with one admonition: I know that there will always be debates over usage. Compromises are difficult to maintain. I know that the combination of Browder, Reed, Kirk, Hickel, Train, Senator Lawton Chiles, Chairmen Scoop Jackson, Morris Udall, and the Florida delegation pulled off a 'miracle'. It is up to us and our future visitors and users to make use concessions without damaging the integrity of the watershed.

For me, standing here before you, the creation of the Big Cypress Preserve will always be one of the greatest moments of a life that coincided with the birth of the environmental movement and the recognition that our world's resources are finite and need to be protected and preserved for as long as man lives on the face of this tiny earth, our only home in the vastness of space.

I thank God that I, Joe and hundreds of others who really cared about the Big Cypress were here and worked together giving and taking: concessions – yes – but with the clear belief that the integrity of the watershed was the Holy Grail of our joint effort.

Congratulations on the opening of the Big Cypress Visitor’s Center! I hope the full story of the Big Cypress acquisition will not be lost and will remain a part of the great American history.

Thank you for the privilege of being part of this unique ceremony.

-Nathaniel Reed

Everglades Foundation

Remarks before the 2009 Everglades Foundation in Jacksonville, Florida
by Nathaniel Reed on November 12, 2009

The first order of business is to thank Jennifer and Joseph Duke for tempting you to come to this magnificent gallery and delight ourselves by viewing the fascinating images of Cecilia in her shawl made up of feathers shed from the 88 macas that she saved from poachers. Cecilia understands that a macaw’s feather is indeed like the Everglades where every single action and every single feather counts.

Thank you Dukes and Cecilia.

Who are we - the devoted board members of the Everglades Foundation? Why do we spend seemingly endless time and money on an issue which too many of you is far away in south Florida that seemingly has no impact on your lives?

First, I want to quote from Marjory Stoneman Douglas’s classic book; The Everglades: The River of Grass, to give you an almost mystical reason for being involved in preserving what is left of the once vast self-sustaining ecosystem.

“There are no other everglades in the world. They are, they have always been, one of the unique regions of the earth, remote, never wholly known. Nothing anywhere else is like them: their vast glittering openness. Wider than the enormous visible round of the horizon, the racing free saltiness and sweetness of their massive winds, under dazzling blue heights of space -- they are unique also in the simplicity, the diversity, the related harmony of the forms of the life they enclose. The miracle of the light pours over the green and brown expanse of saw grass and of water, shining, and slow moving below, the grass and water that is the meaning and the central fact of the everglades of Florida. It is the river of grass.”

Paul Tudor Jones and Mary and George Barley bought or built homes on an enchanted island in the Florida Keys. Their passion was fishing for giant tarpon, bonefish, permit and snook within the crystal waters of Florida Bay.

Within a relatively short period of time, the full impact of the multi-million dollar Corps of Engineers project to wall in the Everglades came to a head. The project created land for the millions that inhabit South Florida, the crisscrossing of the ‘Glades with huge canals that led to draining thousands of acres of cheap agricultural land where federally subsidized cane sugar plantations drain their polluted water in the remaining everglade’s marshes so severely impacted Florida Bay that it ‘crashed’. The crash broke the hearts of all of us who loved fishing or just being on Florida Bay.

The Corps had completed a civil works project second only to the building of the Panama Canal.

Unknowingly, unwittingly, the project totally disrupted the ‘River of Grass’ and destroyed a working ecosystem that needed no help from man to produce the incredible range and numbers of bird life, a myriad of other species, and one of the greatest fishing locations on earth. There are 67 species presently on the Endangered and threatened list as a direct result of this project. No where else in Florida -- and in very few other areas of our vast country -- has a public works project created so many dramatic, cataclysmic results.

Florida Bay is a shadow of its former self. The fresh water flows down the main slough. Taylor Slough and The Shark River are fractions of what they were historically.

I was serving on the Board of the South Florida Water Management District attempting to prove scientifically that both the Corps and the District, knowingly or unknowingly, were destroying one of the most productive fisheries in the world. I believed that intense cooperation between state and federal agencies could begin a restoration process. I admit as an activist, this was one of the most frustrating, disappointing chapters of my life.

I met Mary and George Barley. George was a warrior. Our chemistry was perfect. He was a force like a hurricane that challenged the state and federal agencies from the front—full charge. I worked with the state and federal agencies quietly, hopefully to bring change.

Between the two of us and other deeply involved citizens and fledgling organizations, we had the realization that a change in order had to take place to become a lightening rod for public support.
George’s untimely death in 1995 was a major blow. Mary organized George’s “Celebration of Life” at the beautiful Leu Gardens outside of Orlando. It was packed, very emotional. Friends there committed themselves to work together to ignite our state and federal governments to jump-start a plan that could, in time, restore the everglades ecosystem.

Paul challenged me to give up my ‘retirement’ and concentrate on everglades issues. I rose to that challenge and have forever thanked him for giving me the opportunity to serve on a great adventure rather than play bad golf the rest of my life!

A small team of ‘true believers’ formed: Bill Riley, Jon Mills, Douglas Pitts and Thom Rumberger all knew and were devoted as George and Mary. We formed the Everglades Foundation that Mary chaired.

We had no staff. We attended the various board meetings, the hearings, gave newspaper interviews, lobbied governors and Members of Congress. We decided that we needed a highly professional staff and an expanded board.

We ever so slowly built an organization that like good wine developed slowly. We experienced changes, maturing into a powerhouse with a superb board and the best staff that can be conceived.

The staff, ably led by Kirk Fordham, brings many skills with them and is as committed as the board members are.

Progress on the land has been slow. The federal appropriations process has not lived up to successive presidents’ promises. Secretaries of Interior have come and gone with lists of unfulfilled promises.

Governors have made and kept some commitments, but failed in others. But slowly, ever so slowly, thanks to a unified Florida congressional delegation, the support of the Florida newspapers and the vast improvement in public education, the real value of the everglades system became recognized as not just for ‘the birds’, but as the source of all drinking water for southeast Florida. Every poll shows that Floridians from every corner of this elongated state all support everglade’s restoration by wide margins.

The board is extraordinarily generous, paying the cost for the office and the salaries of our extraordinary staff. We have extraordinary leadership. Paul T. Jones is a dynamo. Mary Barley is a bulldog.

The board has an extraordinary range of knowledge and is totally committed. We are not eco-nuts. We speak with one voice: everglades restoration is our mutual goal and we want it to be your goal and every Floridian’s goal.

Donations from you and your friends are pooled and divided into grants to the non governmental organizations that furnish staff that is guaranteed to be focused on everglade’s issues. We carefully monitor their activities and have made them our effective allies.

It is a system that we devised in lieu of forming a membership organization, one of the best decisions we ever made.

We make the grants that keep the very best representatives from many statewide organizations at the countless meetings bringing sound science, support when needed and criticism when it is due.

Why should you care what happens in the far away everglades? Aldo Leopold, our nation’s first great ecologist quietly explained to our land managers 75 years ago, that “All things are connected. Break off pieces and the whole will suffer”. The everglades are an integral part of ‘our’ Florida.

Water issues will dominate our children and grandchildren’s lives. Water issues are of vital importance in north, central and south Florida. Water, clean water is the life blood of the everglades system.

You too are Floridians. Your presence this evening indicates that you care. It is in caring that progress is made. Your financial support is sought by every known organization, every real need, every excellent cause, but an investment in the Everglades Foundation will make you a partner in the greatest restoration effort ever attempted on Mother Earth.

Please join us!

Jennifer and Joe, thank you for this extraordinary evening. Thank all of you for coming.

Yellowstone Foundation’s Annual Dinner

Speech Given By Nathaniel P. Reed
for the Yellowstone Foundation’s Annual Dinner
on October 2, 2009

Superintendent Suzanne Lewis, you are the consummate manger, diplomat and steward of Yellowstone National Park: the Mother Park!

Chairman Bannis Hudson, President Paul Zambernardi, staff members of the Foundation and members of the staff of the park: Alita and I are honored to be here with you. It is for both of us a return to paradise. The Foundation’s beginnings are worth a few minutes of memories….

My great friend, John Good, then the park’s chief naturalist, came up with the idea that a foundation differing from the Yellowstone Association could make a significant difference funding projects that the Congressional Appropriations process neglected. John persuaded Superintendent Anderson to attract a bevy of very serious scientists to come and work in the park. John became superintendent at Acadia and Everglades National Parks rounding out a distinguished career.

We all owe then Superintendent Michael Finley a vote of thanks for having the foresight, courage and ability to attract the original group of ‘true believes’ to discuss the proposal, agree to proceed and then come to our first meeting in mid November to create the Yellowstone Foundation.

I vividly remember trying to get to our meeting room avoiding a great elk bull who was still feeling his oats.

Frankly, it never crossed my mind then and I find it hard to believe now, how committed our original group was to the concept, but our successors and you – the present board – have lifted the bar and raised an incredible amount of money for a vast variety of pressing needs.

The fires and the snow storm prevented Alita and I from seeing the Old Faithful Visitor’s Center. The Visitor’s Education Center has been a dream – an elusive dream – for more than 60 years. We share your pride and incredible sense of accomplishment to have raised the necessary funds and agreed on the architecture that will lead to the opening of the center next fall.

I tingle with joy and pride when I contemplate the reactions of millions of undereducated visitors who will visit the center for many years to come and come away with a sense of wonder and excitement that led the early Yellowstone adventurers to clamor for the creation of the world’s first national park.

Thanks, boundless thanks, go to the corporations, foundations, incredible personal donations and the countless donors of small gifts who wanted to be participants in this great donation to the park and to its visitors.

I hope to be with you when the doors open!

To each of you, board members and staff, boundless thanks. You are doing ‘God’s work’!

The creation of Yellowstone National Park, the Mother Park, has had an incredible influence across the globe. On every continent and in almost every country citizens can take pride in special areas, unique, magical areas that are their parks to be protected and preserved for all time. What a magnificent legacy!

I came to this park as a teenager and have returned many times to fish, to gaze, and to hold special seminars and symposiums.

I am going to recount just a very few of my vast quiver of memories.

I have always been fascinated by natural science research. In rethinking the park service’s commitment to sound science influencing all decisions, I pay homage to Dr. Starker Leopold, the great ecologist from the University of California-Berkley who had chaired a pair of very important committees: The Leopold Report published in 1963, which in turn led to the 1968 National Park Advisory Committee’s Report, which he chaired, that strongly recommended and continued to encourage the National Park Service to initiate serious science within the National Park System.

Remember, these were the days when the superintendents of major parks considered themselves masters of their fiefdoms. They were not anxious to have major and even minor decisions reviewed by bright young scientists, especially those with master’s degrees and more especially those with PhD’s and above all those who had PhD’s that were women!

Starker was determined that neither report was going to be ‘lost’ on the shelves of park service headquarters. He stubbornly persisted until slowly, ever so slowly, the Washington office and then even slower the regional offices and even slower the major park superintendents responded until the format, the base of a sound science program became a feature of the park service budget process, but a real impact on decision making within the individual parks.

It was John Good who vigorously supported the beginning of the research program in Yellowstone centering on the USGS study program.

John persuaded Jack Anderson, the legendary superintendent, to attract a bevy of very serious scientists to come and work in the park.

There are numerous men and women of multidisciplines that have studied every aspect of the park’s resources. I will mention a few, who I had the honor to know, support and who became great friends.

One of the key figures in the history of the park's research must be Glenn Cole’s role as the supervisory scientist who selected the expertise of particular scientists for the particular problems for four major parks: Glacier, Yellowstone, Grand Teton and Rocky Mountain.

Glenn selected Doug Houston to work on the Yellowstone northern range. It was a monumental job that took years of research. Doug was a truly great ecologist, before that description was fully understood; his monumental work won him the Wildlife Society’s Award in 1983.

Glen couldn’t resist an elk study of his own. He selected the unique Firehole elk herd and in his spare time produced a splendid study of lasting value.

One of Starker's prize PhD students, Dr. Mary Meagher, spent her career here studying bison, and brucellosis and took an interest in every aspect of the park's science program. I have spent many days with Mary who has opened my eyes to a world that I knew too little about. A walk with Mary is a rare treat. Best of all was a walk or dinner with Starker and Mary, Durward Allen and Woodrow Middlekrauff. Their observations, insights, their ability to contemplate the whole scene, not just the problems of individual animal populations or botanical impacts, theirs was a wider view – a wider horizon – the horizon of the ecology beyond the individual expertise of a particular subject.

We discussed Durward Allen’s and Starker’s dreams of returning the wolf to Yellowstone.

Thank you Secretary Bruce Babbitt and the National Park System.

The famed Dr. E.O. Wilson summed up their ability to comprehend and rationally discuss the ‘big picture’ when he challenged: “How can you study ecosystems and know what is happening in them IF you don’t know what’s in them? It is sort of taking medicine without knowing 90% of what’s in the body”.

It was in this period within Yellowstone National Park that science spread to other parks – sort of like a healthy virus. I know of many superintendents who watched with dumbfoundment and even amazement as the Yellowstone program expanded and attracted a cadre of expert scientists.

Starker admitted that he had telephone calls from superintendents all across the system requesting advice and assistance in establishing a science program within their park’s jurisdiction.

I was adamantly supportive of the increased science budgets at OMB and before the Congressional Appropriations Committees. This was ‘new business’ for them. Beyond curiosity, they became convinced that we were on the right track and appropriations began to catch up with needs.

Today, here in Yellowstone National Park, note the expertise that Tom Olliff has attracted: Kerry Gunther and his continuing bear research, Rick Wallen’s important continuation of Dr. Meagher’s bison studies and the incomparable Doug Smith and his wolf team.

Yesterday I met Todd Koel and Pat Bigelow at the lake discussing the incredible transformation of one of the world’s greatest trout fisheries, the home of the most productive Yellowstone cutthroat trout resource that is threatened with destruction unless a surge – a major effort is made to dramatically reduce the numbers of the invasive lake trout. This may be the most threatened resource in the park.

I urge the Foundation’s leadership to receive the briefing we were privileged to watch yesterday and consider making a grant that would encourage other grants to save this all important life form. It is threatened with extinction unless a major effort is made to remove or dramatically reduce the unwelcome predators.

Let me share an impression, no, a real conviction that has grown on me over the 60 years that I have visited national parks here and abroad.

Standing with dozens of fellow citizens – and visitors from many counties – we knew none of them and they did not know us – watching the wolves, the bison herds, the big horn sheep, and the ageless choreography of the elk mating sequence, it’s the vast enthusiasms of the park visitors. They become participants. They are thoroughly, completely captivated and engaged. They are transformed. Their experiences, many of them as urban people are new and unforgettable. This too must be a vital mission of the service, as important as the preservation of the unique features of the unique park.

I spent a long session with Charissa Reid giving an oral history of my years of service and the traumatic conclusion of the Craighead grizzly bear study. Let me make it clear: the Craighead Study utilizing radio collars and telemetry was a major scientific breakthrough. Their innovative work is copied around the world.

What must be made clear is that their Yellowstone grizzly bear study, brilliant as it was, centered on bears that were conditioned on human garbage. They studied garbage dump bears.

The dumps had been closed just before my confirmation and trouble was expected and I was ill-prepared for the resulting furor that I inherited.

I spent a long session with Charissa Reid giving an oral history discussing the controversial conclusion of the Craighead’s grizzly bear studies in Yellowstone National Park.

Simply stated: I followed the advice of two great ecologists: former Assistant Secretary Stanley Cain of the University of Michigan and Starker Leopold who both assured me that once a grizzly bear was deliberately fed human garbage, it was hooked just as a heroin user is hooked. They maintained that there was no way that grizzly’s could be weaned from garbage and that I had the unfortunate duty to accept the fact that a great many bears would die or be euthanized or sent to zoos as the full impact of the closure of the garbage dumps was felt.

Of the many decisions that I made in my five plus years in office, the grizzly bear saga weighed on me, troubled me even frightened me more than any other of the hundreds of decisions I made.

The grizzly bear saga became national news as critics claimed that dump closure would be the nail in the grizzly bears coffin.

To be accused of causing the extinction of the great bear when I was one of the authors of the Endangered Species Act and the representative of the Nixon administration who ushered the Act through multiple congressional hearings to passage, frankly, the criticism that was heaped on me hurt. I cried when young bears had to be put down, but I was confident that good research proved that there were a population of wild grizzly’s that were not addicted to garbage that would, in time, follow one of the maxims of nature: ‘the power of replacement’. This is a natural force that is indisputable.

Secretary Morton and the two secretaries that followed him all asked me one simple question: “Are you right?” Recognizing that good science can always be trumpeted by bad politics, I never wavered. “I am following the best science and although it is tough sledding, we will live to see the great bear thrive once again.”

They never questioned me again, never rear-guarded my decision, defended me and the park from outrageous charges that we collectively were on a course to extirpate the great bear.

Although I left office before the incredible turn around fully took place, successive superintendents kept me intimately posted with the good news of the bear’s recovery.

Credit goes to Dr. Richard Knight for his incomparable work on free-ranging grizzly bears and Christopher Serveen who created and chaired the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. Regardless of the recent judicial decision, returning the bear to threatened status, the 600 plus bears presently filling all the niches of the vast Yellowstone ecosystem – none of them addicted to garbage – prove that sound science and patience can make a meaningful difference in a creature’s survival.

Here at Mammoth for five plus years Starker and I chaired informal meetings – we called them conversations – that attracted working biologists across the country, from Canada, even from abroad, who wanted to listen and take part in responding to fascinating reports on seemingly intractable ecological, environmental problems.

The results have had a major formable impact on wild trout management across the west.

An unforgettable memory: a call to join President Ford at the Oval Office. He asked, “Nathaniel: find me the summer employees who worked with me in the park. It was one of the finest experiences of my life. I want them to be my guests at a private hamburger lunch set up in a grove of trees near Old Faithful. I am going to give a thumping good speech on my commitment to the System, the Service and reflect on my happy days working in Yellowstone. I want you to prepare a good speech with some real money and manpower increases for the Service and I’ll send it as a message to Congress!”

What a joyful assignment!

I asked the director’s staff to locate the living members of the President’s work crew. Somehow they were reached and couldn’t wait for a reunion with the president.

There were endless meetings at the Old Executive Building with presidential policy staff and as always meetings at OMB discussing budgeting impacts and close coordination with the Secret Service. It was campaign time so the public relations advance staff and the campaign staff became involved. Besides the meat of the speech, the key campaign impact was for Old Faithful to blow just as the president finished his address. He was to turn on the podium and Old Faithful would live up to it’s name.

I had the assignment to call Jack and inquire: “What day in late July or early August can you assure me that Old Faithful will blow at approximately 11:15 to 11:20am?” Even Jack was flustered with such a request.

A week later the date was set. One of the advance men said to me: “Your neck is on the line if that damn geyser doesn’t behave on schedule!”

At one of my early meetings with the president discussing his options he stated quietly but firmly: “Don’t let Dick Cheney have anything to do with ‘my day’!”

The event was a great success. The president’s speech was outstanding. Old Faithful performed 10 seconds after the conclusion of the president’s speech. The ever suspicious press corps was certain that we had spiked the vent with chemicals to have it blow on schedule.

So many memories flicker back, good memories, even during the inevitable great fire and the opportunity to observe the resurrection of the park post fire.

I think of the many concerned members of the loyal service staff, so many fascinated visitors, and the many problems that challenged good solutions. They all form a wonderful mosaic. I think I am one of the luckiest men alive that ever had the privilege of serving at one of the most important periods of national environmental awakening. It was a different time, a far different Congress and the commitment of the American people to preserve, protect and enhance our natural resources was similar to the Teddy Roosevelt era.

I want to especially thank Alita Reed who has never wavered in supporting and even consoling me during difficult times and sharing a quiet smile when we shared those victories that make life really worth while.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the board and staff of the Yellowstone Foundation, Superintendent Lewis and the members of the National Park Service staff and friends of Yellowstone: You are stewards of Yellowstone National Park: the world's Mother Park.

Stewardship is defined by Webster as: “The careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care.”

All of you: be proud to be stewards of Yellowstone National Park, an example of the very best of America and Americans.

I am reminded of Margaret Mead’s pertinent observation: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has!”

You are fitting examples of Margaret Mead’s thoughtful and accurate conclusion.

Thank you for the honor of being invited to come home to this very special unique park and address you.

FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY

Blake Library – Stuart, Florida
October 26, 2009
Remarks by Nathaniel P. Reed

Before I began to address the merits - and demerits – of the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment, I would like to take a few minutes to share an important personal perception of Florida. It’s a conclusion I’ve developed after 40 plus years of active involvement in Florida government, and one that shapes my view of the issues before us today.


All of you sitting here this evening know that Florida is in dire economic conditions, and far from recovery. Three days ago the Palm Beach Post reported that Palm Beach County anticipates a shortfall of ANOTHER $170 MILLION next year. Having raided their rainy-day fund for last year’s budget, and drastically cut many programs, they now face the specter of even less revenue income and even harder choices of how to balance income and obligations. How did Florida get here? Part of the answer is that we’ve all – whether Floridians, Carolinians, Californians: all of our countries’ citizens - been victims of gross financial mismanagement on a national scale as Wall Street greed trumped any sense of ethical behavior or sound financial management. But Florida is also suffering greatly from self-inflicted wounds, aggravated by the national economic collapse.


I would argue that much of our current dilemma is due to the fact that Florida has always been the ultimate ‘pyramid scheme’. Madoff may be the momentary title-holder, but Florida has actually been playing the Ponzi game far longer. The essential Ponzi premise is that as long as you can continually recruit new suckers to pay back the existing club members – you’ll be okay. This pretty much sums up the management strategy of Florida over my 40 plus years of observation and participation. I would invite you all to name one public program in Florida – transportation, education, public health, environmental resource management, where we have actually put the cost of meeting the immediate needs upon the immediate population. Florida’s history has been to expect that future growth will cover the cost of the current needs – next year’s new taxpayers will get the bill for existing infrastructure deficiencies – and their new demands will in turn be paid, not in full by them, but by their successors.


We’ve marketed ourselves as a low-tax, low-cost retirement haven. We have further convoluted the scheme with an absolutely archaic tax scheme, full of exemptions intended to provide short-term growth incentives, but with higher future costs – which will supposedly be covered by distributing those costs over a larger taxpayer base in the future.


Florida, from her very beginning, has embraced ‘growth’ -with almost no limits, as a mantra. Now we are falling victim to the downside; if we don’t keep growing, the pyramid can’t be sustained.


The Palm Beach Post - most appropriately in their 2009 New Years Day editorial – summarized brilliantly our past, and possible future: “For decades Florida and the officials running the state, counties, and towns have perpetrated the myth that growth will pay for itself and provide a prosperous lifestyle for everyone who buys into the myth. With special tax breaks for long-time residents, the expectation that an ever-increasing supply of newcomers, snowbirds and tourists would pay most of the bills was as enticing a Ponzi scheme as any that Bernard Madoff promised. Now, Florida’s growth scheme has collapsed. The growth myth should collapse along with it. Yes, the real estate market will come back – let’s hope in a more rational form. But unbridled growth never again should be seen as Florida’s perpetual money machine.”


Let’s look back at the recent history of growth management efforts. After the passage of the 1972 Land and Water Management Act, it became clear that land development specifically needed attention, and in 1975 the adoption of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act was adopted. Although this legislation laid a solid foundation for mandatory statewide comprehensive land use planning, the state’s oversight role was only advisory. A series of events, including rapid population growth and growing complaints about actual implementation led to the adoption of the 1984 State and Regional Planning Act and the 1985 Growth Management Act, which revised many aspects of the earlier 1975 law but gave the Department of Community Affairs – DCA- veto authority over local plans and amendments. In 1992, further changes to growth management laws, including the repeal of regional planning council veto authority over Developments of Regional Impact were adopted.


The years of Governor Jeb Bush led to great discontent within the environmental community regarding growth management. There was a distinct change of emphasis that stressed ‘cooperation’ and ‘alternative, marketplace solutions’ versus what some perceived as strict adherence to the law as written. Several unsuccessful attempts were made in the Legislature to weaken DRI and comprehensive planning requirements during this period. Rather than confront the large public and institutional support for growth management controls, the budgetary process has become the tool to curtail growth management.


In the early 1990’s - during the height of DCA’s efforts to implement the 1985 law - it had a staff of more than seventy professionals, two field offices, and three separate divisions. By the end of the Bush administration, the field offices were gone, one division had been reassigned to the Governor’s Office, and fewer than thirty professionals remain.


Over the past ten years, the mission and responsibilities of the DCA have been continually reduced until we’ve reached the point where, even according to current DCA Secretary Tom Pelham, the agency is barely able to fulfill its statutory mission.


Traditionally, when the economy has faltered, we’ve looked at incentives such as tax breaks, or the relaxation of governmental restrictions (look at President Bush’s proposals regarding air and water quality standards), to jumpstart the money machine. Some of the same interests who gave us the current market glut, today again raise the argument that they need unbridled freedom to respond to ‘market conditions’, that the ‘planning process’ takes too long, and that it will impede economic recovery. Private landowners who still believe that unrestricted property rights are a divine right will certainly join in any opportunity to eliminate growth management programs.


I think that all the discussions need to face the fact that sound development policy must be sound both economically and environmentally – or we’re just once again pawning the true costs into the future - with compounded interest!


The current economic catastrophe has placed us squarely at the crossroads of Ponzi Place and Sustainable Avenue. Despite all the voices saying we need to change direction, it remains to be seen if we will, or whether we will try to characterize the current situation as a ‘perfect storm’ that will never happen again once we just get going fast again – and try to make it back to ‘business as usual’.


We somewhat adopted the catchphrase ‘smart growth’ to imply greener, more sustainable efforts. It’s been perhaps most accurately considered a desirable ‘goal’.


I would argue that any growth that doesn’t pay for itself isn’t smart at all!


And unfortunately the current economic situation most local government’s face is that even when new development pays its fair share, the local government doesn’t have enough money to pay its share.


We can’t keep growing at the speed of light forever, why not slow down now and adopt truly sustainable policies? The challenge, of course, is that we’ve looked to the Ponzi float from new projects to keep us afloat for the moment. To abandon that economic model will require developing alternative revenue sources, many of which probably begin with a ‘T’.


The proponents of Hometown Democracy ask very reasonable questions and make critical observations that frankly ‘pain’ all of us that love this state and who have worked to keep it from becoming another example of the mish-mash of southern California.


I share their discontent and disillusionment. One only has to drive south down I-95, or the Florida turnpike, or drive north from Marco Island to Sarasota to be stunned by the amount of development- so much of it ill-conceived, ugly and out of place.


How could ‘we’- a collective ‘we’ ever allowed two of the most magnificent areas of shoreline Florida to become such broad strips of second rate development?


Faced with the realities of what damage has been accomplished during a period when our exalted growth management act was in force, it is fair to seek any potential solution to halt the run-away train of senseless, over-development.


So, having laid out my personal perceptions of where we are, and how we got here, let’s turn to the issue at hand: Where do we go from here? The Florida Hometown Democracy amendment has been proposed in an attempt to address what most of us perceive as a crisis. It proposes that we take a new path from the cross-roads.


Like any proposal, it has both strengths and weaknesses – absolutely nothing in government is ever perfect – and I don’t want to stand here today and try to tell you that this proposal is perfect. What I would like to do is share with you the key arguments in support of the proposal – the ‘pros’, and arguments against the proposal, the ‘cons’ such that you might have a better sense of the issues in this very, very, complex debate.


My reasons to support the Hometown Democracy Amendment include:

1) Failure of Local Government Efforts - We have collectively lost trust in our local governments and our elected officials not only to implement sound comprehensive plans, but to enforce them. Far too often development interests have persuaded elected officials to negate or modify comprehensive plans with decisions that are contrary to the public good. These are described as ‘gifts’ to a particular developer who may have had made significant campaign contributions.


A search of the files indicates far too many publicly elected officials - county and city commissioners - are residing in state and federal prisons as we gather here tonight. Palm Beach County has earned the moniker ‘Corruption County’ for the shady dealings that have recently jailed several commissioners. What is the most common denominator in their activities; special favors of land/development deals!


We have lost faith in our elected official’s ability to govern fairly and honestly!


What a terrible legacy!


2) Continued Failure of the Florida Legislature - The Florida legislature has been bombarded by the developers and their seeming unending supply of campaign contributions. Since 1985 the legislature has steadily weakened growth management programs with either exceptions or outright changes sought by developers. Look at the prosecution of Representative Samson for promoting an unbudgeted campus building that just coincidently fit the needs of a crony who wanted a place to store his aircraft!


Incredibly, the current legislature and its leadership have openly resented and resisted Secretary Pelham’s determination to enforce what remains of our once highly acclaimed growth management laws. They have zeroed out the most popular program of land acquisition in our state’s history and the Sadowski Affordable Housing Trust Fund.


3) Loss of the Public Voice - Although the Growth Management Act is supposed to encourage effective public involvement throughout the planning process, citizens are frequently ignored or belittled when they attempt to participate. The usual ‘extent’ of testimony allowed at public hearings statewide is three minutes. Any citizen’s legal challenge to an approved amendment is expensive, the ‘fairly debatable’ test is practically impossible to overcome.


The deck has been carefully stacked against any appeals of poorly conceived decisions at DCA or at the local scene.


4) Public Awareness - The strongest case for the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment is a return to citizen participation. Our voices would be heard, heard loud and clear: a form of democracy that this state has not been a party to for too many years.


Citizens throughout Florida experience first hand every day the shortcomings of the current process. Even when schools are overcrowded, roads are increasingly congested, water supplies become limited, their governments continue to approve plan amendments that authorize even more development.


Although the media usually points out the deficiencies and the editorial boards and the Op/Ed pieces boldly produce forthright criticism of local governments’ foolishness, the public seems zoned out.


The Growth Management Act did not intend constant comprehensive plan changes. Supporters of FHD believe that once Amendment 4 is in the Florida constitution, the number of speculative plan change requests will drop significantly because developers will know that their proposal must be judged to ‘ be in the public interest’ – by the public themselves, and that the public must be willing to endorse the proposed change.


Sweetheart backroom deals that currently permeate Florida’s decision-making climate will become much less likely and far more difficult.


The Hometown Democracy initiative is an enticing proposition, offering a strong resounder to the present climate of the ‘public be damned’!


Now let me divide my time by enumerating several potential problems with the Hometown Democracy Amendment.


1) The Problem of Nimbyism - or - Not in My Back Yard! Local governments will find it much more difficult to adopt amendments that are controversial, but much-needed community projects such as affordable housing, schools, transit systems, landfills, prisons, and other public infrastructure will encounter resistance from citizens who might want them, but not if located anywhere near their home.


Local governments could be forced to undertake either far more costly or less desirable alternatives or eliminate much needed projects entirely.


2) Piecemeal Planning - FHD would remove the ‘comprehensive’ from the comprehensive planning approach, resulting in a series of uncoordinated, piecemeal decisions driven by popularity rather than necessity or thoughtful planning.


Additionally, FHD does not promote strategies to reduce sprawl: instead the proposal might limit responsible new developments in more populated areas seeking appropriate infill opportunities, forcing new development out into rural areas which have fewer people to oppose a proposed plan amendment.


3) High-Priced Media Campaigns - Debates on controversial plan amendments will likely turn into high-priced media campaigns favoring well-funded developers over homeowners associations and grass-root groups. Citizens will face the constant need to fund ‘War Chests’ to counter ill-advised amendments.


Think about this: the county and city commissioners can shirk their duty to eliminate bad proposals and poorly conceived amendments by simply stating in passing the proposal: “Let the citizens decide!”


4) Logistical Problems - FHD creates some real logistical problems. FHD would require all amendments to be voted on prior to adoption by local government, BUT there is no definite answer regarding whether such amendments are to be voted on individually or in a bundled package with many amendments. Then there is the real challenge of describing each amendment in 75 words or less on the ballot. Assuming that this could be fairly accomplished, will voters be able to effectively consider more than a few amendments in this fashion? Surely we don’t want to copy California’s ballots with dozens and dozens of amendments on each ballot.


What will local governments do – add the amendments to the regular elections or will special elections be required? If so, the cost of special elections could be staggering.


5) Planning Gridlock - I see real legal quandaries resulting in a voter-approved amendment found ‘not in compliance' by DCA, not to mention local plan amendments required in the future by changes in the act or amendments.


Consider for a moment the new requirements such as school concurrency, mandatory water supply coordination, capital facility improvements and many other important questions of comprehensive planning; the likelihood of gridlock is high.


This could all be exacerbated if the legislature, in the pockets of big time, highly financed developers, were to retaliate by redefining the definition of a plan amendment, or even make growth management programs advisory at both the local and state levels.


Will HTD put an end to those shenanigans or will passage of the amendment lead to an era of constant legal controversies?


If we want put on the brakes - and really slow down the runaway train of growth, and have time to take a rational measure of where we want our state to grow and mature, it is enticing to ignore the obvious flaws in proposed Amendment #4. If Amendment #4 fails, there will be other efforts made to encourage Florida to grow up and face its problems. Either way we will have that opportunity at the ballot box a year from this November.


I have a long record of being involved with growth management issues in Florida. I have served on countless study committees and commissions, followed the original conception of growth management in Oregon, and helped form 1000 Friends of Florida. At times I have been encouraged that this state’s leadership understood the forces that were destroying the assets that make Florida such a special place, but today I share your sense of being ‘dismayed if not disgusted’. The sheer numbers of new residents and the power of the developers have combined to undermine one of the most thoughtful, best conceived, and carefully crafted growth management acts in the country.


Now we face a crossroad. Amendment #4 is born out of collective frustration leading to discontent and a loss of confidence in government.


As I have shown you Amendment #4 has both strengths and weaknesses.


It is the only meaningful alternative before us for consideration.


When I am in doubt, I turn to a group of ‘old owls’ for advice: men and women, who have served in government, are notable planners and designers and even developers - the conscientious few that have produced lovely communities that all of us could be proud to live in.


They’re a split jury!


One verdict: It can’t get any worse, let’s try it!


The other verdict; “My God, you have no idea of what the unintended consequences of passage of Hometown Democracy will be.


I admit to being in an impossible personal position of not knowing at this time how I am going to vote on this issue. I think I am going to wait and watch the next session of the Florida Legislature to see if there is any hope that maturation of the leadership understands the critical nature of the decisions that must be made if we are to reverse or continue the era of the great Ponzi scheme.


My advice to each of you caring Floridians who care so deeply about the future of our beleaguered state: stay tuned, stay involved and knowledgeable. Keep up to date with the debate as it develops as the future of Florida well may at stake.


Thank you!

###