People Over Politics

LENNY MARKS:

On the Record

**********************

I began to get involved in Debary politics in 1998. I had great concerns about the direction my community was taking. The developing of land and large scale building was proceeding at an unbelievable pace. No matter how hard the people opposed this rapid building pace it was to no avail; developers nearly always won. I started to feel back then that it didn’t matter what the people think, so I made a decision to pay attention as to what was going on and get involved wherever I felt it necessary.

I served on the EDAC committee for 2 ½ years, just to be sure there was one ordinary citizen on the committee. Far too often this committee was made up of developers, real estate investors, builders, etc. I was involved in having an eminent domain article placed in our City Charter. The eminent domain Charter Amendment now gives protection to property owners by going back to the way it was before that terrible Supreme Court (Kelo vs New London CT ) ruling. No taking of private property and giving it to another private entity.

With two other concerned citizens we formed this grassroots website, with unbelievable success. This website is the people’s website and it has reflected that with all the interest generated by the people visiting the site. Thank you for all your support, citizens of DeBary.

Here are some of the editorials I have written in the past year and a half. Lenny

THE FINE ART OF DOUBLE DIPPING

MUST WE PUT A ZIPPER ON OUR POCKETS TO KEEP FROM HAVING TO PAY TWICE

Have you ever made a purchase only to find out the product you purchased was defective? To solve the problem, you returned the item and received another, or your money was returned. This does not ring true when it comes to government screw ups. It doesn’t matter if it’s local or national government.

Let’s look at the drainage system on Saxon Boulevard, where someone drilled holes into the piping. The problem was discovered by the Volusia County construction engineering department who stated, “It could have been one of several different utilities, we contacted them all, but none claimed credit for it.” The estimated coast $187,000 for the taxpayers to pony up again. Why isn’t the county going after the one’s who are responsible? Why are the one’s who are responsible not going to pay the bill? I guess it’s easier to let the taxpayers pay again than to let the responsible party own up to their mistake. How about dividing the cost between the utilities who were working in the area when the problem came to light.. Let them fight it out and see who comes up the winner or loser.

Let’s look at the large retention pond at the corner of Highbanks Road and Enterprise Road. After months of citizen’s complaints about the retention pond leaking and flooding their property, and weeks of nerve racking aggravation attempting to get whoever was responsible for the problem to finally admit and eventually have the leaking pond repaired. I’ve made inquires about how much the repair work cost the taxpayers. No one had an answer to that question. So the taxpayers paid for the job not once, but paid a second time in which no one knows or wants to say what the final cost will be. I’ll take a wild guess let’s say over a million dollars. Maybe that will bring an answer from someone in the know. If not, maybe over a million dollars is close to being right. What gives, no one held responsible. No matter what, the taxpayer will dig in and pay again.

Let’s look at the pipe missing in a retention pond at the Reserve in DeBary. If it wasn’t for the hurricanes and the flooding we still would not know the pipe was not installed. Who was the construction company who contracted the job and more important who was the inspector who signed off on the job? This costly venture is now in litigation but I believe that the taxpayer will end up paying for some part of this debacle.

These are just three incidences where the taxpayer ( the best friend of the politicians) has to reach deep into their pockets to pull out their hard earned money to pay for something twice. If anyone knows of any other cases of taxpayers paying twice for a project that went awry, let us at DEBARYPOP know so it can be documented.

It’s strange you rarely hear of anyone being held responsible. Just think what that money could have done to fund other important projects for us. Not only are governments a “not for Profit” organizations they are adept at taking us to the brink of bankruptcy. Hell, it’s not their money. What a waste, what a waste.

Lenny Marks

************************************************************

NEW: 9/30/06:

Compromise? Mature? Promises?

From Patrick Fulton’s email:

I know a small minority of people can’t appreciate a “compromise” but this is a great thing for our city.

It’s all about mature people putting their own personal interests aside and compromising. I am proud

of my fellow council members I think we all did the right thing last night.

Here are definitions by way of Webster of the word compromise:

a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions;

b. A middle way between two extremes;

c. An accommodation in which both sides make concessions;

A compromise happens when neither party really gets everything they wanted at the outset.

If there were a couple of councilmen arguing for 3.5 and a couple arguing for 2.5, a compromise

would be 3.0 that is to say, no party would be totally satisfied. That did not happen. At best you

briefly entertained the idea of 2.5 and did not even know that at a 2.5 mil rate the city could barely

function in terms of payroll, fire, and police in and of themselves. Moreover, to begin “working the

figures” while a vote is being asked is too late to begin working on the budget.

If you think a 3.00 millage rate is a compromise, you’re wrong. A lot more fat could have been taken

out such as capital improvements, travel costs, or simply put off for a time until the City is firmly back on solid ground.

Why didn’t you do your job? Why didn’t you keep your promises of low taxes? A 58% or a 35% are

not what people would call keeping the taxes low .Contrary to what you and/or the council may

believe, we do have many intelligent people living in our City. You had ample time to come up with

a workable budget but decided to wait until the last minute.

You and the rest of the Council didn’t come up with any other ideas except for the one the City Manager

recommended. You didn’t do your homework but let someone else do it for you and just went along with

it. And it was wrong. It was wrong in the fact that taxes would be raised with no discussion from Council of any another plan.

Let’s face the facts you and the Council did a poor job preparing for this year’s budget. You took the

advice of the City Manager that the City needed a 3.5 mill rate to survive

One of our city taxpayers took it upon himself to create a budget that would show where the budget

could be cut. I didn’t see any Council Members present anything, just agreeing with the City Manager's

presentation. He did more than you because it meant a lot to him and to the taxpayers of DeBary.

I wonder if the City Council is as proud of you as you say you are of them. All you did was posture for

the next election: “I did not vote for tax increase.”

While the city council planned for DeBary’s future,

it seems that you only planned for yours.

Lenny Marks

**************************************************************************

THE PARTNERSHIP CENTER IS NO PARTNER TO THE TAXPAYER

Did you hear that sucking sound coming out of Deltona the other day? That was the Partnership Center looking to receive their promised funding a little sooner from Deltona, Orange City and the County. Orange City had to withdraw a $25,000 donation from another money sucking operation The DeBary Art League because they lack the funds to support both. Debary has already funded them with $100,000 plus through the years and land to build their Art Center building at Gateway Park . What a shame how and to whom they spend our money on. There have been too many bad decisions being made, with the public paying the freight. Who are these people that have the power to spend your money without having to be accountable for it? They don’t even care if the majority is in favor, or not in favor of their idea.

This vacuum has already cost DeBary 1 million dollars because the decision makers would not listen to reason from reasonable people. With the exception of Councilmember Gunter (who knew a bad deal from the beginning) the rest fell into the propaganda machine. If certain power merchants say it’s a good deal, then by golly, it must be a good deal.

I want to know when we get our million back. Oh, you say that’s not possible, it’s gone forever? What a sound judgment our council made: pledge a million, then decide to change their minds because they didn’t like the agreement, and lose the million. Wait a minute, that was our money. To make up for their bad decisions they raised our taxes. The same two Council Members, one making the motion the other seconding the motion for the lost millions are the same two who, once again, one making the motion the other seconding it for the highest millage rate of 3.5. Later it was discussed and passed at 3.0. Also the same two wanted the debt repayment time frame increased from five years to ten and one even wanted twenty years. The voters voted for seven years which gives the City two more years to pay off the debt. This is one reason why the City has lost their reserve fund. Too much spending, Council Members that have the philosophy that money is the answer to all problems. Lose money on bad deals, more time to payback the debt, raise taxes. That’s their philosophy. It’s not hard to figure out. I’m sure they have a few reasons why they had to raise our taxes beside the pledge to the Partnership Center , but when that amount of money is just given away with no return to the taxpayer or City there is something drastically wrong. Can’t lose can they? Please, don’t worry about bad deals, not to worry; the answer is to raise the taxes. I still have not heard from the three members who voted for pledging the DeBary taxpayer’s great million-dollar-give-away to support the idea of the Partnership Center disaster say anything about it. Not one has stepped up to the plate and said they were wrong. It’s never that a mistake was made by them, not them, they are almost always right and if they are wrong it’s just a little, or “but this” or “but that”. Hey fellow’s that was not your money, that was ours. I wonder how much of your capital you would give away without listening to stronger advice. You would be a delight in a poker game.

The Council just approved a $5000 donation to ACT INC., an organization that serves the mentally ill, drug users and HIV and AIDS patients. A spokeswoman gave her presentation stating they were running out of funds and there were only three people left on the payroll to do the work. They were asking for donations from all the Cities in Volusia County to help keep them afloat. Well, guess what, not more than a few weeks after our generous Council pledged $5000, they received a $6 million contract from the Department of Children and Families if they would provide mental health services to indigent patients. I would like to know if we get our $5000 back, or will that come out of our recent tax increase, or perhaps we will have to use their services as indigent people.

It looks like the other parties involved are seeing things a bit different. Perhaps, if you would listen to John Q. Public you would not get into such conundrums. The rule that you seem to always forget is IT”S NOT YOUR MONEY-you are entrusted with it, you are the stewards of it, so take care of it. You have a big responsibility but you do not take that responsibility seriously if you let yourselves be talked into every idea that comes along. Stay away from the Florida League of Cities, MPO, VCOG seminars and a host of other propaganda one side discussions. Does the queen of diamonds mean anything to you?

Get back to serving your people fair and making sound decisions. Listen to the folks. Get back our million, please. Are you even going to try?

Here are a few solutions: stop funding organizations that come before you asking for donations, there was a time when the answer was always NO. Listen to the people-after all it’s their money. Don’t fall for the propaganda some are trying to sell, it will certainly make the train fall off the rails. If nothing changes and the status quo remains, then a difference will have to be made come election time.

Which do think will happen first: Will DeBary ever get their “gone with the wind” million dollars back or will any Council Member step to the plate and say the made a mistake.

Finally, who set that fire? The truth will set you free.

Lenny Marks

**********************************************************

THE ART OF SHOVELING SMOKE

What an interesting paragraph Vice Mayor Fulton wrote in an email on 4/13/07 about essentially two types of committees (boards as he likes to call them):

Removal of a Board Member
First, anyone appointed to a board serves until removed or they decide to retire off a particular board the member serves at the will of the council. To clarify things related to serving on boards - there are essentially two types of boards - one board provides options and possibly differing opinions to the council. We look for people who are willing to give us new and innovative ideas to help the city grow and provide the best type of services possible to it’s citizenry. A perfect example of this would be the Economic Development Committee. We encourage open debate and dialogue on these types of boards and consider them to be “advisory” in nature. However, the other board is NOT advisory and their role is to carry out the will of the council on a particular board or committee. Some good examples of this variety of Board/committee is WAV (Water Authority of Volusia - which I sit on) and VGMC (Volusia Growth Management Commission). The members on these boards are to relay the views of the City Council and not the individuals personal v iew. Sometimes the two views (council and the individual member) don’t agree but the council should ALWAYS take precedence. I have had similar situations while sitting on the WAV board - but I know I am on the board to reflect the Councils views and not my own. If I can’t do that then I would resign from the WAV board. You might think of this person as being the City’s liaison or even the city’s lobbyist. If you hire a lobbyist to do a job and they wont do it .. then you replace them. There was some doubts relayed through Anita Gonzales to Maryann whether our representative on the VGMC would carry out our will. Maryann asked at a city meeting in an open forum to replace him with another member - which was done.

He states that one board/committee is nothing more than members who will say only YES and agree to whatever the Council’s desires are; the other is an advisory board/committee that is able to have open debate and dialogue.

Let’s look at the advisory committee/board; he states that “We look for people who are willing to give us new and innovative ideas to help the City grow and provide the best type of services possible to its citizenry. We encourage open debate and dialogue on these types of boards/committees and consider them to be advisory in nature”. Sorry, Vice-Mayor, the only debate and dialogue that occurs, is what is allowed. For example, if the subject is Commuter Rail you better be for it because all the information you present means nothing. It becomes a monologue not a dialogue. If the subject is the CRA, you better be for it because your arguments mean nothing. So when all is said and done, it is also a YES board/committee. Select the right Chair and members and you can get whatever you want. I’m certain that anyone you appoint to serve on a board/committee must have the same mind set as you or you would not select them. Have you ever noticed how many times the City and the people disagree? It’s because certain agendas and visions are more important than the people’s agendas and visions.

Let’s look at the YES type board/committee. What good is it to sit on a board/committee when the only option a member can do is vote YES, because that is the will of the Council. Vice Mayor Fulton forgot to mention, the committee/board that he serves on, WAV (Water Authority of Volusia), or the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) that Councilmember Tillis is Vice Chair of, the Volusia League of Cities, The Florida League of Cities and many more whether it be County, State or Federal are all ELECTED OFFICIALS appointed to the committees/boards. I wonder whose views they have to agree with. I doubt if it is the PEOPLE’S view. They are just YES board/committees. With the description he gives committee/board members are subject to the will of the Council even if they disagree with the Council’s wishes.

Do Council members hold themselves to what the People want as strongly as Fulton would want a committee/board member to hold to what the Council wants? Indeed, our Vice-Mayor has stated twice that sometimes governments have to do what is best for its citizens even if they, the citizens, don’t want it. While I disagree with the Vice-Mayor’s opinion, he seemingly also disagrees with himself (again) as it relates to the actions and opinions of committee/board members. While Council members may go against the People, committee/board members damn well better not is what Mr. Fulton has argued. The absurdity is that both Council and committees should be subject to the People. Further absurdity is that Mr. Erndl’s position on the River Bend project was misrepresented by City Manager, Maryann Courson. What about that? What about Maryann’s actions of bringing this up at the end of meeting, ram-rodding it through not on facts but “inklings” and slurring a citizen’s character in the process. What about that, Council? You have yet to make a motion to right this wrong.

Mr. Fulton states that when two different views exist between the Council and the individual member, the Councils view should always take precedence. The Vice Mayor has left an important part of the equation out of the formula, that is, shouldn’t the Council be doing what the views of THE PEOPLE are. It seems the good folks are always left out, no matter how hard they try making themselves heard. The Council’s views over the PEOPLES views, how sad. No wonder our City Government is not trusted, you give little respect, take us the people for granted and are only concerned where the next taxpayer’s dollars will come from.

The way Councilman Fulton explains how the boards/committees are set up shows us a truly flawed system, it is so stacked against the people that they can never win. It is never the will of the people; it’s always the will of others, who know much better than we do, what is good for us. Quite honestly, it stinks. It sounds like one of the requirements, if you want to on be on a board/committee, is to answer the question; how many ways can you say YES! It must be true because Councilmember Fulton has told us this is how board/committee system works. It’s hard to win with a stacked deck.

Ask Tom Smith who was Chair of the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) if that is a true statement! The City got rid of him in a New York minute. Ask Pat Northey how fast she was shown the door as president and chief executive officer of the West Volusia Chamber of Commerce Committee. Ask Gary Libby a founding member of the advisory committee that recommends how Volusia County spends ECHO fund monies. Let’s not forget about Jay Erndl who was dismissed from the committee he served on, Volusia Growth Management Commission (VGMC) because our City Manager had an inkling he was not serving the best interests of DeBary. Mr. Erndl went in front of the Mayor and Council to defend himself and clear his name. What did the council do with this information? Nothing not even a meager apology to Mr. Erndl. Business as usual gets what you want, even if it’s wrong. THIS IS WHY THE PEOPLE CAN”T WIN. It seems that debate and dialogue are good as long as it agrees with the powers that be, but make sure it agrees with their ideas.

If anyone has had a similar experience with boards/committees that they served on, I would like to know. If it’s been done once it’s been done many more times.

It is monologue over dialogue when it comes to the public.

Lenny Marks

This article appeared in the Orlando Sentinel 5/2/07. Thanks to the Sentinel and Nancy Imperiale for this informative article.

Fates of Volusia advisers might depend on politics

By NANCY IMPERIALE

SENTINEL STAFF WRITER

The Volusia County Council on Thursday is expected to appoint dozens of community volunteers to key advisory boards.

But these seats may not have as much power as in the past.

The council has proposed several rule changes that would tie the fates of board members to the political terms of the individual council members appointing them. Another change would allow council members to boot volunteers from two boards – including the powerful Planning and Land Development Regulation Committee – without having to give a reason.

At least one government watchdog worries this will have a “chilling effect” on volunteer decision-makers.

“I think it will deter some of the most able people in the community from serving, because they in fact would be perceived as a clone or a ‘yes person’ to the appointing council member,” veteran Volusia political observer T. Wayne Bailey said. “As a citizen volunteering my time, I would have real reservations about a council having the right to veto my thinking. … That’s not unusual that council members seek out persons whose positions they identify with. But I don’t think in the past they’ve sought out people who would be automations who would walk the chalk line for council-member approval.”

One current board member who is reapplying for his position worries that being able to remove members without cause could send the wrong message.

“It certainly doesn’t do much for candor or giving good advice,” said Jack Crocker, chairman of Volusia’s Beach Policy Advisory Board. “It’s an advisory board. If they want our advice, don’t tell us what our advice is going to be.”

Chairman likes proposal

County Chairman Frank Bruno defended the proposed changes.

“I’m not saying we’re putting people of the same mind-set on boards and if they’re not of our same mind-set they’ll be removed,” Bruno said Tuesday. “But at the same time, if you have a board member that for one reason or another a council member feels does not represent him or her, they serve at the discretion of the County Council and they can be removed.”

Bruno says allowing board members to be removed without cause is designed “to save them embarrassment” from having reasons for disclosed.

As of Tuesday evening 143 people were vying for 73 spots on nine advisory boards that make recommendations to the council on everything from multimillion-dollar land purchases to helping needy children.

Such boards are the first step for important issues that go before the council.

Planning and Land Regulation members, for example, meet once a month to hear rezoning requests, review land-development plans and consider requests for changes to the county’s Comprehensive Plan. The board’s recommendations go to the council, which has the final vote on such issues.

Many of the board applicants have served, or are currently serving, on advisory boards. They include retirees, political activists, teachers, artists, Realtors, a stay –at-home mom, a wildlife biologist, financial planners, professors and general manager of a Dairy Queen. Many of the applicants grew up in Volusia, with strong community ties. Several incumbents are reapplying to serve.

Changes to be considered

Among the proposed changes to be considered at Thursday’s council meeting:

* Term limits would be eliminated for the Tourist Development Council, Code Enforcement Board, Children and Families Advisory Board, Agri-Business Inter-Relationship Committee, Beach Policy Advisory Board, the Cultural Council, Volusia County Library Advisory Board, ECHO Advisory Board and Volusia forever Advisory Board. Instead, board members’ terms will expire when the council member who appointed them leaves office.

* County Council members would each appoint their own nominee to boards. In the past, openings on boards were filled by council members on a rotating basis.

* The county chair and vice chair would be able to nominate two board members – one each from the county’s east and west sides.

* Rules providing explicitly for removal without cause are proposed for the Planning and Land Development Commission and Historic Prevention Board.

* Members of numerous boards will be automatically removed for missing more than two meetings per calendar year.* A previous requirement that members of the ECHO and Volusia Forever advisory board file financial disclosure has been removed. “The disclosure of personal information discouraged members from serving,” council members said, and is not required by state law.

Applicant withdraws name

In another development, former County Council member Bill Long – who left office last year amid controversy surrounding his personal life – has removed his name from the list of applicants for several boards.

Upon further reflection, Long said Monday, he did not want his appointment to create “any negative distraction” to the work of the boards.

“I just felt, after thinking and praying about it … I would not like to be a lightning rod or distraction from any of the boards I would have been proud to serve on” said Long, who added that he plans to concentrate on his business and travel.

The County Council will meet Thursday at the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center, 123 W. Indiana Ave., in Deland. The meeting begins at 9a.m.

******************************************************

A TRUE AMERICAN HERO

What a sad day for Susette Kelo. You ask who she is; well she’s the courageous lady who took on the City of New London CT , and a few mega land developers, who wanted her home and the neighborhood where she lived. She fought all the way to the Supreme Court where she lost by a 5 to 4 decision because of that terrible court ruling. Her reward for fighting against the poorest of odds was that she may keep her home and move it to another location nearby but must forfeit her property to these heartless, no conscience, greedy low lives. Wow, what a mouthful but the shoe seems to be a perfect fit. Susette, you gave a valiant fight and I would like to personally thank you for all you have been put through, and bring to the surface what’s going on in the land of the free. You brought to attention for all America to see, the abuses that go on in our Country, concerning eminent domain. Since the Kelo vs New London, (June 2005 – June 2006) decision there have been, 5,429 threatened condemnations, 354 filed/authorized condemnations, and 5,783 total eminent domain for private and commercial development abuses that have occurred.

Here is the actual press release on Susette Kelo’s plight.

Susette Kelo Lost Her Rights,
She Lost Her Property,
But She Has Saved Her Home

Famous House That Was the Subject Of U.S. Supreme Court Eminent Domain Abuse Case Will Be Moved Probably Close to its Original Location

WEB RELEASE: June 30, 2006
CONTACT:
John E. Kramer or Lisa Knepper
(703) 682-9320
[Private Property]

Arlington, Va—Susette Kelo’s little pink cottage—the home that was the subject of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case and a national symbol of the fight against eminent domain abuse—will be spared from the wrecking ball. In a compromise put forward by Kelo and accepted today by the City of New London, the home will be saved and moved to another location, perhaps close to where it originally stood over a century ago, on Pequot Avenue in New London. The U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London gutted federal constitutional protections against eminent domain abuse but, in so doing, sparked a national rebellion against these practices.

“It is wonderful that Susette Kelo's little pink house, which is a national symbol of the fight against eminent domain abuse, will remain standing,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, which continues to represent the remaining two homeowners. “The home will continue to serve as a tribute to her brave struggle and as a powerful symbol of the fight to stop land-grabs by cities and their developer allies.”

“I am not happy about giving up my property, but I am very glad that my home, which means so much to me, will not be demolished and I will remain living in it,” said Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in Kelo v. New London. “I proposed this as a compromise years ago and was turned down flat.”

Faced with eviction and the destruction of her beloved home, Kelo put forward an idea that she had originally proposed when first threatened with eminent domain abuse: preserving the home and moving it. When she first proposed this idea, it was rejected by the New London Development Corporation (NLDC). Now, the City, NLDC and the State of Connecticut have agreed to the move. While the precise location has not yet been determined, the house may be moved on or near Pequot Avenue, which is where the home originally stood before it was moved to Fort Trumbull over 100 years ago. There, the home, like Kelo’s property in Fort Trumbull, will be very close to the Long Island Sound.

The City and the remaining homeowners had been at an impasse. The City gave them a May 31, 2006, deadline for accepting a settlement or face eviction. Two of the homeowners, Susette Kelo and the Cristofaro family, refused. Conn. Gov. M. Jodi Rell proposed moving the homes and giving real titles back the homeowners in Fort Trumbull, but the City refused to agree to that approach.

“I will be able to continue living in the home that means so much to me, with a real title to my property,” said Kelo. “Also, I will once again live in a neighborhood rather than a demolition zone.”

While Kelo’s agreement today signifies her deep attachment to her home, the agreement reached with the other remaining homeowner, the Cristofaros, reflects the family’s deep affiliation with the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, where they have lived for over 30 years. Although the Cristofaros will lose their current home, under the agreement, the City and the NLDC have agreed to support an application for more housing in Fort Trumbull, and the Cristofaro family has an exclusive right to purchase one of the homes at a fixed price. Moreover, a plaque will be installed in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to commemorate the loss of family matriarch Margherita Cristofaro, who passed away while the battle against eminent domain abuse occurred in New London.

“Neither the Kelo nor the Cristofaro family wanted to lose their homes, but they are each keeping some part of their homes,” added Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dana Berliner. “Susette Kelo will keep her house, albeit in another location. The Cristofaros want to stay on the Fort Trumbull peninsula. This agreement gives them the right to own a home in Fort Trumbull when one is built. The City also has agreed to move the trees that father Pasquale Cristofaro transplanted 30 years ago, when the previous Cristofaro home was taken by eminent domain.”

“The New London case was history-making,” said Chip Mellor, president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice. “It is only fitting that the house that launched a grassroots revolt should be preserved.”

The Kelo decision touched off a firestorm of controversy and a grassroots backlash, leading to numerous legislative changes and citizen initiatives. Since the June 23, 2005, decision, legislators in 47 states have introduced, considered or passed legislation limiting the government’s eminent domain powers in instances of private use. Twenty-five governors have signed legislation into law. Arizona, Iowa and New Mexico are the only states whose governors vetoed eminent domain reform. So far, six states have constitutional amendments to limit eminent domain power on the ballot in November 2006.

While no firm details are yet set, Kelo’s home is expected to be moved sometime in the next year.

*****************************************************************************

Lenny Marks response:

Don’t think for one moment that this can’t happen right here. It has already happened in some cities in Florida, and was attempted here in DeBary through a CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). Only the strength of the people thwarted this action by the EDAC (Economic Development Advisory Committee) and the City Council.

To take someone else’s land for the sole reason of money and greed is not an acceptable option. The 73% of the voting public who voted on a referendum in our last election (2004), to slow down growth only to have it rejected by a judge in DeLand, under the reasoning that the wording was not correct, is out of order. It’s is only in order for the developers and elected officials to satisfy their thirst for your property. One of the only things a person has left after he has been bombarded by a never ending amount of taxes is his property. There wouldn’t be as many taxes to pay if our leaders would stay within a reasonable spending budget. They have created such a deep tax pit that they are having a hard time coming up with ways to raise taxes. But the growth continues at an alarming pace. They have no solid answers on how to fund the problems of new or improving existing roads, schools, traffic, drinking water, flood areas, air pollution, environmental issues and a few more. The only solution is to raise taxes. Place a ½ cent on the sales taxes or increase impact fees, gas tax are just a few of their solutions. Guess who pays? You got it, you. The simple answer that could have been imposed two years ago and what the voters wanted, SLOW THE GROWTH. Now that the bag that holds five pounds of tax manure has 5 1/2 pounds to put in it, our elected leaders are scrabbling for ways of doing this. Their only answer is to find some different funding mechanisms, some additional tax to be burdened on the tax payers. Let’s see if I can come up with a few, how about a sunshine tax, everyday the sun shines, tax the people, a sleeping tax go to sleep pay a tax, a home toilet tax, you get it. Too bad the voter’s desires were not honored. Well, guess what, they want that land, your land, and will go to any length to acquire it from you. It seems to me 73% of the voters certainly knew what the wording meant, and they voted for what they believed was a stop measure to slow down sprawl and runaway growth.

Once again thanks to Susette Kelo for her stand on eminent domain and taking on the these heartless ones who place money and greed above all else. You will always be a hero to me and the vast majority of people across America.

Lenny Marks DeBary, FL

************************************************************