Yes, the state of Florida’s deal to purchase upwards of 70,000 acres from the failing U.S. Sugar Corporation (and another 100,000+ later on) will ultimately benefit the Everglades by returning large tracts of land to marsh, increasing natural water flow and flood control, and stabilizing water supplies for wild ecosystems and surrounding cities.
The ends are one thing; the means are another.
As this editorial from the St. Petersburg Times points out, Gov. Crist & company made hefty promises under very suspicious circumstances:
The evolving land purchase has not been pretty to watch from the start. It was negotiated in private with key players such as the federal government shut out. There are legitimate questions about the validity of the property appraisals, which appear to have overvalued the land as property values were declining. Then there is the murky role of U.S. Sen. George LeMieux. He was Crist’s chief of staff when the deal was hatched and worked for U.S. Sugar’s law firm both before and after his time in Tallahassee. LeMieux claims he recused himself from working on the deal as the governor’s chief of staff, but it all looks too cozy from the outside.
In the broader picture, it is galling that taxpayers are both subsidizing an industry that helped imperil the Everglades and now paying for the restoration. Without indefensible taxpayer price supports mandated by Congress, U.S. Sugar and its competitors would be in much weaker negotiating positions if they existed at all.
The latter paragraph makes a very interesting point: that had this land been negotiated outside of the bounds of the pseudo-corporatist land purchase programs mandated by Congress, U.S. Sugar would probably be taking 70% or less of the appraised value of their property.
Instead, they are receiving a premium of somewhere between 50-100%.
Sure, to ensure that it becomes protected land, a full 100% of the appraised property value may be an appropriate rate for the state to pay, but with such a closed, opaque process, it’s clear that Florida taxpayers’ and the interests of the Everglades came behind a satisfactory “bailout” if you will, of U.S. Sugar.
Not to mention the “bailout” of Charlie Crist’s career in a deal sold as solid conservationism that clearly is only partially so.
As even the New York Times points out in a recent article “A Deal to Save the Everglades Could Rescue U.S. Sugar Instead“:
Standing amid the marshes at the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge in June 2008, Mr. Crist said, “I can envision no better gift to the Everglades, the people of Florida and the people of America — as well as our planet — than to place in public ownership this missing link that represents the key to true restoration.”
Nearly two years later, the governor’s ambitious plan to reclaim the river of grass, as the famed wetlands are known, is instead on track to rescue the fortunes of United States Sugar.
The proposal was downsized only five months after it was announced. By April 2009, amid the deepening recession, the state said it could afford to purchase only 72,800 acres of United States Sugar’s land, for $536 million. The company would stay in business and the state would retain the option of buying the remaining 107,000 acres at a future date.
I was always a bit skeptical of the time frame: the deal stipulated that U.S. Sugar could continue to operate for several years and certain critical land wouldn’t be purchased until several years out.
It almost suggests that conservationism was used as a cover to provide U.S. Sugar with an influx of cash as their company fails and urban water issues begin to threaten competing interests.
It wasn’t that long ago–even late into the recession early last year, the project was praised as visionary and welcome:
Should this transaction fail, U.S. Sugar Corp. could auction its land holdings to other willing buyers who are already pushing dangerous plans to build landfills, rock mines and massive commercial developments in the middle of the Everglades.
Imagine how difficult and expensive the state’s job of acquiring land for restoration in those circumstances would be and what irreversible abuses to the land could be perpetuated. No one who is truly concerned about a healthy Everglades and the economic benefits it provides to diverse industries such as agriculture, tourism, fishing, and boating would want to see that happen.
This historic land acquisition is an opportunity for us all. It requires vision — something that was woefully lacking before Crist suggested this approach to Everglades restoration.
We applaud Crist and U.S. Sugar for negotiating a creative, flexible and more-affordable solution to improving our water quality, saving the Everglades and preserving the jobs that are dependent on its survival. Kirk Fordham is CEO of the Everglades Foundation in Palmetto Bay.
—
So, while this isn’t much of anything that a U.S. Senator can address (as it is and should be a mostly local issue), it is certainly a part of Charlie Crist’s record that should be thoroughly examined to evaluate his legacy as Governor.
Complicating the issue is the fact that
Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush both have ties to Florida Crystals – the big competitor to U.S. Sugar which opposes the land preservation deal.
(Rubio is taking advantage of the Crist fumble in a recent ad.)
It would be nice to hear Rubio’s take on the issue as a whole–is it a worthwhile goal? Is it a good use of taxpayer money? Who would have taken the prominent seats at the table? Were Crist’s noble intentions–to restore one of the world’s great natural spaces–well-intentioned, but simply carried about by the wrong guy?
—
All in all, if it were really about the Everglades, this deal would be brokered with as many environmentalist groups and agencies as possible, with a focus on how this would improve stable water supplies for nearby cities, and how it would turn 180,000 acres growing one of the most water-intensive crops utilized by a failing company into a large increase in the size of the Everglades Preserve, connecting the great Lake Okeechobee with the marshes to the south.
If it were really about the Everglades, and not Charlie Crist, George LeMieux, and their friends at U.S. Sugar, the interests of the public purse would have come before that of the U.S. Sugar Corporation from the beginning.
—
Meanwhile, Crist’s defense of the project on Greta the other night sounds wonderful, but I am now left questioning if it’s all just rhetoric. Let’s hope not.
I, on the other hand, want to honor god’s work, restore this to its natural position, restore the natural flow of the Florida Everglades. This may be the only time we have an opportunity to do this, Greta. And our administration has been very focused on it just the way Teddy Roosevelt would have been. It’s the right thing to do and we’ll get it done.
Re-posted from truthupfront.blogspot.com
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
No comments yet.