Everglades Foundation Responds to New York Times Story on U.S. Sugar Corp. Land Transaction
March 8, 2010
Hello,
If you read the March 7th New York Times story on the U.S. Sugar Corp. land acquisition, there was one message that should have come through loud and clear: The Everglades is dying.
Unfortunately, much of that message was lost in an article heavily featuring quotes and mischaracterizations by well-known opponents of Everglades restoration.
While we spent countless hours with the Times' journalists in an attempt to present balancing facts, the newspaper chose to omit most if not all of the information we provided, including the following:
For those of us who believe the Everglades is worth protecting for its environmental and economic value to our state and nation, it is more important than ever that we continue to work together to advance policies that will ensure its continued survival. The U.S. Sugar Corp. land acquisition will do just that.
We appreciate your support. If you would like to learn more about the Everglades Foundation and the U.S. Sugar Corp. transaction, please visitwww.evergladesfoundation.org or call us at (305) 251-0001.
More info: http://www.eco-voice.org/node/2928
A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING TOLL-FREE (800-435-7352) WITHIN THE STATE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.'' REGISTRATION# CH31394.
Checks to support Eco-Voice can be sent to Post Office Box 50161, Fort Myers, Fl 33994. 501c3 status with the IRS is in process.
EDITORIAL: Sweet Everglades deal turns sour
(1) Please respond to this Editorial at:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorials/sfl-newedit-everglades-32410,0,5483492.story
EDITORIAL: Sweet Everglades deal turns sour
Sun-Sentinel
March 24, 2010
The idea began with much promise. U.S. Sugar agreed to sell its land holdings to the state of Florida. Gov. Charlie Crist touted the deal, along with its initial $1.7 billion purchase price, as a boon for Everglades restoration, and life would be good.
Unfortunately, it didn't take long before what was said to be a breakthrough became a boondoggle. Once a boon for the environment, the deal is now plagued by growing, and very legitimate, concerns that the big beneficiary of the sale will be U.S. Sugar and not the Florida Everglades.
The state still hopes to buy 72,800 acres for $536 million, a much scaled-down version of the original deal from two years ago. The proposal, though, has lost too much of its original luster, enough so that state officials should avoid closing on a bad deal.
The purchase has its problems. For starters, the sale could leave the South Florida Water Management Districttoo cash-strapped to pay for other restoration efforts. Further delays are the last thing the Everglades needs. District officials say they could continue restoration once they secure the bonds needed to pay for the purchase. That's an iffy proposition in itself, but there's another problem with the land. Taxpayers could pay $400 million more than the land is worth because the appraisals were based on figures during the height of the real estate boom.
The parcels themselves aren't contiguous, which means the district would have to swap land with other landowners to create a tract large enough to recreate the unfettered flow of water from Lake Okeechobee into Florida Bay. Lastly, U.S. Sugar would still operate long after the sale, a setback for those who hoped that buying out the company would mark the end of a business long viewed as a stumbling block to cleaning up the Everglades.
The onus has been on the state of Florida to prove that this deal makes sense. So far, they have not been persuasive. The state still has time to make its case, but barring major concessions on the asking price, or the discovery of some unanticipated benefit that makes the purchase more financially attractive, this land deal has shaped up to be a losing proposition.
BOTTOM LINE: Drop current U.S. Sugar deal.
copyright © 2010, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Guest commentary: U.S. Sugar land needed for Everglades restorat
Guest commentary: U.S. Sugar land needed for Everglades restoration
Manley K. Fuller / President, Florida Wildlife Federation and Laurie Macdonald / Florida director, Defenders of Wildlife
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Restoration of the Picayune Strand to restore natural water flows is well under way today — the first official project of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and one of the heretofore “missing pieces” of restoration. While celebrating, it should be noted that this restoration would not be happening if the land had never been acquired.
Many times during the 24 years that it took to track down and convince 17,000 landowners to sell, acquisition did seem to be an overwhelming, impractical, expensive task and — yes — it was controversial. It took more than $155 million and a lot of perseverance. The effort was worth every hour and every dollar.
On Thursday, the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board is being asked to reaffirm the worth of restoring other parts of the Everglades and to recommit to an agreement to buy 73,000 acres of land from U.S. Sugar. That commitment, too, is expensive — $536 million — and controversial, and the land to be acquired is another “missing piece” of restoration.
Make no mistake, that U.S. Sugar land is needed to store water for agricultural and urban uses during the dry season and, during the rainy season, to filter farm and urban runoff so it can be released south into the River of Grass where it is needed and to eliminate the destructive and polluting releases that are currently made west into the Caloosahatchee River and estuary. Restoration of habitat will benefit numerous species of Florida’s native wildlife. The governing board should, indeed it must, reaffirm its commitment — if the long-term goals of Everglades restoration are to be achieved.
For two years opponents have attacked the deal relentlessly, but offered no alternatives. There has been no other “willing seller” step forward with a better deal or land swap. Initially the purchase agreement was a “buy it all” proposal, $1.75 billion for 187,000 acres, a railroad, refinery and citrus processing plant. Assets the water-management district did not need were to be resold to offset the expense of buying land that was and is needed.
Deservedly, Gov. Charlie Crist was praised for his expansive vision and bold initiative. He also deserves praise for, in the face of the national recession and Wall Street’s disarray, responsibly changing the deal to acquire only those lands immediately needed and secure an option on the rest. That contract, which needs to be extended because of delays generated by opponents, also includes an escape clause if, in fact, the deal proves to be unaffordable. Ultimately, affordability depends on market conditions and terms when bonds are validated by the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Wildlife Federation and Defenders of Wildlife have long held their own long-range vision and commitment to landscape-scale restoration. Former federation executive director Johnny Jones and board member Arthur R. Marshall led the early efforts to empower the state not only to buy environmentally sensitive lands, but also to restore the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee and to re-establish the flow of water that is the River of Grass. Defenders recognize this purchase as a critical component of ecosystem restoration which benefits both the economy and the environment, including endangered species. Defenders’ professional publications demonstrate the economic benefits of conservation lands.
We are now urging the governing board of the South Florida Water Management District to stay its course and extend the contract. We are confident of the multiple benefits to Southwest Florida and the rest of southern Florida.
© 2010 Scripps Newspaper Group — On
Rep.Trudi Williams - A vocal critic of the deal
U.S. Sugar deal sparks call for oversight
Florida's Everglades deal with the sugar industry is sparking calls for legislation that would require approval before water management districts could make large land purchases.
The Miami Herald (AP)
BY MICHAEL PELTIER
News Service of Florida
TALLAHASSEE -- With lawmakers already frustrated over a lack of oversight, recent reports on the state's landmark $536 million Everglades agreement with U.S. Sugar Corp. may add momentum for a legislative response in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the controversial deal, a key House lawmaker said Monday.
Meanwhile, a scheduled meeting of the South Florida Water Management District's Board this week to extend the closing deadline for the contract that ends March 31 is also likely to provide a venue for renewed scrutiny of the May 2009 agreement for the district to purchase nearly 73,000 acres from the sugar company.
Rep. Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers and chairwoman of the House Agricultural and Natural Resources Policy Committee, told The News Service of Florida Monday that she will attempt to craft a committee proposal by merging three similar House bills that would require legislative approval before water management districts could make large land purchases in the future.
A vocal critic of the deal penned last year, Williams said the legislation is necessary to ensure that future legislators won't have to merely sit back and watch the water management district board, the members of which are appointed by the governor. As for the U.S. Sugar deal, however, Williams said the Legislature's hands may be tied. ``I don't know any vehicle for the Legislature to intervene right now,'' Williams said. ``If I had a vehicle, I would certainly try to exercise it.''
Backers say the purchase is critical for Everglades restoration efforts. Critics, meanwhile, characterize it as a sweetheart deal for an otherwise financially strapped company and the law firm that represents it.
The deal originally called for the taxpayers in the water management taxing district's 16-county area across South Florida to spend $1.75 billion for 187,000 acres, about 300 square miles. Facing tough financial times, though, the agreement was renegotiated. If approved, the state will have the option to purchase an additional 107,000 acres.
Recent articles in The Miami Herald and a weekend piece by The New York Times have reignited debate over the already controversial transaction, potentially the most expensive land purchase in state history. Among the questions raised were the parcel's appraised value, environmental quality and location of lands slated for purchase. The land being bought was appraised during the height of the speculation boom, but land values have since plummeted. Yet the agreement is still based on the higher values, The Times reported. Appraisals on the original $1.75 billion purchase had fallen by $400 million.
Also at issue is the district's ability to pay. The purchase is being paid by property taxes, collections of which have fallen with property values. The tax base has fallen from $549 million in 2008 to an estimated $405 million 2011. The drop in tax base has raised concerns that the district can no longer afford such a pricey item.
On Monday, the chairman of the joint legislative panel overseeing Everglades issues tried to dispel rumors that the district would be on the hook for the purchase even if it couldn't meet its other obligations. The contract, he said, gives the district an easy out.
``We want it to be very clear, if the money is there you can go forward, if not, the deal's off,'' said Rep. Julio Robaina, R-Miami and chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee on Everglades Oversight.
The Florida Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for April 7 to determine if the water management district is justified in selling $534 million in bonds to pay for the purchase. It's historically a limited review.
The water management governing board is meeting Wednesday to extend the contract that otherwise would expire March 31.
Sen. Le Mieux on US Sugar Deal
The Miami Herald
U.S. Sen. George LeMieux spoke to The Miami Herald editorial board today on a number of topics and defended the Everglades land deal proposed by his former boss, Gov. Charlie Crist. He also denied that he had anything personally to gain from his former law firm's representation of U.S. Sugar.
"For my part, I was leaving the governor's office when this sprouted. I was not in the meetings when it happened,'' he said. "I purposely said to the governor that I can't be involved in this. I don't want to know anything about it. I have never in fact had a conversation with the governor (about it), even when I was there or after, just to be sure that there was no appearance of conflict to the point where, even though the firm took in revenues from this transaction, I didn't receive any compensation from that...
"I believe it was a historic opportunity. I think being able to acquire that much land for water storage or water purification is tremendously important..It's always easy to poke holes and say you paid too much or this or that, but in the end, I think it's a huge legacy item for the governor."
LAND ACQUISITION DECISION SHOULD BE BASED ON SCIENCE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Thom Rumberger http://www.evergladestrust.org/
March 8, 2010 (850) 222-6550
LAND ACQUISITION DECISION SHOULD BE BASED ON SCIENCE,
NOT FLORIDA CRYSTAL’S ECONOMIC AGENDA
For the majority of Floridians who believe the Everglades are worth protecting, both for
its environmental and economic value, it is more important now than ever that we continue to
work together to advance science-based policies that will lead to the Everglades’ successful
restoration. The U.S. Sugar acquisition is one of these science based policies, aimed at acquiring
needed property south of Lake Okeechobee.
For decades, the Everglades have been a victim of greed, government mismanagement
and self interest. If this historic opportunity to acquire vast lands for restoration is passed-over
because of "news" articles such as that found in the New York Times today the victimization will
continue. A reading of the paper's recitation of "facts" reveals that it is, in great measure, the
result of the same arguments, repeated over and over, by those who will profit if the acquisition
is defeated -- the Florida Crystal corporation and the Fanjul family. The Everglades Trust
supports the South Florida Water Management District Board’s continued science and economic
based review of the acquisition – not special interests’ calls for a political decision to abandon
this opportunity of a lifetime at the urging of the few.
###
Dockery: Water district can’t afford U.S. Sugar
Dockery: Water district can’t afford to buy U.S. Sugar land
by Michael C. Bender | March 8th, 2010
Dockery
Sen. Paula Dockery of Lakeland, a Republican gubernatorial candidate, says Gov. Charlie Crist’s U.S. Sugar deal is a “bad public policy” for theSouth Florida Water Management District that “will swallow the district’s budget for years.” From her letter to the editor in today’s Palm Beach Post.
So, while this project is being sold as Everglades restoration, it would delay actual restoration efforts by using needed money for land acquisition, while U.S. Sugar would retain the more significant tracts in the natural flow-way. Making matters worse, the deal would give U.S. Sugar an exclusive right to lease back the acreage at below-market rates for 20 years.
I’m asking board Chairman Eric Buermann to be forthcoming about the consequences, including tax increases that will be needed and opportunities that will be lost. Continuing to pursue this purchase is not just fiscally irresponsible; it is nothing short of reckless.
The New York Times profiled the deal on Sunday, concluding that the immediate beneficiaries are U.S. Sugar and U.S. Sen.George LeMieux’s former law firm, Gunster Yoakley.
Rubio: on Everglades deal - "bailout"
Rubio: Crist’s Everglades deal a ‘massive tax-payer funded bailout’
by Michael C. Bender | March 8th, 2010
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio said aNew York Times story has raised “troubling new questions” about the U.S. Sugar purchase negotiated by his primary rival, Gov. Charlie Crist. From Rubio’s press release today:
“This deal is nothing more than a massive taxpayer-funded bailout for a top Charlie Crist campaign donor and a profitable bonanza for Crist’s inner circle.
“Once again, Charlie Crist has put his political ambition ahead of the people of Florida, and once again the results are disastrous for taxpayers. In fact, this bailout plan is the second most expensive photo op Charlie Crist has ever staged.
“Charlie Crist’s bailout plan will require higher taxes and increased debt, and it does nothing for the Everglades. In fact, it actually halts real restoration projects started by Jeb Bush, which were already underway.
“Charlie Crist simply can’t be trusted to go to Washington to fight massive government spending because, more often than not, he’s the one proposing it.”
http://www.postonpolitics.com/2010/03/rubio-crists-everglades-deal-a-massive-tax-payer-funded-bailout/
Gov. Crist answers critics of land deal
http://www.pnj.com/article/20100308/NEWS01/100308015/1006/rss01
March 8, 2010
Crist answers critics of land deal
Jim Ash
Florida Capital Bureau Chief
TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Charlie Crist fired back today at critics who pummeled him for a $536 million Everglades land deal that they describe as a giveaway to U.S. Sugar Corp.
Crist said the criticism came from Florida Crystals, a business competitor of U.S. Sugar and a supporter of the governor's political foe, Marco Rubio.
In an editorial board meeting at the Tallahassee Democrat, Crist was asked about a Sunday story in The New York Times that showed the deal could put the state on the hook for $400 million in inflated land prices and that Everglades restoration could be delayed a generation.
In the article, former Gov. Jeb Bush panned the deal.
“On a net basis, this appears to me there has been a replacement of science-based environmental policy for photo-op environmental policy,” Bush said.
Crist said he has no qualms and is still a big supporter of the deal.
“Absolutely. Without a doubt,” Crist said. “It’s easy to criticize a difficult effort.”
Crist said U.S. Sugar did not have an unfair advantage because his former chief of staff worked for the law firm that represents U.S. Sugar. The deal was also criticized by U.S. Sugar competitor, Florida Crystals, a big supporter of Crist’s opponent in the Republican race for the U.S. Senate, Marco Rubio.
“They (U.S. Sugar) had a stronger voice because they are a willing seller. That’s it. It’s that simple,” Crist said of U.S. Sugar. “So Florida Crystals criticizes it because they were not a willing seller. I know what drives some arguments sometimes. I’m not stupid.”
Rubio’s response, in a written statement.
“This deal is nothing more than a massive taxpayer-funded bailout for a top Charlie Crist campaign donor and a profitable bonanza for Crist’s inner circle.”
Post new comment