Letters from Readers

From Julie Priest

Hello Tom,

Many thanks for describing the lack of follow-through to meet government requirements and financial audits (reconciling bank statements among other things) that were not taking place since February, after Mike Mortell was fired.  I read Commissioner Rich's comments, too.  The deviation from the formerly consistent, responsible, good government that took place at the City was shocking (for me), sad and contrary to the last 50 years of successful and productive revitalization history/operations.

Voting for the most competent leaders is the answer.  The possible passage of Amendment 3 by uninformed voters is my current concern. The Rio Civic Club is hosting an informational event on October 14 at 5 p.m. with the knowledgeable Property Appraiser as the primary speaker at the Rio Civic Center.  All are welcome.

Frank Tidikis

Dear Mr. Campenni,

I read your take on the last two Sewall’s Point Commission meetings with the usual mix of civic interest and “well, that’s one way to put it.” A few notes, in the same spirit:

1.     Town Manager evaluation: I scored Mr. Daniels a 3.33 average across nine categories. On the scale we use, 3 is average, so this lands him in the neighborhood of “solid, with room to grow”—which is roughly where most of us land on a good day. The write-up flagged what went well, what didn’t, and a few suggestions. No fireworks, no parade, just the annual report card. 

2.     On the millage reduction, yes—I slipped a decimal point and fixed it in my September 6 email to residents. However, you either missed or ignored the larger point which survived the typo:

o   The August 8 Budget in Brief showed a $616,015 surplus. After walking the August actuals and September projections with the Finance Director, I put a more cautious year-end figure closer to $405,621.

o   As of August 31, the books showed an $819,909 surplus; the Finance Director walked the commission through those numbers on September 17.

o   Reserves sit above $6.4 million. Reasonable people can argue about the right cushion; “more than $6 million and still counting” is a lot of cushion!

o   Returning half of a deliberately conservative surplus estimate to the people who supplied it does not strike me as reckless, especially with that reserve balance. As Churchill roughly put it, government has nothing to give that it did not first collect. 

3.     On the grant applications and the charge of “nitpicking", the calendar is the whole story. The commission approved the Capital Improvement Plan on April 28. The town contracts out the actual grant writing. DEP’s window opened July 1 and closed September 1. We met three times inside that window. I simply expected the contractor’s work product to arrive accurately and early enough for the commission to review it before the door shut. Deadlines are unsentimental that way.

Kaitlyn Ellerbe

   You published an article and described my husband/family and our plans to build a home in a way that doesn't reflect who he is or what we're trying to do. We aren’t trying to get away with anything. We are trying to build a home. Since your article ran, Commissioner Vargas changed her vote, and we've lost the decision that was originally and rightfully voted on. I can't prove your story was the reason, but the timing is hard to ignore, and I don't think you considered what your words might cost real people in a small community.

   I treat cancer patients for a living. My work is about sitting with people at their most vulnerable and treating them with care. I could never imagine doing a job like yours, making a living by telling the stories of people you don't even know, without seeming to care how those stories land on their lives. 

   Myself, my husband, and my two young children have had our lives turned upside down AGAIN. I hope next time you'll take the time to talk with the people you write about and understand them before you shape how their neighbors see them. I don’t think you’re a nice person and your article misstates the truth. 

My Response

Ms. Ellerbe:

Your contention that I in some way influenced Commissioner Vargas' vote is not true. If it were, it would be the first time.

I don't see where I misstated anything. What I do not do is swallow your contention regarding whether the submerged lands should be counted or not. I think the county administrator decided correctly. Obviously you and your husband do not agree. 

The commission ordering a building permit was the wrong decision. That is why the motion to reopen the proceeding was done. Commissioners cannot do things that are in violation of the Comp Plan or their own codes. A building permit would do just that. 

If they are incorrect then a court will overturn their decision. I don't think the commission will do anything else but uphold the decision of the county administrator when all is said and done. I think a few of the commissioners by not following the rules as outlined in the Article X proceeding gave you false hope as to the outcome. 

You want the Ag exemption and that in my opinion is what this boils down to. Since your ability to build a home is not in question only whether you are allowed to have a mini farm is.

As to speaking with you. I did speak with your husband after my first article ran. I gave him the opportunity to write a letter and said I would print it.

I will now run your letter to me and print my response.

Cory Beaton (Ellerbe's Husband)

Your response to my wife made one thing very clear. You are so committed to defending Martin County’s position that you are willing to ignore the County’s own record when it contradicts the story you are telling your readers.

You told Kaitlyn that our "ability to build a home is not in question" and that this essentially boils down to whether I can have a "mini farm". That is simply false. Martin County’s own agenda identifies this matter as an appeal of the denial of Building Permit BLD2025080317 "for the construction of a single-family residence." Not an agricultural exemption. Not livestock. Not a farm permit. A single-family residence. My permit was denied because Growth Management claims my property does not satisfy the two-acre minimum lot requirement for A-1 zoning, despite my recorded legal description, licensed survey and the Martin County Property Appraiser recognizing 2 legal acres. That is what this case has been about from the beginning.

Then you lecture everyone about following Article 10. Tom, I strongly suggest YOU read Article 10. It says the Board shall consider only the record established below, shall not consider new information or evidence, and shall render its decision by resolution at the conclusion of the meeting. That language is not complicated.

On August 11, the Board heard my Article 10 appeal and voted 3-2 in my favor. Martin County’s own subsequent agenda states that the Board "rendered its decision in favor of the Appellant" and later describes reconsideration of that decision as reconsideration of a FINAL decision. Then suddenly there was supposedly "new information," and on September 29 the County Attorney recommended sending my permit back to staff so staff could review "newly discovered information." Where exactly does Article 10 authorize that?

Show me the section. Show me the sentence. It does not exist. It actually says the opposite, "shall not consider new information or evidence".

The centerpiece of this supposedly “newly discovered information” is a DEP letter dated June 29 and addressed directly to Martin County’s Building Official, more than six weeks before the August 11 hearing. Doesn’t sound very new to me.

And the consequences are even more serious than simply losing a vote. You told Kaitlyn that if the County is wrong, a court can overturn the decision. I agree. I WANT judicial review. But now County Attorney Elysse Elder is telling me there is effectively no final action to take to court because the September 29 resolution simply pushed the matter back into the administrative process.

Think about how outrageous that is. I applied for a permit. Staff denied it. I went through administrative review. I appealed under Article 10. The Board heard the appeal. I won 3-2. The County called that a final decision. Then they reopened it, changed the result based upon "new information" that the Article does not allow, and instead of issuing the final decision Article 10 requires so I can seek judicial review, they started the process over again. That is worse than simply voting against me. At least an adverse final decision could be challenged in court. What happened instead directly conflicts with the procedure Martin County enacted for these appeals and leaves a property owner stuck on an administrative hamster wheel. 

You also continue presenting staff’s submerged land interpretation as settled fact. It is not. Since Policy 4.1E.4 was the actual stated basis for denying my permit, perhaps your readers should see what it actually says:

Policy 4.1E.4 — Gross Density

“In cases where land abuts the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, St. Lucie River, Indian River, Loxahatchee River, Intracoastal Waterway, Lake Okeechobee or any tributary or manmade canal, the boundary of the land shall be delineated as established by State Statutes.

No submerged land areas waterward of the boundary described above shall be included under this definition.”

Now dissect those words.

The policy does not say, "No submerged land shall ever be counted."

It establishes a sequence. First, determine the legally established boundary of the land under State law. I have a recorded legal description that has been in the County records for 65 years. I purchased it, I hold title to it, and I pay taxes on it. It has been surveyed, and the boundary has been established. Then exclude submerged land lying waterward of THAT boundary. The words “waterward of the boundary described above” mean something. It does not say waterward of the shoreline or waterward of the MHWL. It specifically establishes the relevant boundary and excludes the land outside of it. But why? Riparian rights. Waterfront property owners have rights of access to navigable water, including the ability, subject to applicable permitting, to construct things such as piers and boat lifts to reach deeper water. This policy prevents an owner from saying, “I know my land is only half an acre, but I’m allowed to extend another 100 feet toward the channel, so I should be able to count that toward my density.” That is what this policy prevents. Staff’s interpretation effectively skips the first sentence and rewrites the second sentence into a blanket prohibition that the policy itself does not contain.

My licensed boundary survey shows approximately 2.011 acres within my recorded legal description. Florida law itself recognizes that submerged land is not automatically State-owned. Section 253.12 begins with an express exception for “submerged lands heretofore conveyed by deed or statute.” My position is even more fundamental: the disputed portion of this parcel was already in private ownership, was historically dry land, was later dredged, and has remained within the same private chain of title and recorded legal description ever since. There is no deed in my chain conveying that property to the State. The Property Appraiser recognizes two acres. The zoning requires two acres. That is the issue in its simplest form. Yet after more than a year, the central question raised by my appeal still has not been answered: where does Policy 4.1E.4 say that privately owned submerged land located within the legally established boundary must be excluded? Perhaps that question remains unanswered because the policy simply does not say what Growth Management needs it to say.

Instead, the focus shifted to DEP’s assertion that the State may have an ownership interest. But DEP’s own documents destroy the idea.

The June 29 DEP letter that the County relies upon expressly says its conclusions "do not constitute a legal opinion of title." DEP’s April 9 dock determination separately says it "does not convey or create any property right, or any interest in real property." And DEP’s own July 1 Final Order goes even further: a circuit court is the final arbiter of submerged land ownership, and DEP’s administrative process cannot resolve that ownership dispute.

So explain this to your readers: How does an administrative position that DEP itself says is not a legal opinion of title, does not create a property right, and cannot resolve ownership suddenly become conclusive proof allowing Martin County to disregard my recorded deed, survey and legal description? It doesn’t.

You may agree with Growth Management’s interpretation. Fine. But agreement with staff does not transform their interpretation into unquestionable law. That is precisely why administrative review and judicial review exist.

There is another issue here that deserves to be said plainly. You are not some detached outsider observing Martin County government. By your own biography, you are a former Stuart Commissioner, currently serve on Martin County’s Local Planning Agency, have spent decades involved in political campaigns and local organizations, and publish extensively about the same government officials and institutions involved in this case. You are firmly connected to the Martin County political establishment. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But when your immediate reaction is to defend staff, criticize the Commissioners who ruled against staff, and dismiss the procedural problems staring you in the face, your readers are entitled to ask whether they are getting independent analysis or simply another defense of the same Martin County circle.

You also mentioned that you previously offered me the opportunity to write something for your publication. That is true. I declined because I had absolutely no desire to put my family's business back into the public eye. I was not trying to become a political story. I wanted to build one home for my wife and children on our own property and move on with our lives. That restraint is over.

If Martin County is going to continue treating my family this way, and people with platforms are going to misrepresent what this case is actually about, I am going to make the entire record public and actively welcome residents to join this fight. People deserve to see for themselves how their local government behaves when a private property owner refuses to simply accept whatever staff tells him.

That brings me to BeyondTheBoundaryMC.org. What started as a discussion about southern Martin County, taxation and access to public services is gaining real traction. Residents are talking about it. HOAs are asking questions. People are visiting the site and engaging with the issue. The more Martin County demonstrates this kind of treatment toward its residents and private property owners, the more people are going to ask why they should remain tied to a county government that increasingly feels disconnected from the community. The conversation is happening, and it is growing.

You told Kaitlyn you intend to print her letter and your response. Good. Then print this response too. And if Friends & Neighbors truly exists to inform residents and encourage civic participation, give your readers a paragraph informing them that this discussion is underway and direct them to BeyondTheBoundaryMC.org. Let them read it. Let them review the numbers, the service issues and the proposal. Let the public decide for themselves.

You are free to disagree with me. But stop rewriting the facts. My house IS in question. My building permit WAS denied. The Board DID rule in my favor on August 11 while operating in an appellate capacity. The County DID subsequently describe that action as a final decision. Article 10 PROHIBITS new evidence. Article 10 REQUIRES the Board to render its decision at the conclusion of the meeting—which, more than a week later, I still have not received in final written form. Article 10 is the County’s appellate process. A final action is what allows an appellant to move on to judicial review if necessary. Instead, the County sent my case back to staff to consider supposedly newly discovered information beyond what Article 10 actually allows. Martin County’s own September 29 agenda contains all of those facts in black and white.

And ultimately, Tom, this comes down to something much bigger than my permit. You either believe in private property rights or you don’t. Two acres. That is what my recorded deed and legal description encompass. That is what my licensed survey measures. That is what the Property Appraiser recognizes. That is the property that my family and its predecessors have paid taxes on. I am not asking Martin County to give me land. I am not asking for additional density. I am not asking for a variance or a special exception. I am asking to build ONE home on the property I already own. Property that right now, complies with the LDR the way it sits. 

DEP is free to assert that the State has a competing interest in part of that land. An assertion is not a judgment. It does not erase my deed. It does not divest my recorded ownership by administrative declaration. DEP itself admits that its title determination is not a legal opinion of title and that only a circuit court can ultimately resolve the ownership dispute.

If the State believes it holds superior title, there is a judicial process available to establish that. Let it prove its claim where title disputes are actually decided. Until a court determines otherwise, I will continue to defend what the recorded documents say is mine.

Private property rights do not mean very much if government honors them only up until another government agency makes an unproven competing claim.

So before you write another article explaining how I supposedly misunderstand my own case, read Policy 4.1E.4. Read Article 10. Read DEP’s own disclaimers. Read the deed. Read the survey. Then ask yourself the question someone claiming to hold local government accountable should have asked from the beginning

If government can disregard a recorded deed based on an unproven ownership claim, whose private property rights are safe from the same treatment?

My Response

Your contention is that you have the required acreage to keep zoning for ag. The county says you do not have enough acreage to keep that designation. Whether it ends up as one or two acre zoning you will still be allowed to build a home. By you saying the same thing over and over to me is fruitless because I am not the person you need to convince. 

You are absolutely correct. I think Donaldson was originally correct in his interpretation of the Comp Plan and codes. You obviously disagreed. 

If the commission had followed Article X procedure they should have upheld Donaldson on the competent substantial evidence foundation originally. Instead they decided to substitute their judgement for his. This is not what is called for here. By doing that it has cost you additional time before you can appeal to the court.

But it will not be an appeal over whether you can build a home but rather which zoning is appropriate. 

There is nothing else I can add nor can you that will enlighten the public. Again I will print your email and this answer. 

Beaton wrote another long email in response. It did not add anything to his assertions. 

From Richard Birkinwald

To the Editor: In Florida, there are significant legal differences between an HOA and a town. As a lawyer, I find your satire uninformed.

Daniels is the town savior, and Tidikis is the bogeyman. I get that. No need to repeat at infinittum. Interestinglyenough, no comments on the candidates running for a seat on the commission, but plenty of disparaging Tidikiscomments. I am reminded of a phrase from the King James Bible "Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I amholier than thou". --

My Response

Mr. Birkenwald: Daniels is a competent manager. He is not a savior by any means. Tidikis is a competent commissioner that unfortunately finds it difficult to get along with hisfellow commissioners. That is too bad because he would be much more successful in getting his points across if everything did not become a battle. You need three votes to pass something.

You may not like the analogy regarding an HOA but I can't believe you haven't heardit before.

What I did say in a brief paragraph is that any of the three candidates running in my opinion would make good commissioners. Barile and Kurzman are the incumbents and Tompeck was a commissioner previously. Thanks for the quote from Isaiah from the Old Testament. I will leave you with a New Testament passage from Luke:

"Woe to you experts in the law, because you loadpeople down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift onefinger to help them."

Birkinwald's Response To Me

Hi Tom,

We need three commissioners like Tidikis, to protect residents from tax increases, uneccesary and outrageousspendings. Four commissioners vote as a block. They view their fiduciary duty towards the electorate differently thanCommissioner Tidikis.

Your "analogy" does not explain or clarify. It's belittles.

Concerning your bible quote, I am not a "religious" legal expert. I profess a total absence of faith. Jesus was a dudewho died a long time ago,

I do appreciate your response, tho. Richard

To End From Me:

I think we will leave it at that. I respect your opinion.

From Tim Hernandez Regadring What I Wrote:"Brightline Has Never Been Welcomed In Stuart or Martin County" Martin County Moments here 

Great article Tom. We use it (and Tri-Rail and Metrorail) frequently going to MIA, FLL, WPB, UM, Heat games, Marlins games, etc. It’s absolutely best in class in the US and better than many European lines/systems. It provides a great, reliable, comfortable service. It’s not going away, there is too much capital invested and equally important, people love it. Ridership is growing, and will grow as more stations are added. Jupiter and Palm Beach Gardens and Delray and many other cities and towns would die for a station. Stuart and Martin County got selected for a stations and it will be a great economic engine for both when it’s ultimately built.

The biggest transportation subsidy of all is to roads and autos. UM looked at the FDOT budget 2 years ago and found only about 6% of it went to public transportation while the rest went to roads and highways. The resources are there to expand the system to Tampa and maybe someday JAX. We just need to shift the resource allocation slightly, a bit more away from roads and toward innovative transportation solutions like Brightline.

One of the biggest complaints of longtime residents is traffic. It’s not going to get better if we don’t offer alternative solutions. Millions have embraced Brightline. Why would we knowingly prevent Stuart and other Martin