The Political Whore

By Kelly Cornelius
PoHo contributor & R-LAND; activist

Oh boy, where to start on this Cone Ranch scheme proposal? Recall Ken Half-Truth Hagan’s half-baked proposal to sell Cone Ranch to private investors in order to “preserve it”? Apparently the Hillsborough County Commission chair all of a sudden became an environmentalist worrying about the future of this sensitive land and wants to do all he can to preserve it, emphasizing the wetlands on the property. You might also recall that ironically he was one of the very same Commissioners hell-bent on getting rid of the wetlands division of the EPC. Hey, people can change, right? Especially when those behind the idea are big-time Republican fundraisers, uh-huh. Come to think of it, that assault on the wetlands division by the majority of the County Commission was also widely thought to be the idea of a ………….big campaign contributor.

So, at Hagan’s request the County Commission appointed a panel to study this idea of selling off public land (already listed as preservation) to private buyers. Or was the panel set up to study what was best for Cone Ranch in general? Even some of the appointees were not clear on this, so at the first meeting on Monday this question was asked by one of the appointees to Edith Stewart. Yep, that Edith Stewart: the county’s top lobbyist was running the meeting. She referred the panel to the County Commission’s transcripts on the issue. That must be why she makes the big bucks (recall you pay her $136,094).

Earlier in that meeting these were Commissioner Hagan’s words to the panel:
THIS IS ABOUT DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR CONE
RANCH AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, IT IS NOT ABOUT
RUBBERSTAMPING FCEG’S IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES,

Yet the county’s own website on the Cone Ranch advisory panel states this: On May 6, 2009 the Hillsborough Board of County Commissioners created the Cone Ranch Environmental Advisory Panel to work with the County staff and with the Florida Conservation and Environmental Group (FCEG) and the Nature Conservancy to consider a proposal by FCEG and all of the issues and partnerships that are involved with Cone Ranch.

The transcripts from the most recent County Commission meeting on this issue indicate to me that this panel is supposed to be about doing what is best for Cone Ranch, not just evaluating the private proposal.

Several members of the panel asked some great questions as did the residents speaking during public comment. Mariella Smith, a local environmentalist and activist, did a fantastic job outlining a process for the panel, and you don’t pay her anything.

Remember when Commissioner Kevin Beckner (the voter’s cure for Brian Blair) asked FCEG to provide a written report during their first presentation? Well, here it is - they only produced a few pages. The public already had a list of questions longer than this report and the lack of substance certainly makes one question their legitimacy and intent. There is a cool flow chart showing which way the money will go though.

Mike Merrill, Utilities and Commerce Administrator for the county, spoke to the panel during their first meeting and he seemed to be trying to steer the audience from believing this was public land by saying it was owned by a business (the water utility). Um, who supports that, Mike? Uh-huh. If this wasn’t public property then why does the Board of County Commissioner (elected by the taxpayers) have the final say on it?  Why did they appoint a panel?

Here is the kicker, kids: the Cone Ranch is NOT FOR SALE. You heard me: NOT FOR SALE. Mr. Paul Vanderploog, Director of Water Resource Services, also spoke to the advisory panel during Monday’s meeting and he states this in his presentation when he said:
CONE RANCH IS NOT
ACTIVELY BEING OFFERED FOR SALE BY THE ENTERPRISE.

Huh?

So let me get this straight. Here we have a whole panel of volunteers, an army of staff working on this (which I believe is on the taxpayer’s dime), yet the Cone Ranch is NOT FOR SALE. Was it in danger of being developed into big bad subdivisions and commercial centers as FCEG threatened during a presentation to the County Commission? Considering it is on the Comprehensive Plan as preservation, I hardly think so. The County Commission itself would have had to approve any changes to our Comp Plan to get the land use of this ranch changed and as bad as the gang of Five Four is, I am guessing even they know that changing preservation land to residential or commercial would be political suicide. As I watched this advisory panel meeting unfold with the staff trying to explain all the bond covenants and all the other strings attached to the land, it was hard to believe it would ever be in danger of true development unless the county say……………. sold it?

Turns out the Nature Conservancy (part of the group pushing this proposal) ALREADY has an interest in the Cone Ranch. It is listed as a non-terminable unilateral interest. So they appear to already be charged with protecting the Cone Ranch (and also appear to be on the receiving end of funds according to that flow chart if the sale goes through). Anybody else think that is a conflict of interest? Maybe the County uses the Ray Sansom theory regarding conflicts of interests or maybe it is the Ken Hagan theory?

SWIFTMUD is listed as a terminable interest in the property and yet two of their representatives sit on the technical committee for the advisory panel. One of the advisory panel appointees is also a board member of SWIFTMUD and the Chairwoman of that advisory panel is a former Chair of the Swiftmud board. Hmmm, that doesn’t seem all that objective to me.

The obvious question to me is did we really need a panel to study a buy-out proposal for a property that is NOT FOR SALE in order to preserve what is already listed as PRESERVATION land? As I listen to our County Commission cry over decreased tax revenues and upcoming budget cuts (meanwhile their County Administrator is serving up double digit raises to people like Edith Stewart) I wonder how they can justify staff time and taxpayer money to even study this? Maybe Hagan is paying for it?

Balm Civic Association President Marcella Osteen got the final word in this WMNF interview. Her comment about looking at the proposal “with a jaundiced eye” says it all, and she goes on to say that “I would think that any investor is exactly what it says: investor. They’re looking to – let me think about it – make money? So I would be skeptical — anybody that comes in here to buy [Cone Ranch] with dollars would not be looking to make money. And just out of the goodness of their heart to restore it, I don’t think so.”  In case I haven’t said it lately, Thank You Marcella! Considering the past deeds of that County Commission as a whole (excluding Commissioners Ferlita, Beckner and usually Sharpe) forgive us if we don’t trust the rest of you. Just since I have been paying attention they have approved major subdivisions out in BFE, they have launched constant environmental attacks and their staff bald-faced lied to me about a toll road over my house (and you wonder why I have so much fun writing these?)

What can you do? You can contact your County Commissioners regarding Cone Ranch here. Be sure to start with Chairman Ken Half Truth Hagan since he is not only spearheading this project it looks like he is now the first contact point to all of the Commissioners according to George Niemann’s recent article. You can see the documents associated with this production and check for the next meeting on the county’s website. Some of the opposition even have their own Facebook page against this sale which also has updates on it.

My guess is that with elections coming up, the Commissioners will eventually cave to public will and sell this land to ELAPP (the county’s own land preservation program)  where it should be (but I bet they try to spin it to you and me like they are environmental heroes while doing it), so thanks to all those volunteering to go through the motions until then. Seems to me that if they really wanted to do the right thing they would leave the land as is and let ELAPP spend their money on less secure pieces of land that really are in danger of being developed. But this is Hillsborough County, where four of our current Commissioners think a pardoned ex-felon and ahem, campaign donor, was worthy of naming the Moral Courage award after. (For those of you keeping score, those current Commissioners are Hagan, White, Norman and Higginbotham.) So I guess there is no telling what they would do for these big-time potential donors. I hope the county is sincere in only wanting the best outcome for Cone Ranch, but how sad we can’t trust them at their word.

Stay tuned for another episode of Will The County Commission Successfully Be Able To Preserve PRESERVED Land?

Posted in Fix-it-now, Tampa Bay Politics | Leave a comment