Delay Tactics

The meter is running for county taxpayers and commissioners could apparently care less.

Despite the rhetoric since the first of the year about cost cutting and reining in spending, when it comes to actually tightening belts, county commissioners are the last to fill their own prescription.

Case in point, pardon the pun, is the litigation involving a development on Hibiscus Drive, the developer, the county and a resident who handed the county its hat in the First District Court of Appeals over enforcing its land-use ordinances and rules in the county’s comprehensive plan.

After the county’s arguments were turned to shreds in the appellate court in a late December opinion, and after the county was denied a rehearing on one aspect of the decision, it seems clear to all but commissioners what needs to be done to extract the county from a lawsuit it should never have become a party to in the first place.

A lawsuit the county would not be party to if commissioners had bothered to enforce their rules on subdivisions and wetlands protection.

But there in the board’s information packet for this week’s meeting was correspondence to Mr. Fred Johnson, who brought the lawsuit against the county and several developers, including Jay Rish.

That letter was in response to a letter from Johnson inquiring about the county’s next steps given the appellate decision.

The county’s response was a terse three sentence letter telling Johnson that the county was considering its options and would be in touch with Mr. Johnson upon deciding a course of action.

In other words, don’t call us, we’ll call you.

The middle sentence is a beauty.

“We obviously have differing views as to the Appellate Court’s directives pursuant to its opinion,” the letter states.

Talk about stating the obvious.

That would explain five years of litigation and the motion for a rehearing on a specific part of the appellate court’s decision.

But at this juncture, what do these “differing views” matter?

The appellate court has spoken in “clear and unambiguous” language, to quote the judges on their reading of the county’s comprehensive plan in taking it to task over enforcement of wetlands regulations.

The remedies are provided in the opinion, the options fairly limited – nothing can be done on the land until appropriate curative action is taken – and understood even by a layman.

Nonetheless, as a course of action that is part of the Board of County Commissioners’ DNA, the county’s back remains up, the stance defiant.

Here’s the rub for taxpayers, who foot every penny of the county’s involvement in what should be a land dispute between folks who live on the same road.

The county has been put on notice by Mr. Johnson that unless curative action has begun by the first of March, that would be next week on most calendars, he would begin to file motions in the appellate court to have its opinion enforced, which in a mandate from the court the county is “commanded” to do.

So the meter still runs on this case that has spanned five years and taxpayers are on the hook for the final total, even though if their name is not Jay Rish the odds the county would have their back in a similar fashion would be dramatically reduced.

Last month Commissioner Bill Williams caused quite a stir and notched points in the court of public opinion by pulling one sheet from the board’s consent agenda and questioning why a commissioner was using public dollars without board approval to purchase candy for Christmas parades.

Since taking over as chairman, Commissioner Carmen McLemore has declared the end of tax increases, taken 3 percent of all budgets funded with property tax dollars to hold back for next year and called a special meeting on the budget to be held prior to this past Tuesday’s regular board meeting.

And these steps might be evidence of fiscal responsibility if not for instances such as the county versus Fred Johnson.

Commissioners do not digest humble pie well or accept responsibility for wrong-headed actions or costing taxpayers needless expense.

When challenged, when dissent is heard, the operative mode is attack, attack some more until the dissent is muted, its bearer cowering.

However, the problem from the outset when it has come to Mr. Johnson is that he offers no indication of backing down, of cowering.

He should be a hero to every citizen for his willingness to dip into his wallet, time and reservoir of energy to hold government’s foot to the fire when it comes to its own rules, and in this case protecting one of the treasures of this county, St. Joseph Bay.

And because of his backbone and commissioners' predictable response to the showing of any backbone, taxpayers are writing a check for thousands of dollars in legal fees which make a $900 candy purchase seem like chicken feed.

All due to the county’s unwillingness to consistently enforce the rules for all, commissioners’ willingness to go to the edge of the cliff for favored friends and names – knowing that if they jump off the cliff there is a taxpayer-funded safety net.

The meter is running up high numbers for county taxpayers and despite the hosannas about cost cutting and reducing the tax burden, commissioners, dipped in hypocrisy, genuinely don’t seem to care.