The developers' four best friends

By A TIMES EDITORIAL
Published August 14, 2007

Make no mistake: If Hillsborough County commissioners vote Thursday to kill the wetlands protection program, the reason will not be science or money or any other remotely legitimate excuse. The four commissioners who want to eliminate the program - Brian Blair, Kevin White, Ken Hagan and Jim Norman - simply have put developers' interests ahead of what's best for residents and the environment.

Blair, White, Hagan and Norman voted in June to eliminate the wetlands program, contending it cost too much and duplicated work already conducted by the state. Those arguments are false, and by continuing to repeat them, these commissioners come across as either ignorant or dishonest, or both. The program costs about $800,000 a year, a modest sum in the county's $1.7-billion budget. What Norman wants to spend on a sports complex could pay for the wetlands program for 50 years. Money is not the problem. Neither is duplication. The county's rules on destroying wetlands are far more stringent than the state's. They are not benign or ineffective. That is why developers want them killed and why Blair, White & Co. jumped to oblige.

The board will meet Thursday sitting as the Environmental Protection Commission to consider a compromise by agency head Rick Garrity. His "hybrid" proposal would keep the program alive but scale back some protections and give developers a larger role in policymaking. This is a risky step for a growing, coastal county. Wetlands play a critical role in recharging drinking water supplies and in helping control the damage of hurricanes and flooding. Yet some protection is better than none, and voters will have the opportunity to punish commissioners who have weakened our natural defenses.

But the question isn't one of substance. The four commissioners have not had the decency to respond to Garrity, even though he proposed the "hybrid" in response to their stated concerns. Not a single one has articulated how the current protections are onerous or unfair. Blair's incompetence as EPC chair has managed to unite a cross-section of environmentalists, Republicans, business executives - even developers and farmers. The debate also has brought out the worst in people. During a hearing last month, Blair's critics openly mocked him. Realtors throughout Tampa should be ashamed that their local association backed killing the program by citing the need to redirect money to affordable housing, Head Start and other "deprived" constituencies.

Thursday's vote will ultimately come down to a political calculus for the four board critics, plus a fifth commissioner, Al Higginbotham, who has talked on both sides of the issue: Is it worth the political risk to do this favor for the small group of vocal, well-connected developers, and if so, what in the world is a credible excuse? Blair, White, Hagan and Norman need to get a grip on their priorities or bring some real ammunition to the table. They have done nothing so far but make this debate symbolize everything that's wrong in county government.

[Last modified August 13, 2007, 22:55:37]