Martin County Sheriff William Snyder shares his opinion on golf courses at Jonathan Dickinson State Park
Martin County Sheriff William Snyder discusses a possible increase in calls on August 22, 2024 if plans for golf courses at Jonathan Dickinson State Park become reality.
If Robert K. Merton were alive today, he would be very pleased with the decision made by Florida state officials.
Merton was a 20th-century American sociologist who popularized the term “unintended consequences” to describe actions that lead to unexpected results.
Last week, when many people were distracted by local and state elections, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection announced its Great Outdoors Initiative, which calls for new developments at Jonathan Dickinson State Park and eight other parks.
The plans called for the construction of two 18-hole and one 9-hole golf courses at Jonathan Dickinson, as well as the removal of the Hobe Mountain boardwalk and observation tower and the relocation of some park offices and staff quarters.
However, these ideas were not well received by the general public. Late Sunday, state officials announced that plans for the golf course had been withdrawn. An unknown nonprofit organization had assumed responsibility for the idea.
A silver lining for conservationists in Martin County?
There will be – or at least should be – further discussion about how a nonprofit with ties to a former DEP administrator managed to get its plans so close to final approval before the public knew anything about it.
I’m sure it wasn’t their intention, but the state officials who set this chaos in motion may have inadvertently helped supporters of a ballot initiative in Martin County in several ways.
On the Nov. 5 ballot is a bill that asks Martin County residents to enact a half-cent sales tax, with tax revenue earmarked for the purchase of property “within the southern Indian River Lagoon, in the Pal-Mar, Loxahatchee and St. Lucie Headwaters and Blueways areas.”
The proponents hope to protect the acquired land from development and to create a “green belt” in the southern part of the district.
There are at least two arguments against the proposed tax increase: First, taxes are already high enough. Second, there is already enough state-owned land in Martin County that is set aside for conservation.
Some people will never be in favour of new taxes no matter what. But for the rest of the electorate, who are at least willing to entertain the idea of a VAT increase, this second argument is important.
According to the Martin County Assessor’s Office, the state owned more than 93,000 acres of land in the county last year. Martin County owned just over 7,000 acres.
These are not exclusively parks or nature reserves. A large part of them is used for various services provided by these two government agencies.
Yet someone might look at that acreage and say, “My goodness! The state and county already own a lot of land. Why do we have to agree to this sales tax increase so the county can buy even more?”
And that is precisely where the problem lies: The Great Outdoors Initiative has clearly shown that these national areas, even those supposedly designated as natural areas, are still very much “in play”.
National territories are targets for development
If a developer or someone else with the right political connections suggests a use for the buildings, we can assume that our state officials will at least consider the idea.
I don’t think we can conclude that state officials have learned their lesson from the backlash against the Great Outdoors Initiative and that something like this will never be proposed again.
Given the approach of the state government, it is very likely that there will be proposals in the future to use areas designated as parks or nature reserves for other purposes.
In 2011, state officials discussed the idea of building a Jack Nicklaus-designed golf course at Jonathan Dickinson. As with the more recent initiative, the idea was withdrawn in the face of significant public opposition.
This just proves my point. Just because an idea is rejected once doesn’t mean it can’t come back, over and over again if necessary, until the political powers that be wear down the opposition enough to get what they want.
We cannot trust the state government to look after our interests. I am talking about the bureaucrats in Tallahassee in this case, not our local legislators, who have been pretty vocal in their opposition to the Jonathan Dickinson golf course plans.
This time.
Who knows what it will look like next time? Developers could bribe the right people and get the necessary permits to build golf courses, pickleball courts, a lodge, or whatever they want to make money off of at this site near Hobe Sound.
Martin County needs its own development buffer
Sales tax advocates can reasonably argue that Martin County needs to buy more of its own land for parks and conservation, since we can never be sure what the intentions of state officials are. State lands zoned for parks or conservation today could easily be used for something else tomorrow.
A cynic would say we can’t rely on Martin County officials to keep their promises either, but the August 20 election clearly shows there can be consequences for elected officials who don’t follow the will of the people.
Even well-funded interest groups were unable to protect Martin County Commissioner Doug Smith from voters who felt he had become a little too accommodating to growth and development.
If Martin County voters turn out in large numbers in November to support an initiative to purchase land for conservation, I’m betting the commissioners and officials in the county administration building would be hesitant to oppose their wish.
This may be less true of bureaucrats in Tallahassee, who report to the governor and are therefore more insulated from local political pressure.
And there’s another important way in which the buzz around the Great Outdoors Initiative may have helped the Martin County referendum: public awareness and appreciation for natural landscapes has increased in recent weeks.
Even people who rarely visit state parks have been mobilized to speak out against the state’s development plans. Don’t be surprised if referendum supporters don’t start contacting people who have been involved in the fight against the Great Outdoors Initiative to help them with their cause.
If referendum supporters were looking for a way to mobilize their potential voters, the Great Outdoors Initiative couldn’t have come at a better time.
Their biggest challenge will be to get citizens excited about environmental protection before election day.
Maybe no one thought of this, but …
To recap, there was certainly more to the state’s decision to announce plans for golf courses and other “improvements” in state parks than meets the eye. How one nonprofit would benefit when many other charitable organizations would have liked similar opportunities to use state lands requires further investigation.
State officials probably had no idea that their actions could help the Martin County ballot initiative. However, I suspect these actions could make a difference in the November 5 election.
If that happens, Merton would have another example to prove his hypothesis.
This column reflects the opinions of Blake Fontenay. Contact him via email at [email protected] or at 772-232-5424.
