SHARE:
Readers
No debate can be as confused and cantankerous as that which rages over "environmentalism," whatever that has become. Your piece in the June issue of Florida Trend ["Skunked!"] on the conflict over the role of ecosystem management is a clear case in point. What's missing? Common sense.
In an excellent book on the subject, "In a Dark Wood," Dr. Alston Chase sheds fascinating light on many current environmental issues including the inherent flaws in the entire concept of "ecosystem management." He states:
"The very biological failure of the ecosystem idea insured its political success. Since no one could define the boundaries of a ?self-sustaining ecosystem,' its size was infinitely elastic. Whenever biota of a sanctuary failed to stabilize, this could be taken as proof that the true ?ecosystem' must be larger, and hence the preserve must be expanded." Since no one can define the real science behind ecosystem management, is it any surprise, then, that environmentalists can't get enough regulation of "ecosystems"? Or that private land owners feel the constant squeeze of regulation and governmental pressure when their lands are mapped and labeled by environmental interests, without any scientific basis? Approximately 8,024,075 acres or 21% of the total acreage of this state is currently owned by some governmental agency ? state, federal or local ? and that doesn't include millions of acres dedicated to conservation easements or otherwise protected by wetlands regulation.
I don't believe there is any environmental crisis in the state of Florida. There is instead a difference of opinion about how many people should live here. They can be accommodated if we choose to accommodate them. And if this is the real battleground, then why don't we deal with it in real terms, instead of inventing obstacles in the name of environmentalism.
What we need in Tallahassee is some straight talk and straight thinking about our statewide objectives and a recognition that today, much of "environmentalism" has become an aesthetic and political ideology which confuses advocacy with science. We can protect our environment and people at the same time. Let's stop condemning those who attempt to do both.
M. Lynn Pappas
Jacksonville
--
On behalf of the 300 citizens, regulators, industry representatives and conservation interests who participated in the development of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's [DEP's] ecosystem management initiative, I want to say I thought your "Skunked!" article concerning DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell and our ecosystem-management effort "Stunk!"
Like many in agriculture, I never believed the state could or would ever attempt to integrate our industry, or the benefits we bring to the state, into any new environmental initiatives. Thus, I was more than a little hesitant when Secretary Wetherell invited me to co-chair one of the 12 committees formed to assist the department in developing its Ecosystem Management Initiative.
The essence of our findings was that the private land owners in our state have not been integrated into the development of better ways to manage our open space and our natural resources. It is hard to imagine a system with more disincentives for achieving our conservation goals than the one we currently have ? a system that seems to benefit only the bureaucracies built to defend it and the attorneys and lobbyists who benefit from the chaos.
Fortunately, Secretary Wetherell has had, and I hope will continue to have, the courage to re-invent a system based on voluntary, incentive-based programs that deliver a net environmental benefit for the state and its environment, while recognizing the need for sustainable economic growth and private property rights. All of this is being done without sacrificing any of the current safeguards or enforcement abilities of the state or the department.
I believe you will find the overwhelming majority of us in agriculture and forestry care very deeply about Florida's environment; no one depends more on conserving it. And while there might be a few friends turning away, I know there are a lot more old and new friends willing to stay the course.
I hope Florida Trend will be one of those friends, or at least give all of us involved the opportunity to prove how effective incentive-based alternatives can be in meeting our state's conservation goals.
Thomas H. Dyer
Thonotosassa
--
The June Tallahassee Report on ecosystem management by John D. McKinnon shows a high level of understanding of this issue but also displays a troublesome tendency to bash public officials as if it were sport.
As a developer who has been part of the Hillsborough River basin initiative, one of the state's ecosystem-management pilot projects, I can confirm that the process being championed by Secretary Wetherell continues to labor under the burden of unmet expectations by most, if not all, the participants. I do believe, however, that through refinement as a result of this and other demonstration projects, ecosystem management will prove to be a viable alternative to the traditional command-and-control regulatory process.
To suggest that environmentalists have been outfoxed or outskunked by the Department of Environmental Protection indicates that the story was decidedly tilted toward humor at the expense of a public official. Linda Young presumably had a good laugh.
Secretary Wetherell has continued to speak to the false debate of tradeoffs of environmental assets for economic development. As a result, many of us have come out of our boxes to embrace the concept of sustainable development. The no-growth crowd hasn't changed its mindset yet, and making fun of serious matters doesn't advance the dialogue. Ecosystem management is still a good idea for Florida.
A.L. Holmes
Bartow
--
Your June article entitled "Skunked!" stepped over the line of responsible journalism and just plain common decency. Unless you offer Secretary Virginia Wetherell a public apology, and fully explore the real facts about what she and Gov. Chiles are trying to accomplish with the balance between the economy and the environment, you have lost me as a subscriber.
David Batt
Tallahassee
--
State Pensions
In response to your article "Backdoor Borrowing" in the May 1996 issue of Florida Trend, I must point out that you seemed quite misinformed on the proposal set forth in Gov. Chiles' recommended budget for fiscal 1996-97. This proposal would not have changed the date at which the Florida Retirement System (FRS) liability would be paid off. It did not change the assumptions on which the FRS is funded. It did restructure the payments to insure that current taxpayers do not pay more than future taxpayers. This is just the opposite of what your article suggested. The administration's proposal would have reamortized the unfunded liability of the FRS ? one of the most costly to taxpayers of all retirement systems nationally ? with an employer contribution rate of almost 18% of salaries and zero paid by employees. I should also point out that, before the governor even decided to offer this proposal, both of the state's bond rating agencies were consulted and neither felt that this proposal would jeopardize the financial integrity of the FRS.
There are no guarantees that the current 18% contribution rate is sufficient to pay off the unfunded liability by 2014 as is presently expected. To my knowledge, no one has suggested that the contribution rate be inflated to include a contingency reserve. What you are suggesting is that the plan not be changed when it is known that excess contributions are being made. The governor suggests this is a policy decision for the Legislature to consider.
Under the current amortization schedule as of the July 1, 1996, valuation, the plan is accumulating contribution credits totaling more than $24 million for ten years beyond the year 2014, when the unfunded liability is expected to be paid off. If no reamortization occurs and these excess contributions remain, employers will receive a credit in those years for overpayment. So why not give the taxpayer some relief now by reducing these excess contributions?
Under the current amortization schedule, the contribution rate for the unfunded liability is scheduled to gradually decline through the payoff date of 2014. The governor's proposal would have provided for one rate reduction occurring July 1, 1996, and a flat contribution rate through the payoff date of 2014. Assuming the present value of the reduced rate is worth 8% (the investment return rate of the FRS), then this is a fairly revenue-neutral proposal.
Robert B. Bradley
Director
State Office of Planning and Budgeting
Tallahassee
--
Bill Nelson
Be careful not to lead your readers to believe that Florida Insurance Commissioner Bill Nelson was an astronaut. He was a U.S. Congressman who used his influence to hitch a ride on a space ship and enhance his resume.
Bert Messer
Tallahassee
--
Area Codes
Please note the University of Florida, as well as many other sections of Florida, has a new area code. I am surprised you would pass out erroneous information that is so easy to catch! I refer specifically to the June '96 edition of Letters to the Editor response to the Economic Yearbook in which you erroneously identify UF's area code as (904); it is actually area code (352). It would be quite nice if you could print a photocopiable map of all the new area codes for Florida! Thank you for a great magazine!
Terri Miller
Altamonte Springs
--
Correction
On page 48 of Florida Trend's recent Economic Yearbook issue [FT, April 1996], the column heading "1990-95 Annual Percentage Change" in Greatest Population Growth chart should read "1990-95 Percentage Change."
