Comment

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 24, 2011 at 7:29am

CJ, I have not found what you wanted, but I did find this and found it interesting.  Apparently, a municipality can only apply for 2 changes a year under the rules for these zones unless the change fall under one of the exemptions.

 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FINAL BILL ANALYSIS FORM

1998

BILL #:

CS/SB 1202 (Enrolled)

RELATING TO:

Brownfields Redevelopment

SPONSOR:

Senator Latvala

STATUTE(S)

AFFECTED:

288.106, 288.107, 288.9602, 288.9605, 163.3187, F.S.

Repealing s. 21, ch. 86-159, L.O.F., relating to the scheduled repeal of

s. 376.313(4), F.S.

Amending ss. 376.313, 376.77, 376.79, 376.80, 376.81, 376.82, 376.83,

COMPANION

BILL:

includes brownfield areas)

HB 4435; CS/SB 1204; HB 4441; CS/SB 244 (tax credit provision

ANALYST/DATE/

PHONE NO.:

Lisa M. Duchene 05/08/98 488-0190

Bruce M. Deterding 05/12/98 487-2916

I. SUMMARY:

CS/SB 1202 corrects several technical glitches in last year's legislation and provides clarifying language in

other provisions. For example, the act removes the requirement that the person responsible for brownfield

site rehabilitation be named at the time a local government passes a resolution designating a brownfield

area, and instead simply requires that when there is such a person the local government shall notify the

department. The act also clarifies that petroleum and drycleaning sites eligible for state-funded cleanups

can participate in the brownfields program, but they are not eligible to receive

assistance and the Brownfields Redevelopment Bonus Refunds

Brownfield Area Loan Guarantee Program and establishes the Brownfield Area Loan Guarantee Council.

Council membership includes the DEP Secretary or her designee. The act authorizes the Council to enter

into an investment agreement with the DEP and the State Board of Administration concerning the

investment of the earnings accrued and collected upon the investment of the balance of funds maintained in

the Nonmandatory Land Reclamation Trust Fund. The act also creates an Interdisciplinary Center for

Brownfield Rehabilitation Assistance to conduct research and find solutions to problems associated with

brownfields redevelopment. The act expands the list of exemptions to the two-per-year limit on

amendments to the local comprehensive plan to include amendments related to proposed redevelopment of

designated brownfield areas. The act also includes legislative intent stating that a revolving loan fund could

both restoration fundingafter July 1, 1997. The act creates the

2

assist in the early stages of redeveloping brownfields by helping to clear prior liens on the property through

a negotiated process. (The Brownfield Property Ownership Clearance Assistance Revolving Loan Trust

Fund is being created in a separate act, as required by law. See SB 1204.) The act also authorizes the

governing body of a municipality or county containing an EPA-designated brownfield pilot project (as of

May 1, 1997) to apply to the Governor’s Office of Tourism, Trade & Economic Development (OTTED) for

designation of one enterprise zone encompassing the project, subject to certain restrictions. Finally, the act

repeals s. 21 of ch. 86-159, L.O.F., which provided for sunset of Section 376.313(4), F.S., effective

October 1, 1998. Section 376.313(4), F.S., provides a greater burden of proof in civil actions for damages

against owners/operators of petroleum storage systems that are in compliance with the department’s

storage tank rule.

Comment by Jim Ryan on June 24, 2011 at 7:23am

  I posted this a few weeks ago and I believe it applied then and was the immediate course of action which should have been taken.  From following the blog it appears that without the direct involvement of the court the "council" will do whatever they want and just say Damn you full steam ahead.  You find the link and you "sue them as a board and as individuals."  You get injunctions against their actions and you look for damages.  This wink/wink and quid pro quo assault style of leadership and government needs to be stopped by the same types of behavior they employee.

While you are pursuing the legal channels you need to get permits and demonstrate outside and pickett outside their homes and residences.  Let their neighbors have the 24/7 annoyance and life interuption.   They probably voted for their neighbor so let them enjoy a bit of voters remorse. You need to film the proceedings.  Any violation of your demonstration rights should be immedfiately followed up with more lawsuits against the police and the city of Jacksonville for rights violations.   These are the tactics that the people you are opposed to have used for years.  You might say its not your style but losing is not my style.  You need to demonstrate that "all methods" to fighting will be used.

Comment by Jim Ryan on June 6, 2011 at 11:50am           

Delete Comment

From what I have read on this blog post concerning the issues it would appear that bring suit against those involved would be a means of bringing that "sunshine."   A lawsuit would allow the types of disclosure needed and at the same time make the testimony of those involved official which of course would or could open the door to further prosecutions should they "not be telling the truth" and lie under oath.   By have depositions and a hearing perhaps the situation and those involved would allow for such clarity.  It seems the decision to have speakers address the issues is a start but having the last speaker throw down a lawsuit and have an injunction would stop the council from giving the "I hear ya and see ya, and I don't give a damm, resoulution passes" edict.

Comment by CJ on June 24, 2011 at 7:12am

Promised the kids a play day today so I will be in and out. You have raised a very good question.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 24, 2011 at 7:08am

CJ, the what exactly allows for the waiving of anything?  Do you know?  I certainly do not understand it at all.  I know they do it, but under what authority do they do it?  I understand if something is very strong on all elements except one, an exception might be made due to strength on other criteria, but waiving something seems to be the order of the day on pretty much everything on the docket.  Waiving things is not the exception; it is the norm.

 

I have an hour or so this morning to do computer, so will see what I can find.

Comment by CJ on June 24, 2011 at 6:38am

Ma'am we need to dig up any and all laws the require addresses on Bills

 

also anything waived in the Bills we have to find other laws they haven't waived so thus are still bound by

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 23, 2011 at 8:54pm

Tell me what you are looking for CJ.  I am calling it quits for tonight, but I will check back in tomorrow and see if I can help. 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 23, 2011 at 8:53pm

ez money is empowerment zone funds and has something to do with HUD.  They have something to do with loans of money. 

Comment by CJ on June 23, 2011 at 8:25pm

Let me clear this up a little too.

Kaman according to their address currently is not in an Enterprise Zone (EZ) but the Bill asks for EZ Funds. There is no physical address in the Bill and this is how we will fight it as a physical address is required by law.

I know Ive read it and could use help digging up laws both in Municipal and state statutes.

We will force the issue with ever bank too.

Law is the best way to fight it since reason and plea's are not working.

 

 

 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 23, 2011 at 7:43pm

It's amazing isn't it.  The thing that gets me though hugely are these money give aways of taxpayer money.  And then, as I said the last couple of weeks of committee meetings and watching them on line too, I have heard the word waiver of this waiver of that (rules and laws apprently are meant to be waved).  Then, the word forgive come up often in relation to taxpayers picking up the load for folks who just couldn't seem to get their arms around the commitments from contracts they signed with the city.  It is not to be believed how often this happens!  But what you are pointing out about these enterprise zones and brownfield zones is fairly serious as it means lots of federal and state tax dollars and I certainly am left wondering exactly why.  Somehow these folks don't seem to need or be entitled to this extra, once again, tax payer money!

Comment by CJ on June 23, 2011 at 7:33pm

Enterprise Zone expansion in Bill 383 includes an area called Imeson Ind. Park including Imeson airport, way far away from infill needs that the city is whining about in the everbank bills.

Bill 384 is for Kaman Aerospace bill asking for corp welfare has no physical address 

If 383 is approved Kaman will have tax payer financed incentives to move to new Enterprise Zone designed Im sure especially for them.

I have maps of the "proposed" enterprise Zone and even the water front on the st. johns will be included by evergreen ave. by large storage tanks. 

 

Is there not some ethics violations here?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• …
• 41
• Next ›
• Page