LETTERS: Sue Stuart council over downtown losses? Septic? Runoff cripples St. Lucie River

Former commissioner: Stuart leaders play dangerous game with building moratorium

I have avoided involvement in local politics, but when I heard the Stuart City Commission wanted to revert to the “good old days” before the Duany Plan, I felt I had to become involved.

As a former city commissioner, and the state coordinator working with over 100 Florida cities, I found the new Stuart City Commission to be the most inept and unresponsive of any that I have viewed.

As to the Duany Plan, it turns out none of the commissioners have ever read the plan. They did not know that the Duany Plan provided the framework for Stuart’s revitalization.

To be fair to the City Commission, prior commissions had made bad development decisions, and the Stuart citizens are angry and want change. They have charged the new commission to create a plan to accomplish that goal.

Unfortunately, the commission is using a moratorium that could last for six months. The moratorium is not only for new development, but includes all buildings in Stuart with the exclusion of single-family dwellings and buildings that do not increase the density or intensity of an existing use or structure.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this: Can an awning be placed on a building? Can a store owner change tenants if the new tenant requires external changes? Will the moratorium prevent positive changes in East Stuart?

In effect, commissioners Christopher Collins, Laura Giobbi and Sean Reed, with or without the benefit of educational training in community planning, architecture, engineering or business management, will micromanage your property.

I feel anyone who can prove a financial loss because of this moratorium should be exempt from paying city taxes on that property for a year.

Joan Jefferson, Stuart

Fertilizer heading into Lake O, development among reasons St. Lucie River tainted

Cheryl Smith’s article regarding rainfall runoff going into the St Lucie estuary addresses the tip of the iceberg. Consider a few specifics:

First: On the 49-acre Costco propertyon Kanner Highway, just imagine one inch of rain could collect 23,779 gallons of polluted rainfall that will be channeled into the St. Lucie River. Imagine what it might be with our annual rainfall average of 45 inches.

The second concern relates to Lake Okeechobee. We are told St. Lucie River pollution is largely caused by defective septic systems . That ruse gets the public eye off the real upstream pollution caused by vast amounts of fertilizer applied to Lake Okeechobee’s half-million acres of sugar and elsewhere.

Lake Okeechobee is a petri dish for cyanobacteria. Why? In part because tons of phosphate and nitrate fertilizers wash into the lake. This dirty soup is then channeled into our rivers whenever the Army Corps of Engineers schedules releases. Compared to polluted water festering in Lake Okeechobee, local septic systems, in my opinion, are the least of our worries.

Our estuary water quality problem won’t be fixed until surplus Lake Okeechobee water is channeled back into the Everglades to let nature do its thing and our politicians stop approving projects like Costco in Stuart, where the St Lucie is used to dispose of what inevitably will be dirty stormwater runoff from giant parking lots.

Paul Vallier, Stuart

Elect politicians who don't seek to weaponize our communities

I am a Vietnam-era veteran and worked for the military for 30 years. I own guns.

The National Rifle Association advocated and promoted laws that if everyone carried a gun, then we all would be safe. The Republican Party has revoked, passed or opposed laws that have taken our country to a place that is unsafe to go or be anywhere.

Their argument is gun-owning is written into the Second Amendment of our Constitution. The sentence in that amendment states “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

If the amendment only stated the last part of that sentence, that would justify arming every person in our country. The folks who wrote the Constitution lived in an entirely different era than what we live in today. That amendment became outdated when a full-time federal military and state national guards were created.

Schools, shopping centers, the streets we drive on or walk on don’t have to be places where you can be shot with any gun, especially an assault weapon.

I learned a long time ago that leaders — be they governing leaders, corporate executives or the coach in any sport — set an example to the people of the tone and direction they desire, hope and expect their respective entity to go. Taking the attitude that laws are made to be broken or, ”it is not going to happen to me,” is naive, self-centered or just pure hatred.

It is time to care about all people and elect political candidates who believe everyone does not need to be weaponized. Elect politicians willing to change our laws, be they here in Florida or across our great nation.

R. Scott Penfield, Vero Beach

Pet-eating immigrants? How easily duped some 'leaders' are

“It is easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled.”

This aphorism has been wrongly credited to Mark Twain. The apocryphal phrase came into recent prominence during Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and has been posted on social media lots of times since then to question widely debunked statements made by Trump.

Well, here we are trying to make sense out of his latest (but not last) disinformed tirade. JD Vance began by publicizing this dehumanizing declaration: “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn't be in this country.”

Trump, during the debate, blurted out the false remark again, sounding quite deranged. In fact, if this guy was sitting next to me in a coffee shop and spewed this nonsense, I would scoot far, far away.

Do we want a dupe as president? And a partner dupe as VP? If Trump is willing to disseminate a falsehood as ridiculous as this, what might he do with important security data or ridiculous conspiracy theories?

Seems he is quite easily led and is incapable of critical thinking. What he is good at is fooling people who do not seem to be too interested in substantiating his numerous false claims. Has he ever offered an apology for insulting large swaths of our nation’s population?

Hopefully, our country will choose the candidate who wants to “fight for our ideals” and not the one who dwells in a constant state of doom and turmoil.

Jan Williams, Vero Beach

Harris' higher taxes will have great consequences

In the immortal words of Jack Kemp, “No one ever ended an economic recession by raising taxes.”

Unemployment is up, the ISM Manufacturing Index is in a three-year decline and the leading economic indicators are dropping — the combination is flashing red.

Kamala Harris proposes to revoke the 2017 tax cut (taking money out of peoples' pockets), raise corporate taxes (making the United States noncompetitive for capital) and increase the capital gains rate to 44% (curtailing long-term capital investment).

As Art Laffer says, “Taxes have consequences"

Contrary to popular belief, raising tax rates generally lowers tax revenue as taxpayers stop spending and investing. The result is stagnation. To counter this, Democrats use stimulants (otherwise known as deficit spending) in an effort to put money back in the economy and encourage growth.

Donald Trump proposes to cut red tape and lower tax rates in general ― but corporate rates in particular.  Lower taxes stimulate spending and result in economic growth without more debt. Lower corporate taxes attract capital and jobs. Democrats love jobs, but they hate employers.

Trump will encourage drilling to lower the cost of everything and generate new revenue he can use to begin paying down the deficit press (now over $35 trillion). He also plans to enlist Elon Musk to chair a task force to cut the waste in government spending.

Compare Harris’ plan to Trump’s. Who wants higher taxes?

Tom Miller, Vero Beach

Don't let Democrats control all branches of government

I am older than most readers probably and have experienced presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt. I was a registered Democrat most of my life and held public office as one, but changed to an independent more recently because the party's main objective has recently changed.

Before that, it was a great party that helped labor, citizens and working-class people, and I was proud to be a member. Since FDR, we have had some good Democratic presidents, such as Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, even with his sexual problems, and Barack Obama who added 50% to the national debt.

No, I am not advocating voting for Donald Trump, since I won't, but warning you to not let the Democratic Party obtain control of the presidency, House and Senate, because disaster will result.

In a few cities controlled by the party, they allow undocumented immigrants to vote in some local elections. The House passed a bill overriding that, but the party-controlled Senate has refused to take it up for a vote. My fear is its aim is to ultimately allow undocumented immigrants to vote in all elections.

Edward Marasi, Port St. Lucie

Editor's note : While some states allow undocumented immigrants to vote in local elections, it is illegal for them to vote in federal elections.

Why won't leaders act on carnage with assault-style weapons?

I’m old and a woman, so I know I’m not expected to understand many things. In my defense, I am somewhat adept with computers, read and understand books, keep up with the news and politics, am still able to learn, and often use Google for problem-solving.

But this is the thing: For some time, I have been unable to understand why people would want to own an AR-15 weapon, so I Googled the purpose of assault rifles after the latest school shooting (40th school shooting; 261 mass shootings this year).

Google gave two answers: One is for hunting, though hunting with an assault rifle would obliterate animals. When they tried to identify children shot by an assault rifle a couple of years ago, they could only identify them by the clothes they were wearing.

The second purpose is for protection. Does this mean they plan to carry this rifle when they go shopping, to the movies, to parties or perhaps they plan to leave it next to the bed?

Children and adolescents seem to be able to get ahold of the rifle their parents are sure they wouldn’t. And if they want their children to learn to shoot like their old man, wouldn’t a regular rifle do?

Sandy Hook parents should have been able to watch their children graduate from high school this year. Whenever there’s talk about reasonable gun legislation after a shooting, there is an immediate cry of “Second Amendment!“

Why do politicians, though they know an overwhelming majority of Americans want them to act, feel their party’s policy must be to stand fast against doing so?

But as I say, I’m old and a woman, so perhaps I’m not meant to understand. But I do believe I’m still allowed to vote.

Anne Brakman, Vero Beach

This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: LETTERS: Sue Stuart council over downtown losses? Septic? Runoff cripples St. Lucie River