Sally Swartz
Despite a plea on Mullet’s Cable Wake Park Facebook page for crowds to support the park, only a few young people in white shirts appear, in contrast to the mob that crowded earlier hearings. Mr. Mullet and a few pals cluster around hired pitchman Don Cuozzo in the lobby. Mr. Cuozzo looks harried and talks on his cell phone.
Water park cheerleader Tom McNicholas is conspicuous by his absence, as are members of the Schramm-Carmody family who support the park. Jack Carmody is lawyer for Hobe Grove, a huge housing development that also seeks approval on farmlands west of Hobe Sound.
Commissioner Ed Ciampi, who with Commissioners Doug Smith and Patrick Hayes approved the growth plan changes to this point, hints to a park foe, “I think you’re going to be happy today.”
Yes, with the election just four weeks away, a new decision has been made, apparently behind the scenes. Now for the public performance.
People arrive slowly, one or two at a time, to fill the seats. Then, sheets of stickers with the words “Urban Sprawl” in the center of the circle/slash universal symbol for “No” move through the crowd. Residents paste the symbols on their shirts, hats and handbags.
If the commission majority hadn’t already decided to vote against the park, it would have been tough to face this crowd. Perhaps the presence of residents who don’t usually attend commission meetings also helps commissioners say no to Mr. Cuozzo’s plea for a postponement. And to his last-ditch effort to change the amendments to cover just 30 acres nearest Bridge Road. That would have eliminated the water park but increased the value of Mr. Mullet’s land.
Mr. Ciampi said he “took a tremendous amount of heat” from residents, and that recent emails tallied 286 against the park and 18 for it. He doesn’t count “cookie cutter” e-mails or “nastygrams” he received in the 63 days the park project has been in play, but adds it’s the “most controversial” project in his almost-four years on the commission. He doesn’t want his approval to be “part of my voting legacy,” and adds, “I’m not gonna deny this is politics.”
Mr. Hayes, who first told residents he would oppose the park, then voted for it and celebrated with the developers at a local tavern afterwards, calls the water park an “excellent project.” Now he votes “no” because “I don’t think it has proper community support.” Mr. Smith lectures on “process” and suggests a new study on developing western lands before his “no” vote.
Commissioners Sarah Heard and Ed Fielding, who opposed the park from the start, point out the only use Martin’s growth plan allows on the land is agricultural.
Residents get rowdy and shout “No” when Mr. Cuozzo pushes for last-minute changes. They applaud Mr. Hayes, Mr. Ciampi and the entire commission when the vote rejecting the park is unanimous and final.
Candidate Anne Scott, who has defended the growth plan in her campaign to unseat Mr. Hayes, thanks “the fine folks of Martin County. You did your job.” But she tells the commission majority, “You put us through an agony of time and effort when you could have said no right from the beginning.”
Some residents worry that voters now will support Mr. Hayes, Mr. Smith and Mr. Ciampi, who now seeks the clerk of courts job, because they changed their votes.
Maybe some will. But others may consider that residents influenced this commission vote only because the election is a month away.
The rest of the time, it’s kiss-up-to-developers business as usual — until residents choose commissioners willing to place principles above politics to preserve Martin’s way of life.
Sally Swartz is a former member of The Post Editorial Board. Her e-mail address is sdswartz42@comcast.net
