How Jonathan Dickinson development talk could impact Martin County's November referendum

If he were alive today, Robert K. Merton would have had a field day with what Florida state officials just did.

Merton was a 20th-century American sociologist who popularized the use of the term "unintendend consequences" to describe actions that lead to unexpected outcomes.

Last week, while many people were distracted with local and state elections, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection announced its "Great Outdoors Initiative," which included new developments at Jonathan Dickinson State Park and eight other parks.

The plans called for two 18-hole and one 9-hole golf course to be built at Jonathan Dickinson, as well as removal of the Hobe Mountain boardwalk and observation tower, and relocation of some park offices and staff residences.

Well, those ideas didn't play too well with the general public. By late Sunday, state officials were saying the golf course plans had been withdrawn, with an obscure nonprofit organization claiming responsibility for having brought the idea forward in the first place.

A silver lining for Martin County conservationists

There will, or at least should be, further discussions about how one nonprofit with ties to a former DEP administrator managed to get its plans so close to final approval before the public knew anything about them.

I'm certain it wasn't their intent, but the state officials who set this mess in motion may have inadvertently aided backers of a Martin County ballot initiative in a couple of important ways.

There's a measure on the Nov. 5 ballot asking Martin County residents to adopt a half-cent sales tax with the tax revenues earmarked to purchase land "within the Indian River Lagoon south, Pal-Mar, Loxahatchee and St. Lucie Headwaters, and Blueways areas."

Proponents hope to protect the acquired lands from development and create a "green belt" in the southern part of the county.

There are going to be at least a couple of arguments raised against the proposed tax increase: One is taxes are already high enough. Another is there's already an adequate supply of government-owned lands in Martin County that have been set aside for conservation.

Some people are never going to be in favor of new taxes, no matter what. However, for the rest of the voting population that's at least willing to entertain the idea of a sales tax hike, that second argument is important.

According to the Martin County Property Appraiser's Office, as of last year, the state owned more than 93,000 acres of land in the county. Martin County owned slightly more than 7,000 acres.

Not all of that is land dedicated for parks or conservation. Much of it is used for various services provided by those two government entities.

Still, someone could look at those acreage numbers and say: "Well, holy smokes! The state and county already own a lot of land. Why do we need to approve this sales tax increase so the county can buy even more?"

Here's the rub: The Great Outdoors Initiative clearly showed those state lands, even the ones supposedly set aside as natural areas, remain very much "in play."

State lands are targets for development

If some developer or anyone else with the right political connections comes up with a proposed use for them, we can now see our state officials are going to at least consider the idea.

I don't think we can conclude state officials learned their lesson from the backlash against the Great Outdoors Initiative and nothing like that will ever be proposed again.

Based on the way state government operates, it's more likely than not there will be future proposals to use land designated for parks or conservation areas for other purposes.

In 2011, state officials were kicking around the idea of putting a Jack Nicklaus-designed golf course in Jonathan Dickinson. As with the more recent initiative, the idea was withdrawn in the face of signficant public opposition.

That only proves the point. Just because an idea gets knocked down once doesn't mean it won't resurface, again and again, if necessary, until the political powers that be wear down the opposition enough to get what they want.

We can't trust those who are in state government to look after our best interests. I'm speaking of the bureaucrats in Tallahassee in this instance and not our local legislators, who came out pretty strongly in opposition to the golf course plans for Jonathan Dickinson.

This time.

Next time around, who knows? Developers could grease the right palms and get the approval they need to build golf courses, pickleball courts, a lodge, or whatever they think might make some money at that location near Hobe Sound.

Martin County needs its own development buffer

The sales tax supporters can make a reasonable argument Martin County needs to buy more land of its own for parks and conservation because we can never be certain about state officials' agendas. State lands designated for parks or conservation today could easily be put to use as something else tomorrow.

A cynic would say we can't trust Martin County officials to keep their promises either, but the Aug. 20 election clearly demonstrates there can be consequences for elected officials who aren't following the will of the people.

Even well-moneyed interests weren't able to protect Martin County Commissioner Doug Smith from voters who thought he had become a little too accommodating to growth and development.

If Martin County voters show up in numbers in November to support an initiative to buy lands for conservation, then I'm betting the commissioners and officials at the county administration building would be hesitant to defy their wishes.

That may be less true of Tallahassee bureaucrats who answer to the governor and are therefore more insulated from local political pressures.

There's another important way the brouhaha over the Great Outdoors Initiative may have helped the Martin County referendum: The public's awareness and appreciation for natural lands has been raised over the past week or so.

Even people who seldom visit state parks were moved to speak against the state's development plans. Don't be surprised if the referendum's backers start contacting people who got involved in the fight against the Great Outdoors Initiative to help them with their cause.

If the referendum supporters were looking for something to energize potential voters, the Great Outdoors Initiative couldn't have come along at a much better time.

Their biggest challenge will be keeping citizens fired up about protecting the natural environment between now and Election Day.

No one may have thought of this, but ...

To recap, there certainly was more than meets the eye to the state's decision to announce plans for the golf courses and other "improvements" at state parks. How one nonprofit was going to benefit, while many other worthy causes would have liked similar opportunities to use state lands, deserves further exploration.

State officials probably had no inkling their moves could help the Martin County ballot initiative. I'm guessing those moves might make a difference at the polls Nov. 5, though.

If that happens, Merton would have another example to prove his hypothesis.