Q. Does this web site oppose private development on the beach?

A. People have the right to develop their property or redevelop it into more profitable uses. This web site has never opposed any private development project. Property rights co-exist with traditional land uses in the community and laws which are designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. The needs and values of the community tend to evolve over time, meaning that land-use policies also change. Any construction near the ocean impacts the public beach and for this reason there is heightened public concern. "The beach" is often perceived as public property, even though it is technically a jig-saw of private and municipal property and sovereignty lands. However, most of the land adjacent to the beach is privately owned, with the main exceptions in Deerfield Beach of the International Pier, the parking lot adjacent to the pier and other public parking areas, especially the Main Beach Parking Lot. The latter is of special interest because it is used as the site of many community events, such as concerts, sporting contests and the annual Founder's Days carnival. It is also a candidate for development, converting a "sea of asphalt" into a commercial property with profits spilling into city coffers.

Q. Why is redevelopment controversial?

A. There are three main issues which divide residents over redevelopment in the beach area. The first is the extent to which the city commission should allow variances and exceptions from the zoning and building codes and other land-use rules to facilitate new projects which may affect public access to the beach. Such exceptions usually benefit the developer only. The second issue is to what extent such rules should evolve away from tradition to encourage development. Proponents of redevelopment claim that bigger development widens the tax base of the city and thus benefits the residents indirectly. The third issue is whether the city should permit commercial development on city-owned lands near the beach which are now used primarily for recreation and parking. The development of public lands presents a different set of concerns. Private property rights are not involved and the city has no obligation to allow development of any kind on these properties. What is at issue is the public's "right" to use the land for public purposes, which may or may not outweigh the supposed benefits of developing city-owned lands. Against this background there are also "quality of life" issues, that is, how development may adversely impact residents.

Q. What is the ultimate test of redevelopment policy?

A. Does it serve the public interest over a period of time? Is the long-term outcome a city where people will want to live and can afford to live twenty or thirty years from now? "Overdevelopment" in Deerfield Beach and other coastal communities is rationalized by the argument that the beach is a deteriorating area with obsolete land uses ("blight") that could be replaced by upscale development. It is claimed that redevelopment and new land-use categories such as "RACs" will increase tax revenue and bring in more desirable residents.

Q. Is the Deerfield Beach CRA legitimate?

A. A community redevelopment agency (CRA) can be created without public approval or a vote, but its charter is supposed to embrace a community vision. In the case of the CRA in Deerfield Beach, the so-called "visioning process" produced a number of conflicting ideas rather than consensus. There is not an actual community vision which corresponds to the goals of the CRA.

Q. What do the residents of Deerfield Beach want at the beach?

A. There are a variety of interests in the beach area. The conventional view is that most people are not opposed to "reasonable development." But there is a limit to how much the existing infrastructure, that is, roads and parking, can bear without major and costly reconstruction of the beach area that would probably meet stiff public opposition. Both actual and projected impacts of redevelopment, as well as common sense, influence individual perceptions of what is "reasonable development."

Q. How do we know what the people want?

A. We have the votes. Two referendum elections addressed beach development in 1998 and 2000. Another vote was held in 2002 to amend the city charter to limit redevelopment. The results indicate that the majority of residents are not comfortable with commercial development in this area and oppose the use of public land for private development.

Q. Does public opinion count?

A. City government is run by a city manager and civil servants who are not directly accountable to the voters. Some public officials believe that land-use issues are too complex for the public and therefore should be handled by "experts" with minimum public involvement. This view is shared, of course, by business insiders who stand to profit from liberal land-use policies. However, city government is supposed to work for the people and make decisions in the public interest, not solely in the interest of developers. Historically, public opinion has been made to count by vocal, even strident, opposition and use of direct democracy measures such as referenda.

Q. What is a RAC?

A. RAC stands for regional activity center. If an area is designated a RAC it means that the city has more flexibility in determining what land use rules should apply. It permits more mixed-use development which means that what is traditionally regarded as a commercial use can be combined with residential units. The RAC proposed for Deerfield Beach reduced commercial density on paper, but enlarged the area for commercial development. This scheme would have facilitated commercial development even though officials said it would not. The RAC application has been withdrawn. Because of evolving land-use policies with respect to barrier islands, it does not appear the application would have been approved by the county commission anyway, at least not anytime soon.

Q. What is performance zoning?

A. Performance or impact zoning replaces the traditional zoning where specific uses are permitted or not permitted. City officials can allow construction based on a determination that the project would not adversely impact the area in which it is built or conversely, if the impact can be successfully mitigated. In essence, it gives more power and flexibility to city officials.

Q. Is performance zoning a good thing or bad?

A. Performance zoning allows more innovative development. However, it assumes that city officials act in the best interests of the community and also that the public has sufficient input into decisions that will significantly impact the community. Where public trust in local government is low, performance zoning is probably a bad idea.

Q. Why was there so much local opposition to the RAC proposal for Deerfield Beach?

A. Because city officials lied about what the RAC was about. Many people believe that city officials at the time were working for developers and did not act in the public interest when they proposed the RAC. They believe that crucial land-use decisions or proposals including the RAC proposal for the Deerfield Beach CRA are made secretly and that public hearings are only a necessary formality. They have seen the abuses in other cities where officials have too much power in land-use matters. They believe that some officials have a personal stake in redevelopment. Mayor Capellini, in particular, derives his income as a civil engineer and has close business ties with developers. He also has invested in some projects.

Q. Is the CRA a bad thing then?

A. CRA promoters say that CRAs widen the city's tax base and promote "economic development." In fact, by using new revenues ("tax increment funds") to upgrade the public infrastructure, a CRA scheme shifts some impact costs of development to taxpayers and makes development economically feasible. Artificially inflated land values and tax assessments that some established residents cannot afford creates a buyers' market for developers.

Q. Could the clock be turned back on the CRA?

A. Some cities have adopted land-use strategies which respect the traditional landscape of the community and try to preserve the best qualities of their towns.

Q. Why do some people who live in Deerfield Beach hate it so much that they would go so far as to ruin the beach so cherished by the residents?

A. Everyone is motivated by self-interest to some extent. People who use the beach and are resident in the city want to preserve that area in the way it is to the greatest possible extent. Some people want Deerfield to be more upscale and feel that the traditional beach area doesn't measure up in that regard. Other people own land on the beach or are in businesses that will benefit financially from development.

Q. Does Larry Deetjen need to go?

A. Fundamental reform of city government will be difficult to achieve as long as Mr. Deetjen is city manager.

Q. Should Deetjen be fired?

A. This web site was the first public medium to propose the termination of Larry Deetjen. In the first instance it was because Mr. Deetjen made an important policy decision without consulting with the commission first and contrary to a directive previously issued by Mayor Capellini, in which the commission acquiesced. Since he was not fired for this act of insubordination, Deetjen has continued to politicize his office and build a political base for the security of his position and agenda. In the 2005 city elections, he may have been instrumental in setting up certain commission candidates who were supportive of his proposal to turn the city pier over to a developer. He also assisted opposing counsel in a lawsuit against the city to overturn charter amendments which were approved by voters in the 2002 elections, but short circuited his redevelopment vision. In short, Mr. Deetjen has compromised the professionalism of his office to promote a political agenda that serves friends and special interests. Deetjen has been suspended twice. The city commission majority lacks the votes to terminate Deetjen (four votes are required).

Q. Is Deetjen, then, city manager forever?

A. Deetjen's contract expires in May, 2007. There is a movement to recall Commissioner Steve Gonot, District 4 commissioner, who is a critic of Deetjen. If it succeeds, this could change the balance of power on the commission and "save" Deetjen. Voters will be asked in November, 2006, to amend the city charter to allow a simple majority of the commission to terminate a city manager, but this will not apply to Deetjen's current contract.

Q. Isn't government just inherently corrupt?

A. If you have good people, they do a good job, tell the truth and keep their word. That is the ideal in which we believe.