News analysis

MILT THOMAS

On September 19, a meeting was held at the Gifford Community Center involving county officials and representatives of the local community. To an objective third party, it could seem as though two meetings were going on simultaneously – one in which officials from county staff and the Chamber of Commerce explained what each was doing to improve the county in general and Gifford in particular; the other meeting in which Gifford residents tried to express their anger and disappointment over the lack of county infrastructure and economic development in their community.

This was actually the third meeting over the past several months, each beginning with the county explaining its accomplishments and ending with residents unhappy over the lack of accomplishments. This is part one of a series to try and explain why this communication problem is occurring between two sides trying and failing to  accomplish the same thing.

 The three meetings

Back on July 22, Indian River County officials organized a meeting at the Gifford Community Center to discuss updates to the 2002 Gifford Neighborhood Plan.  That plan had not been updated since its presentation to the County Commission on September 17, 2002. It should be noted that the plan itself was the result of a July 1999 decision by the County Commission to create a task force to identify issues existing in Gifford that contributed to the community’s poor economic conditions and quality of life.

The Commission instructed the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce to create a task force to identify problems and opportunities, then make a recommendation to the Commission for action. The Workforce Enhancement Task Force included representatives from Jobs and Benefits, the Gifford Progressive Civic League, NAACP, IRCC and what is now the Workforce Development Board. Meetings were conducted with Gifford residents, tours of community problem areas and regular meetings to identify problems and make recommendations.

In July 2000, the Workforce Enhancement Task Force presented it findings and recommendations to the Commission, which then directed the planning staff to develop a neighborhood plan for the Gifford community.

The 2002 Gifford Neighborhood Plan resulted from those efforts. The meeting on July 22, 2013 included a presentation by county staff, led by Community Development Director Bob Keating, as to what had been accomplished in those 11 years and determine what changes, improvements and other modifications to the plan were necessary going forward. Staff would present an item in the plan, explain what had been done, then invite comments from attendees as to what further improvements were necessary.

Some suggestions were made regarding infrastructure and public works elements, some of which were still an issue from 2002, but the most heated subject that evening concerned economic development. County staff noted comments on all subjects and promised to investigate and come up with recommendations at a follow up meeting to be held sometime in October.

On August 15, Commissioner Tim Zorc called another meeting of the Gifford community to discuss potential changes to the Enterprise Zone. Zorc opened that meeting with a discussion of the Zone’s boundaries but the meeting quickly devolved into another heated exchange, with residents feeling they had seen no economic benefit from the Enterprise Zone since its creation in 2005.

A third meeting on infrastructure and economic development issues was held on September 19. The infrastructure portion of the discussion was led by Public Works Director Chris Mora and the economic development segment by Chamber of Commerce President, Penny Chandler, substituting for Economic Development Director, Helene Caseltine, who arrived later due to a prior commitment.

Mora explained work that had been done on roads, street lighting and drainage in Gifford, covering ground that had largely been discussed in the July 22 meeting. Comments from Gifford residents were also similar, except more passionate than at the earlier meeting. Finally, resident Godfrey Gibson stated what seemed to be on everyone’s mind: “We come out and have these meetings and talk about the same problems.”

Gibson noted that before he retired, previous Public Works Director, Jim Davis, came to Gifford and walked many of the areas with drainage problems and promised to take care of them. Davis retired in 2009 and Gifford residents were still complaining about drainage problems. Gibson added that some progress has been made, but “too many of these issues are always on the back burner.”

The meeting concluded with resident and community figure, Freddie Woolfork, saying, “We can’t solve any of these problems tonight, and we want to give you the opportunity to correct them.”

Penny Chandler then explained how the economic development effort is carried out, where funding comes from, and the Chamber’s responsibilities attracting new businesses into Indian River County. As in the two prior meetings, residents felt these efforts were not helping their community. One resident, Jackie Warrior, stated, “I assume the goal of any economic development program is to improve the quality of life. That appears to be true in Indian River County, where the average income is $47,000, but not in Gifford, where it is $23,000. Something isn’t working very well.”

That may be true, but it is important to know why it isn’t working. That will be explained in the next installment.