COMMENTARY
“In addition to these examples of the ways Turner seems disconnected from reality, she also continues to harbor the illusion that the best way to move the sale forward is to beat on the Florida Municipal Power Agency as if the organization is a piñata. What in heaven’s name is Turner thinking?”
MARK SCHUMANN
Recently, City Councilwoman Pilar Turner was sharply critical of a letter authored by Mayor Richard Winger and High Speed Rail Commission Chairman Ken Daige. Ironically, the specific sentence about which Turner took such exception mirrored, word-for-word, the first sentence in a resolution she supported just two months earlier. In fact, Turner was the council member who moved to approve the resolution.
Though she may not have realized the implications of her altered position, Turner was essentially contradicting herself. This is not the only instance in which Turner’s actions and statements have been inexplicable.
During budget negotiations last summer, Turner pushed and pushed and pushed for draconian cuts in city services. To justify her position, Turner offered the bogus claim that voters agreed to sharp cuts in city services when they approved the purchase and sale agreement between the City and Florida Power & Light. As impossible as it may be to believe, this is exactly what Turner said.
Out on the stump in 2009, building initial support for the sale, pro-sale fundamentalists like Turner assured the public that interest earnings from some $156.5 million in proceeds would more than offset the loss in utility revenue.
Now, despite the fact that the projected net proceeds have shrunk from $156.5 million to a negative $26 million, Turner is still pushing for the sale, which is why I refer to her as a pro-sale fundamentalist. In total disregard for the carbon dating tests, Turner continues to insist the earth is just 5,000 years old – so to speak.
Always in lock step with FPL’s public relations team, Turner is willing to insist that voters have twice “overwhelmingly” supported the sale. In one of the referendum upon which Turner rests her shallow argument, voters were specifically assured – by none other than the Press Journal’s editorial board – that a “yes” vote was NOT an approval to sell the electric system, but was simply an authorization to “continue the conversation.”
In addition to these examples of the ways Turner seems disconnected from reality, she also continues to harbor the illusion that the best way to move the sale forward is to beat on the Florida Municipal Power Agency as if the organization is a piñata. What in heaven’s name is Turner thinking?
Perhaps most threatening to the future of Vero Beach, Turner has yet to disabuse herself of the misguided notion that the City should hand over its profitable and well-run water and sewer utility to her friend Bob Solari and his colleagues on the County Commission.
Turner publicly argues with herself about what position to take on All Aboard Florida. She joins with FPL in interpreting the 2011 referendum as a mandate to sell the power system, and, out of thin air, she has drawn the conclusion that the 2013 referendum was a directive from voters to cut city services.
Anyone familiar with the city’s water sewer system knows it is a competitive, well run utility, the profits from which will be indispensable should the electric system be sold. Yet, Turner persists in wanting to hand this vital asset over to the County.
Further, Turner seems to think that in appointing her to represent the City on the FMPA board, the City Council gave her permission to invite County Commissioner Tim Zorc to join her at the table, where the two of them could further alienate the FMPA.
It is hard not to wonder if Turner is being disingenuous or if she is simply disconnected from reality.
Last fall, I wrote that Tracy Carroll’s “service” on the City Council had not been good for Vero Beach. I took that position because I believed then, as I believe now, that the policies Carroll advocated would lead to the demise of the City of Vero Beach. What is equally true, it seems to me, is that Turner represents the opposite side of the same coin.
Without a doubt, if the decision had been left to Turner, the City would never have appealed the Code Enforcement Board’s controversial ruling on short term rentals.
Like Carroll, there is a lot Turner wants to change about her new chosen home, including clearing the way for further development on the waterfront.
If she is to be reelected, Turner will almost surely need generous assistance from FPL and from development interests keen on turning the power plant site and the water treatment site into a marina resort. For those who care about preserving the quality of life in Vero Beach, ensuring Turner does not retain her seat on the City Council should be a top priority in the coming months.
Indian River Guardian 
If I were a citizen of the City of Vero Beach, I would act on your recommendation.
The circus that is the COVB day-to-day operation seems to be necessary to revive the old cliche —
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Great article. I do disagree with one point. If we do end up with the opportunity to do away with the power plant, turning that property into a commercial enterprise would be a great benefit to the city. The city has more green space and park land currently than we the small number of city of Vero Beach Tax payers can support. With the potential loss of revenue from the majority of residents of the Vero Beach area it will definitely be in the city residents best interests to use that property for a revenue generating purpose. The use of that property for a marina and hotel convention complex will provide economic stimulus and jobs for Vero Beach. Having a small high end convention center would also help attract the type of small corporate headquarters, research and/or software development centers that will bring in high paying jobs versus warehouse distribution jobs that the county commission is so proud of bringing to the area currently. In other words, jobs for our children so they would not have to move away to find decent paying careers and work.
Al, I don’t necessarily disagree with you about what might make for the best use of the power plant site.
If the City is unable to sell its electric system at this time, any serious effort to reduce rates will require addressing the $4 million a year the City loses operating the power plant. In short, if the City stays in the power business, the power plant should be decommissioned and mothballed while voters decide what they are willing to see done with the property. If the power plant site is to be sold or leased long-term for commercial development, let the developers pay the cost of dismantling the plant and cleaning up the site, and factor their additional development costs into the lease.
The water treatment plant site is another matter. Because the City’s has a deep injection well, the plant is not impacting the lagoon. Turner claims otherwise, but this is just another example of how she seems disconnected from reality. There would be no environmental or economic benefit to moving the sewage treatment plant. If the plant is going to be move in order to make the riverfront land available for development, then who should pay the costs? Certainly not the City’s water and sewer customers, and certainly not the taxpayers.
Further, if the City’s is going to make a significant capital investment in its water and sewer system, wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in converting from septic to sewer wherever possible? That is an investment that would actually benefit the lagoon. Spending millions to relocate the sewage treatment plant will only benefit developers, and at least one City Council member whose backyard view faces the sewage treatment plant.
the city decommissioned its original plant years ago and look how many promises of what that might be, a restaurant, an art center. to name the two most recent one. the current plant would also entail some clean up.
If the Treasure Coast counties are unable to get a handle on making the lagoon a healthy place for man and other creatures, the value of the power plant land may not be so great. Who wants to sit and look out at a watery dead zone? I’m trying to see the FMPA situation from another angle. Picture some other FMPA member city in our position, wishing to opt out of contracts. And here we and the other members would be stuck with that’s city’s obligations. Would we be gung-ho to say “go”? I’m doubting it. Certainly those two trips to the voting machines were merely to keep the line of communications open with FPL and to give tentative okay on leasing the Power plant property, I believe. Nothing more.