Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Decision baffles

Decision baffles

This letter is in response to Desmond Barrett not being fined for his election signage issues during the election this last fall.

Mr. Barrett had no written proof of agreements that he had approval to put signs in private property. But why the Florida Elections Commission found no probable cause of these violations baffles me.

Was this the good old boys network? We will never know.

Mr. Barrett, who founded the anti-incorporation group Citizens Against Increased Taxes, agreed to pay a $200 fine to the Florida Elections Commission for other issues this year. Then, if the Lehigh Acres Watchdog was that wrong about the charges, then why did he pay the $200 fine?

Although we (Jim Fleming, Frank LaRosa, Rick Anglickis, Frank Lohlein & I) have often been at odds on our views and our policies, we all love Lehigh Acres and we respect each other's dedication to this wonderful community. Desmond Barrett's characterization of us as "the gang of five," is laughable.

Unlike Mr. Barrett, each of us marches to the beat of our own drum and nobody could ever consider us an "alliance," except in the defense of the people of Lehigh Acres. I categorically refute Mr. Barrett's remarks.

Mr. Barrett announced that he wanted to "do away with impact fees." Without builder impact fees, politicians like Mr. Barrett will look to increased property taxes, sales taxes, transfer taxes and income taxes to pay for new roads, schools and infrastructure.

I suspect that Mr. Barrett's comments were designed to suck up to business people he hopes will finance his overly ambitious plans to run for the State House of Representatives.

The Lehigh Acres Watchdog will continue to fight Desmond Barrett's fluff projects and spending programs.

Robert Anderson,

Lehigh Acres

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Desmond Barrett chases his own Rainbow


Desmond Barrett chases his own Rainbow ----

Desmond Barrett – Does it again --- Spending your tax dollars on whimsical flights of fancy --- At the ECWCD meeting board on June 27th they voted 3 to 1 to approve the Adopt A Canal Program even when their own attorney stated that there exists a possibility that there is an inherited liability cost to this project and that the ECWCD could be sued if a volunteer gets hurts on district lands.

ECWCD staff presented the Supervisors the Fiscal Year 2006 budget --- which includes a 35% increase to the taxpayers of Lehigh Acres over last year. I commend Desmond Barrett for not creating new taxes However he IS increasing all the current taxes. WHY?

The Gunnery Road widening project that Lehigh Acres needs so bad may be stalled do to the lack of cooperation between ECWCD and Lee County Government – do to the failure of an agreement for cost sharing between the two government indemnities.


Robert Anderson
President / Chairman
Lehigh Acres Watchdog, Inc

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Contamination by the wells and septic tanks

Exert from ------

Water Woes -- by Fox 4

(Lehigh Acres, FL) -- People living in Lehigh Acres will soon be paying assessments to hook up to water and sewer. Some warn it's needed before the water supply is contaminated by all the wells and septic tanks going in. A report done for Lee County last year does say there is the potential for groundwater to get polluted. There's talk of assessing residents a few thousand dollars per hook-up.


What is Barrett going to do now??? Contamination of our canal ways !!!!!

Thursday, June 16, 2005

We have a major issue in Lehigh Acres -----

We have a major issue in Lehigh Acres – and it’s so serious it could jeopardize everyone in Lehigh. Lee County Government just completed a new ground water study but it shows that Lehigh Acres is discharging too much water down stream through the ECWCD canal system and it’s not recharging our own ground water -- this makes the community more habitable, but without recharge, how long will it stay livable? In the old days, getting rid of the water was what was wanted. Now with all the private wells going in Lehigh (and some of our older wells even drying up) and FGUA working on an interlocking system with Lee County Utilities for portable water, we are in the danger zone. We did such a fine job of getting rid of the water in SW Florida we now need a national effort to fix our fix.

My main question -- what is the ECWCD Chairman Desmond Barrett going to do about this one? We need a long term plan with feasible goals to fix these issues today. We can not afford a politician that flip – flops from one issue to another without resolving anything. What can we expect from him? We can’t wait any longer; it’s too severe of an issue for the health and welfare of the citizens, residents, voters & stakeholders of Lehigh Acres.

Response from the ECWCD Chairmam ----

From Mr. Anderson's Letter. (in orange)
that Lehigh Acres is discharging too much water down stream through the ECWCD canal system.

At East County this flow rate that Mr. Anderson is speaking about is monitored by staff on a weekly bases. As this is a function related to the Southwest Florida Water Management District permit. If flow rates are to high the water is held back or diverted to other areas. If not the district would be faced with a fine for discharging to much water down the orange River Basin.

Mr. Anderson is right. The East County Water Control District must work with outside agencies to solve this issue, which we have been. In 2004 a study was done by AIM Engineering that addressed this problem. The board spoke about widening our canals near Harns Marsh (next to Sunshine) , and other canals in the Southeast portion of the district to expand the water capacity in the area, along with supporting man made lakes that would tie into our system, thus helping recharge the aquifers. A pilot project was supposed to be developed by the staff and brought back to the board of supervisors. This project is supposed to be approved sometime this fiscal year. The district board is wading for staff to bring this proposal to the board for a vote. But with the recent storms the project was delayed due to structure failure related to the storms last fall.

Also, water quality has become a concern to our district. We have testing sites throughout the district on our canals that test for water quality. District staff and our engineering firm has meet with the Lee County Health Department concerning contamination of our drinking water due to septic and wells. The district is addressing this issue with staff, and also our local leaders at the county. Any support that we can get from the citizens would be very helpful in solving this health issue.

As always, thank you for your input and feedback on the East County Water Control District.

Desmond Barrett; Chairman



Now – Chairman Barrett brings up the most important issues --- contamination of our drinking water and the contamination of the canal system in Lehigh Acres do to fecal bacteria generated by private septic and wells systems. And the other issue -- ECWCD structure failure – why hasn’t the Chairman pushed harder the get this structures that 20, 30 and even 40 years old fixed – instead his working on a Adopt a Canal program in which would spend a minimum of $34,000 of your tax payer money just on signage. Couldn’t this money be spent on helping resolve the contamination issues or even trying to fix a structure that is going to fail?

Sincerely,

Robert Anderson
President
Lehigh Acres Watchdog, Inc

Monday, June 13, 2005

What is an impact fee? Desmond wake up !!!!

Q: What is an impact fee?
A: An impact fee is a charge on new development to pay for the construction or expansion of off-site capital improvements that are necessitated by and benefit the new development.

Q: Are impact fees referred to by any other name?
A: Yes, early water and wastewater impact fees were referred to as capital recovery or expansion fees. In California and Washington, impact fees are often known as mitigation fees; in Oregon, as system development charges; in Minnesota, as service availability charges; and in North Carolina, as facility fees. In some states, such as Kansas, Colorado and Tennessee, impact fees are alternatively applied as adequate facility or excise taxes. In most places, however, they are generally referred to as development fees or impact fees.

Q: What is a linkage fee?
A: A linkage fee is a “housing” impact fee. Linkage fees, which are found primarily in California, New Jersey and Massachusetts. are a means for cities to collect monies from new commercial and industrial development to provide for affordable housing. Linkage fees are premised on the basis that lower-wage workers, who are needed to build and work in new non-residential development, also need to be able to afford adequate housing within the community.

Q: When did impact fees first become popular?
A: Impact fees as we know them today first came onto the scene in Florida and California during the late 1970s as a result of taxpayer revolts and reductions in federal and state aid for local infrastructure. Their use and popularity quickly spread throughout the Sunbelt and western states.

Q: How prevalent is the use of impact fees today?
A: According to recent national surveys, about 60 percent of all cities with over 25,000 residents and almost 40 percent of all metropolitan counties use some form of impact fees. In California and Florida, the extent of cities and counties using impact fees is at 90 and 83 percent, respectively.

Q: What is the legal basis for impact fees?
A: Impact fees must meet the "rational nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests. First, there must be a reasonable connection between the "need" for additional facilities and new development. Second, it must be shown that the fee payer will "benefit" in some way from the fee. And third, calculation of the fee must be based on a proportionate "fair share" formula.

Q: How many states have adopted impact fee enabling acts?
A: Since1987, 26 states have passed impact fee enabling acts. Most of these states are located in the western United States, Great Lakes region, and on the Atlantic coast. Unfortunately, many of these acts are as prohibitive as they are permissive.

Q: How do impact fees differ from negotiated exactions?
A: Negotiated exactions are determined on an ad hoc project-by-project basis through the development approval process. Impact fees are based on objective fair share studies and standardized pro-rata formulas.

Q: How do impact fees differ from taxes?
A: Impact fees are authorized through the police power; not the taxing power. They are part of the development approval process. Requiring an impact fee to provide adequate public facilities is similar to meeting site planning and zoning requirements.

Q: How much is the average impact fee?
A: Impact fees vary greatly by region and facility. Highest fees are in California and lowest are in the Midwest. In 2004, the national average road fee per single family unit was just under $1,700 and combined water and wastewater fees were about $4,000. Average park fees were about $1,200 per unit and average pubic safety (police and fire) fees were at about $500.

Q: What key policy decisions need to be made during an impact fee study?
A: In drafting an impact fee study, the community must make local policy decisions relating to facilities, methodology, exemptions, offsets, benefit areas, and percent cost recovery.

Q: What facilities can impact fees be used to pay for?
A: The type of facilities that an impact fee may be assessed for depends on local legal authority. In states with enabling acts, facilities are often limited to basic services, such as water, wastewater, roads and drainage. In states with more liberal home rule authority, however, facilities are often unlimited as long as a nexus can be determined.

Q: What criteria should be used in the selection of facilities?
A: In deciding which facilities to adopt impact fees for, the following criteria should be considered: 1) statutory limitations, 2) other funding options, 3) availability of plans and data, 4) current levels of service, 5) political support, and 6) revenue potentials.

Q: What are some innovative impact fee techniques being used today?
A: Seeking to address housing affordability issues, more fees now recognize size differences in residential units. Two other trends are the reduction or elimination of fees in areas with limited or no growth-related facility needs, such as in central cities; and the recognition of variable cost differentials such as distance (trip length) and density.

Q: How are various land uses assessed?
A: Impact fees are assessed based on the facility demand of the proposed use as measured by its type, size and location. Residential uses are usually differentiated by type or size of unit (bedrooms or floor area) and non-residential uses by amount of floor area.

Q: What basic provisions should be included in an impact fee ordinance?
A: Impact fee ordinances should at least include provisions for a fee schedule, fee methodology, benefit districts, offsets and credits, updating frequency, spending limits and refunding, phasing and indexing, independent fee studies, and definitions.

Q: When is an impact fee usually paid?
A: Most impact fees are paid at the time of building permit issuance. However, some fees are paid earlier at the time of subdivision or plat approval. A few are even paid later at the time of certificate of occupancy issuance. In the case of utilities, impact fees are usually paid at the time of actual connection or hookup to a water and wastewater system.

Q: Can impact fee revenues be spent on operating and maintenance costs?
A: No. Impact fees can only be spent on capacity-enhancing capital facilities.

Q: Are changes in use or additions to existing structures charged an impact fee?
A: Changes in use within an existing structure usually are not required to pay an impact fee because the amount of time to monitor and administer such efforts rarely justifies the amount of return revenue. Modest additions or expansions to and the replacement or remodeling of existing uses or structures are also not usually charged.

Q: What uses can be exempted from payment of an impact fee?
A: Case law requires that impact fees be applied to all new uses in a “proportionate share” manner relative to their impact on public facilities. Therefore, no new use should be exempted from its impact fee obligation. In reality, exceptions or waivers are often made for low-income housing, non-profit, religious and governmental uses.

Q: How can the effect of impact fees on affordable housing be mitigated?
A: Since affordable housing creates a demand for public facilities just as does market-rate housing, they also have an impact fee obligation. However, there are several ways to reduce the "impact" of impact fees on affordable housing. First, variable rates based on unit size or number of bedrooms can recognize the lesser impact of smaller units on pubilic facilities. And second, local government can make a policy decision to pay the impact fees for affordable units from other revenue sources.

Q: What are benefit districts?
A: Benefit districts are territorial divisions within which collected fees must be spent.

Q: What are assessment districts?
A: Assessment districts are territorial divisions within which fee schedules may vary.

Q: What is an independent fee study?
A: An independent fee study is a special professional and technical analysis of a specific use or project to determine if it has certain unique conditions, characteristics or considerations that would allow the charging of an impact fee other than that prescribed in the adopted fee schedule.

Q: Why are impact fees phased and indexed?
A: New fees are usually phased in over a period of months or years to soften their impact on the local real estate market. Indexing is the use of automatic annual fee increases based on the consumer price index (CPI) or other cost index to ensure that the fees keep pace with inflation.

Q: Do impact fee revenues have to be spent within a certain period of time?
A: Yes, impact fee revenues should be spent within a reasonable period of time (usually six to eight years from collection) or be refunded to the fee payer.

Q: Can impact fee revenues be deposited in a general fund?
A: No, fee revenues must be earmarked and deposited in special dedicated accounts.

Q: What is an impact fee offset?
A: When a developer contributes actual off-site facility improvements or dedications that mitigate the impact of a particular project and the need for impact fee-related public facilities, the project's impact fee should be reduced (offset) by the value of the improvement or dedication. Offsets are given to ensure that new development does not pay twice for the same facilities.

Q: What is an impact fee credit?
A: Credits are based on the amount of property and sales taxes paid or being paid by the new use for the same facilities and are incorporated in the impact fee schedule during preparation of the study. Credits are given to ensure that new development does not pay twice for the same facilities.

Q: How frequently should an impact fee study be updated?
A: Most state enabling acts stipulate an update time limit. If none are required, updates every three to five years are recommended to keep facility costs and data up-to-date.

Q: Do impact fees negatively affect move-up homebuyers?
A: No, if the price of new housing actually rises because of impact fees, then the value of existing housing will follow suit because it is an integral part of the local real estate market. Current move-up homebuyers who move up will be able to use their “windfall profits” to pay for the increased costs of the new home. As they say, “a rising tide lifts all boats”.

Q: How do impact fees benefit existing, as well as new residents?
A: Adoption of impact fees reduces pressure on local residents to raise taxes and fees. And with new development paying for its own capacity-enhancing infrastructure needs, any current funds that have been designated to pay for those projects can be shifted to the more immediate needs of existing residents, such as for facility maintenance and rehabilitation.

Q: Are impact fees a no-growth tool?
A: No. Just the opposite is true. Impact fees facilitate growth by expediting development approvals, increasing the amount of developable lands, and reducing citizen opposition to new growth.

Q: Do any builders and developers support the use of impact fees?
A: Many builders and developers are impact fee proponents because they know that impact fees add predictability to the development approval process and create a "level playing field" between them and their competitors. They also know impact fees replace less fair negotiated exactions.

Q: What are some significant recent trends involving impact fees?
A: First, impact fees have continued to significantly increase in popularity and usage. Second, there has been a parallel reduction in builder and developer opposition (and subsequent litigation), Third, it is now much more common for communities to recover full facility costs (than to discount them and charge less than full value). And fourth, there has been a greater use of creative methodologies (such as residential fees that vary by unit size).

Q: How are impact fees calculated?
A: Determination of an impact fee begins with calculating demand-to-capacity ratios for different capital facilities and then estimating the number and cost of facilities that will be necessary for meeting a prescribed level of service for a growing population.

Q: Who actually pays the impact fee (incidence)?
A: In the short-term, impact fees may cause a slight increase in housing costs if the local real estate market allows the builder to shift the cost forward to the buyer. However, in the long-term it is more than likely that the cost will be shifted backwards to landowners in the form of lower prices that may be bid for undeveloped land.

Q: What is a level of service?
A: A level of service is a measure used to characterize the operating conditions and performance of a public facility or service. The term is most commonly applied to traffic operations, where designations go from A (best) to F (worst).

Q: What is an existing deficiency?
A: An existing deficiency is an existing inadequacy in the condition or performance of a public facility or service with respect to the adopted or desired level of service.

Q: May a lesser impact fee be charged than is recommended in a study?
A: Yes. Since a city is not required to impose impact fees, it may also choose to set its fees below the level necessary to fully recover necessary facility improvements. However, if a reduction is made the percent should be the same for all uses to maintain “fair share” relationships.

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Barrett cleared of complaint concerning campaign signs BUT read the rest of the story the paper refuses to print!!

Watchdog comments in RED ---

Exert from --------------

Barrett cleared of complaint concerning campaign signs

Committee found no probable causeBy JUSTIN ST. CLAIRJSTCLAIR@LEHIGHNEWSSTAR.COM Published by lehighnewsstar.com on June 11, 2005

The Florida Elections Commission cleared water control official Desmond Barrett of a complaint that some of his signs for November's election were posted illegally.The commission voted 7-0 at its May meeting that there was no probable cause to fine Barrett, according to results made public earlier this week.The complaint was made by Lehigh Acres resident Robert Anderson, who leads the three-member Lehigh Acres Watchdog group.

In the complaint, Anderson stated that Barrett, who won a second four-year term on the East County Water Control District Board of Supervisors in November, posted campaign signs in public rights of way along public roads.Florida elections law calls for a fine of $100 for "placing or locating a political advertisement on or above any state or county road right of way."

Barrett, who became chairman of the water control board this year, said his signs were placed legally. He characterized the complaint as the kind of criticism from opponents that elected officials often must endure."I'm going to take some hits and knocks," Barrett said. Anderson, who works as a computer consultant, refused to comment on his complaint or on Barrett's response to it. Barrett agreed in December to pay a $200 fine to the elections commission for not placing statements of sponsorship on signs for the politically active civic committee he started in January 2004, Citizens Against Increased Taxes.

That complaint was also brought by Anderson, as was another to the state Commission on Ethics that claimed Barrett misused a fax machine and dedicated phone line provided by the water control district by posting the fax number on the CAIT Web site.That complaint was dismissed in February. Barrett resigned from CAIT in November. The group was formed primarily to oppose incorporation in Lehigh.

The Lehigh Acres Watchdog also runs a Web log, http://www.desmondbarrett.info, dedicated to tracking Barrett's political and professional activities.The Florida Elections Commission is composed of nine members appointed by the governor, and can order fines of up to $1,000 for violations of state elections laws.

The Lehigh News Star refuses to print this !!!!! Ms. Michele Hudson editor of Lehigh Acres News Star allowed Mr. Barrett a Local Opinion Column in the May 25th, 2005 edition but now refuses to allow me to respond in the same way? WHY?

This letter is in response to Mr. Desmond Barrett not being fined for his election signage issues during the election this last fall. First, Lee County Code Enforcement did found him guilty in three pictures that Mr. Barrett signs were in the right of way. Second, Mr. Barrett has no written proof of agreements that he had approval to put signs in private property. Even the County agreed that two the pictures of the bigger signs were in private property with out written approval. But why did the all mighty Florida Election Commission found no probable cause of these violations baffles me. Was this the "GOOD OLD BOY'S NETWORK" or not, we will never know? But: It is Mr. Barrett's true identity and motives that most people in Lehigh Acres question these days. Is he for incorporation, or against it? Is he for union members, or against them? By quitting the Citizens Against Increased Taxes Inc., is he now for increased taxation? By quitting the LACPC, is he for community planning, or against it?

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Lehigh News Star refuses to print this !!!!!

Lehigh News Star refuses to print this !!!!! Ms. Michele Hudson editor of Lehigh Acres News Star allowed Mr. Barrett a Local Opinion Column in the May 25th, 2005 edition but now refuses to allow me to respond in the same way? WHY?

This letter is in response to Mr. Desmond Barrett not being fined for his election signage issues during the election this last fall. First, Lee County Code Enforcement did found him guilty in three pictures that Mr. Barrett signs were in the right of way. Second, Mr. Barrett has no written proof of agreements that he had approval to put signs in private property. Even the County agreed that two the pictures of the bigger signs were in private property with out written approval. But why did the all mighty Florida Election Commission found no probable cause of these violations baffles me. Was this the "GOOD OLD BOY'S NETWORK" or not, we will never know? But: It is Mr. Barrett's true identity and motives that most people in Lehigh Acres question these days. Is he for incorporation, or against it? Is he for union members, or against them? By quitting the Citizens Against Increased Taxes Inc., is he now for increased taxation? By quitting the LACPC, is he for community planning, or against it?

If Mr. Barrett, who founded the anti-incorporation group Citizens Against Increased Taxes, agreed to pay a $200 fine to the Florida Elections Commission for other issues this year. Then if the Lehigh Acres Watchdog was that wrong about the charges then why did he pay the $200 fine?
Although we (Jim Fleming, Frank LaRosa, Rick Anglickis, Frank Lohlein & I) have often been at odds on our views and our policies, but we all love Lehigh Acres and we respect each other's dedication to this wonderful community. Desmond Barrett's characterization of us as "the gang of five," is laughable. Unlike Mr. Barrett, each of us marches to the beat of our own drum, and nobody could ever consider us an "alliance," except in the defense of the people of Lehigh Acres. I categorically refute Mr. Barrett's childish and immature remarks, his baseless accusations, and his incessant flip flopping and troublemaking, and I trust that the people will reject it too.

Mr. Barrett the "flip flopping master" boldly announced that he wanted to "do away with impact fees." He added that he was, "tired of sticking it to builders and developers." Instead he wants to stick it to the taxpayers who already live here.
Without builder impact fees, politicians like Mr. Barrett will look to increased property taxes, sales taxes, transfer taxes, and income taxes to pay for new roads, schools and infrastructure. Nobody wants that, especially not builders and developers, because higher taxes will surely kill the local economy.

I suspect that young Mr. Barrett's ridiculous comments were designed to suck up to business people he hopes will finance his overly ambitious and laughable plans to run for the State House of Representatives. But don't be concerned.

The Lehigh Acres Watchdog will continue to fight Desmond Barrett's fluff projects and spending programs. i.e. Such is the Desmond Barrett Adopt a Canal project - this project will spend at minimum $34,000 dollars of taxpayers money just on signage, this doesn't take in account of the millions of dollars of liability insurance and staff man hours needed for the project. It was reported that Mr. Barrett is a leading voice for smaller government and less taxes than why, is he wanting to spend taxpayer money on signage?? Could this money better used to the lower East County Water Control Districts public debt?

Mr. Barrett, the young, ambitious and opportunistic politician tries to be all things to all people, and he will be whoever you want him to be depending on your views and money, not his. Desmond's emotional flip flops, and his practiced phony rhetoric must be ignored, and his political aspirations must be cut short by the people of this great community.

The Citizens of Lehigh Acres simply cannot afford Mr. Flip-flop at the School Board, the Courthouse, the State House or wherever his tax and spend mind wanders. The community needs to check out http://www.desmondbarrett.info/ and make up their own minds

Sincerely,

Robert Anderson

President Lehigh Acres Watchdog, Inc

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Barrett's true identity and motives

It is Mr. Barrett's true identity and motives that most people in Lehigh Acres question these days. Is he for incorporation, or against it? Is he for union members, or against them? By quitting the Citizens Against Increased Taxes inc., is he now for increased taxation? By quitting the LACPC, is he for community planning, or against it? Will the real Desmond Barrett please stand up for something? Anything Please?

The election of Mr. Desmond Barrett to Chairman of the ECWCD

Below was submitted to the ECWCD Supervisors during the Public Comment before the elections on 1/24/05 ---------

To the Supervisors of ECWCD –

Re: The election of Mr. Desmond Barrett to Chairman of the ECWCD

Dear Supervisors,

First – Mr. Barrett already received a fine $200.00 from the election commission – for issues with the CAIT as he was chairman

Second – Mr. Barrett has addition violations pending with the election commission and ethics commission – use of ECWCD fax machine. He has a hearing on the 27th of January on the ethics charges in Tallahassee.

Third – it is a proven fact with he has taken special interest money for his campaign from the employees & spouses of Dry Water Cattle and the Teamsters Unions that represents the employees of the ECWCD. So how can he vote in the contracts and issues on Dry Water Cattle and / or employee matters ethically?

Fourth – Mr. Barrett runs a local Day Care as the director --- in the past 18 months he has had 42 non – compliance orders and two of them dealing directly with not reporting an incident with a minor child.

And Finally --Mr. Barrett public record speaks volumes -- Gets fined for a election violation – has pending violations do to miss use of governmental property form your own agency -- takes special money for his election from contactors and employees union -- show repeatedly he can not run a business – I ask you the other supervisors of the ECWCD can you afford to lose the public trust and elected Mr. Barrett as the Chairman of this multi million dollar governmental agency ---

More Barrett's Highlights --- ECWCD Supervisors did at again

ECWCD Supervisors did at again – They allowed Desmond Barrett become Chairman of the ECWCD with pending violations from the election commission and ethics commission – they also refuse to setup ethics guidelines for there lack of behavior and use of governmental property, they are entrusted by the voters of Lehigh Acres to protect the public trust but they are not living up to this promise. Each Supervisor takes an oath of office to up hold the laws of Florida. But Mr. Barrett breaks the law and they (the board) award him the chairmanship of the multi-million dollar governmental agency – what’s wrong with this picture??? Desmond now controls the board – controls the next year agenda for this board --controls your money – controls the taxes paid to the ECWCD -- Mr. Barrett public record speaks volumes – “Promises made Promises kept” Desmond has been quoted to say – But it should by stated – “Political Promises made Political Promises kept -- I'm going to raise your taxes”--- can the citizens trust him????

Have you ever met Desmond's brother????

Have you ever met Desmond's brother --- Click on the link below

CLICK HERE

BARRETT’S HIGHLIGHTS IN THE NEWS ------

Exerts -----

BARRETT’S HIGHLIGHTS IN THE NEWS ------

The city of Lehigh Acres? Not if Desmond Barrett has his way. Barrett, 25, started a campaign Friday to derail efforts to incorporate the east Lee County community. He filed paperwork with the Lee County Elections Office to create Citizens Against Increased Taxes, a political action committee. "My concern comes down to numbers,'' he said.

Barrett quits after winning water seat Citizens Against Increased Taxes founder Desmond Barrett resigned from his role as the anti-incorporation group's chairman earlier this month. The move, coming just days after Barrett's reelection to the East County Water Control District Board of Supervisors, upset some CAIT members who supported Barrett's reelection.

CAIT ads didn't say who paid for them East County Water Control District Supervisor and Citizens Against Increased Taxes founder Desmond Barrett agreed to pay a $200 fine for violating a state elections law, according to a consent order made public last week. The consent order states that Barrett and CAIT violated a section of the Florida Election Code that requires political advertisements to carry a "clearly readable”.

The state Commission on Ethics is investigating a complaint that East County Water Control District board member Desmond Barrett used a district-owned fax machine improperly. Lehigh resident Robert Anderson filed a complaint with the commission in October stating that Barrett had posted the number for the fax machine on the Web site of his anti-incorporation group Citizens Against Increased Taxes.

Ethics commission looks at fax use The state Commission on Ethics is investigating a complaint that East County Water Control District board member Desmond Barrett used a district-owned fax machine improperly. Lehigh resident Robert Anderson filed a complaint with the commission in October stating that Barrett had posted the number for the fax machine on the Web site of his anti-incorporation group, Citizens Against Increased Taxes.

Lehigh Acres resident Desmond Barrett, who founded the anti-incorporation group Citizens Against Increased Taxes, agreed to pay a $200 fine to the Florida Elections Commission for posting anti-incorporation signs without clear statements of sponsorship, according to a consent order made public this week. The consent order states that Barrett and CAIT violated a section of the Florida Election Code that requires political advertisements.

Some members of the East County Water Control District Board of Supervisors are saying fellow board member Desmond Barrett's use of district property for what they call personal and political purposes deserves further scrutiny. Barrett's use of a district-owned fax machine and phone line for his anti-incorporation group Citizens Against Increased Taxes has spurred allegations of misuse from Barrett's political opponent

Planning group has another resignation Colin Feng resigned from the Lehigh Acres Community Planning Corporation on Thursday. Feng, who served as the planning group's treasurer, is the second member to resign from the 14-member board this month. Desmond Barrett resigned on April 1. Feng cited a failure by the group's leadership to stop personal attacks in his formal resignation. Board member Frank LaRosa heatedly questioned Feng about the group's books at its April 13.

West Palm firm hired Monday East County Water Control Board attorney Angela Hill, who has served as board attorney for nine years, resigned Monday night as members argued over whether or not to replace her. Hill stood and addressed the board shortly after member Desmond Barrett asked other members if they were currently receiving adequate response from Hill when they had questions for her outside the monthly meetings.

Barrett resigns from Planning Corp. board Desmond Barrett resigned from the Lehigh Acres Community Planning Corp.'s board Friday. Barrett, who serves as chairman of the East County Water Control District Board of Supervisors, had also served as co-chair of the planning group's planning and zoning subcommittee.

In the race for the East County Water Control District seat 3, the News Star recommends Wayne Elrod. Elrod has very valuable experience that could benefit the water district and taxpayers. He understands the technical aspects of how drainage works because he has designed the drainage, detention and retention lakes and water control structures in new developments and communities for the last seven years. He has experience dealing with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

True to tax savings Supervisor Desmond Barrett of the East County Water Control Board saved the day again and relieved the citizens of Lehigh Acres of a huge worry about being taken over or annexed to Fort Myers. When the now-defunct citizens for incorporation committee said this could happen, it upset and confused people, especially some senior citizens. Desmond Barrett visited Rep. Bruce Kyle, who said he would introduce a bill for a five-year moratorium on Fort Myers Annexing Lehigh Acres.

Very serious questions about Desmond Barrett and his associates

Over the past three months, after completing a lengthy investigation., We found many very serious questions about Desmond Barrett and his associates. His support of Special Interest Groups, campaign contributions from District contractors and unions, and his use of East County Water Control District equipment raises many concerning ethical questions.

Who does he represent - - the citizens who elected him or the developers, contractors and the District employees’ union that fund he campaign?
We Strongly Oppose The Re-Election of Desmond Barrett to Seat 3 for the East County Water Control District.

We hope that you will vote on November 2nd and help change the future of Lehigh Acres.

Desmond Barrett and his Special Interest Groups!
Campaign Contributions

$ 2,250 Real Estate & Land Developers
$ 1,500 East County Water Control District Contractors
$ 500 East County Water Control District Employees’ Union


Who’s Interests Is Desmond Barrett Really Concerned About ?

The Lehigh Acres Watch Dog received Mr. Barrett campaign treasurer's report today
Dated from 1/1/04 – 10/8/04
it is very interesting reading
On 03/03/04 received $500.00 from T.L. in Ft. Myers
On 03/24/04 received $500.00 from G.W. in Ft. Myers
On 03/24/04 received $500.00 from M.W. in Ft. Myers
BUT ON
On 04/19/04 received additional $500.00 from T.L. in Ft. Myers
On 04/26/04 received additional $500.00 from G.W. in Ft. Myers
On 04/26/04 received additional $500.00 from M.W. in Ft. Myers
The above money came from employees & spouses of a
ECWCD contractor Dry Water Cattle Inc.

Out of 28 Contributors to his campaign,
14 of this people are living outside of Lehigh Acres
including the Teamsters Local Union in Tampa

Mr. Barrett-daycare has received 43 non-compliance orders in the past 18 months:

Mr. Barrett is the Director of a daycare, it is public record that this daycare has received 43 non-compliance orders in the past 18 months:


I.E. - 8/11/04 facility failed to provide written report of a incident with child

I.E. - 8/10/04 Cabinets mildewed - refrigerator dirty - Napping Space - dirty restrooms - cracked seat on outside play equipment - Missing First Aid Equipment - Missing Staff Screening Documentation

Why should the citizens of Lehigh Acres trust him on the East County Water Control District?

Lehigh Acres, Fl, December 20th, 2004:

Lehigh Acres, Fl, December 20th, 2004: Over the past three weeks I feel the editorials in the newspapers and stories about me and my group the Lehigh Acres Watchdog P.A.C. have not told the true story about Desmond Barrett --- So let’s get it on the record, Desmond Barrett and the C.A.I.T. broke the law -- simple as that or the Commission on Elections would have not issued a fine. As of the release of this press release, Mr. Barrett still faces a Florida Commission on Elections charges and has a Florida Commission on Ethics probable cause hearing on Jan. 27th 2005. Since Mr. Barrett is the Vice Chairman of the East County Water Control District and is subject to become the Chairman in January 2005. Does he deserve the Chairmanship of the ECWCD board with both elections and ethics charges hanging over this head?? According to his Grandmother she has raised him with values of honesty and respect. Do honest and respectful people use government property for personal and political gain?? Mr. Barrett has. Do honest and respectful people sit on Community Planning Boards and Co-chairs the Zoning and Land Use sub-committee with no back ground in that field?? Mr. Barrett does. Do honest and respectful people run for elected office with no working knowledge of that office?? Mr. Barrett has. Do honest and respectful public figures take special interest money to run their campaigns?? Mr. Barrett has. Mr. Barrett is a political figure in this community and like others should be set to higher ethical standard and if they don’t like that then they do not have to run for public office. Mr. Barrett the Lehigh Acres Watchdog P.A.C. will continue to watch your political career, but just remember someone is always watching & listening ---
Florida Elections Commission Case # FEC 04-253 THIS CASE IS FINAL

For his C.A.I.T group (35 different complaints filed)
Commission has filed a Motion To Consent Order on these complaints.


DESMOND BARRETT GETS FINED $200.00
Supervisor Desmond Barrett is under investigation by the Florida Elections Commission & Florida Commission on Ethics

- A probe into whether or not East County Water Control District Supervisor Desmond Barrett used a fax machine illegally in his home will show that investigators will tell the Florida Commission on Ethics that there is no probable cause to believe that Barrett violated Florida statues. But Mr. Barrett did take an oath of office to uphold the laws of Florida. Mr. Linzie Bogan, an advocate for the Florida commission on Ethics, will state that after an investigation, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Barrett used a fax machine in his home in an unlawful man­ner. A complaint was brought against Barrett by Robert Anderson of Lehigh Acres during the last election. He contended that Barrett, who was a candidate for reelection to the ECWCD Board of Supervisors at the time, was using a fax machine at his home for personal and political reasons. Barrett was also chairman of the Citizens Against Increased Taxes (CAIT) at the time, a group that was fighting incorporation. Barrett went on to win reelection. He had also been elected to the board of the Lehigh Acres Community Planning Corporation. Later he resigned from being president of CAIT and over the holidays, he resigned as a member of the CAIT group. Members of the Ethics Commission will be told by the investigator that facts show that Barrett did have a fax machine and dedicated fax phone line placed in his home by the water district. This was done by the water district so that the staff could more easily communicate with Barrett, the investigation revealed. Barrett did relieve to the investigators that he did you the fax for personal use. Despite the fact that the fax machine was placed in his home, the probe revealed that the water district never implemented a poli­cy where members of the board of the ECWCD were advised as to the proper use and limitations asso­ciated with the operation of the fax machine. The issue now is Mr. Barrett did take an oath of office to uphold the laws of Florida – didn’t he break the law? Bogan will tell the Ethics Commission that Barrett may have benefited personally by having a fax machine in his home but the evidence is insufficient to establish that he used it in a corrupt manner. According to the Ethics Commission, "corrupt" means done with a wrongful intent and for the purpose of obtaining, or compensating or receiving compensation for, any benefit resulting from some act or omission of a public servant which is incon­sistent with the proper performance of his or her public duties. For Barrett to have been found guilty of violating Florida statues, he would have acted corruptly which the Commission says would be wrongful intent and for the pur­pose of benefiting him or another person from some act or omission which was inconsistent with the proper performance of public duties. It was relieved on the 27th at the Ethics hearing that he did fax out a political fax to attend the candidate’s forum last November and faxed out confidential employee bargaining information for the ECWCD but this seamed not to matter to the ethics board. We at the Lehigh Acres Watchdog believe that Desmond Barrett should have been found guilty since he taken an oath of office to uphold the laws of Florida. Why should the ECWCD have redundant policies for use of governmental property if there are already laws on the books?

DESMOND BARRETT RESIGNS OFF COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD

--- DESMOND BARRETT RESIGNS OFF COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD ---
Copy of Email sent to Board members ------

Mr. Chairman,


This note is to inform you that I am stepping down as a member of the board. Effective March 31, 2005. I thank you for the opportunity to serve these past few months, but I know that I will be able to better serve my community from another point.


Desmond Barrett

Tax and Spend Barrett

Desmond Barrett continues to make reckless and irresponsible public statements that prove conclusively that he is a died in the wool, tax and spend liberal.

At the last Water Board meeting Barrett boldly announced that he wanted to "do away with impact fees." He added that he was, "tired of sticking it to builders and developers."

Instead he wants to stick it to the taxpayers who already live here.

Someone has to pay the high cost of the urban problems that come with explosive growth. And even the leaders of the National Association of Home Builders and National Association of Realtors agree that growth must pay for itself, and the burden not be shifted to local taxpayers.

Without builder impact fees, politicians like Mr. Barrett will look to increased property taxes, sales taxes, transfer taxes, and income taxes to pay for new roads, schools and infrastructure. Nobody wants that, especially not builders and developers, because higher taxes will surely kill the local economy, and kill the goose that lays their golden egg.

I suspect that young Mr. Barrett's ridiculous comments were designed to suck up to business people he hopes will finance his overly ambitious and laughable plans to run for the State House of Representatives. But don't be concerned, people who have to make a payroll every week are a lot smarter than that.

My business supporters and I have taken a strong position on impact fees that will make them fair to builders, developers and the taxpayers; so that growth will continue to pay for growth, and so that our construction-based job market will continue to thrive:

* Revenues from builder impact fees should be limited; separated from other government funds, and always be directly accounted for;

* Builder impact fees should only be used for capital improvements related to a specific new development;

* Builder impact fees should be collected and spent only at the point the impact is realized in our community. Lehigh Acres, for example, generates millions in annual impact fees that are spent elsewhere. We need to keep this money here at home.

* Exemptions to builder impact fees should be provided for housing sold to low-income and moderate-income households.

I've spent a lifetime earning a living in the real estate and homebuilding industries, and I have been deeply involved in growth management issues and smart growth initiatives. I was also named a "Crusader for Freedom" for signing, and abiding by, the National Tax Cap Pledge. I therefore speak with the voice of reason and experience. Mr. Barrett, on the other hand, shoots from the hip, shoots at friends and foes alike, and often shoots himself in the foot.

I will continue to fight Desmond Barrett's fluff projects and spending programs at your East County Water Control District, and in any campaign that he undertakes for any public office.

We simply cannot afford Mr. Flip-flop at the School Board, the Courthouse, the State House or wherever his tax and spend mind wanders.

Barrett's Crayola Monologues

Dear Concerned Citizens and the Media:

The following is an unsolicited e-mail that was sent to me by Desmond Barrett "stating" his "position" on impact fees.

To me it illustrates just how dangerous it can be to disseminate misinformation, demagoguery and gobbledygook to the public. I hope you won't heed or print this garbage.

This letter also shows the failure of our local educational system.

Desmond Barrett is a local elected official, and a JUCO graduate, and yet, he can't compose an essay at the seventh grade writing skill level. Forgetting Barrett's composition and sentence structure, which is truly awful, I have taken the liberty of redlining this opus.

I am simply dealing with the problems the proofreaders at the News-Star, Citizen and News-Press have to contend with when they try to make Barrett's incessant letters fit the norms of English composition, and the comprehension level of their readers.

I am also demonstrating how Mr. Barrett not only flip-flops from letter to letter and speech to speech, he does 180 degree pirouettes in the same essay.

Sincerely,

Jim Fleming
Lehigh Acres


The green comments are my own.

I am enclosing a letter that was written by me on my position regarding impact fees in Lee County. This letter was written as a position letter not to be debated by Jim Fleming and his friend Robert Anderson (The Watchdog). (We aren't allowed to debate a clearly flawed position? He can exercise his right of free speech, but we can't exercise ours?) These two men have both tried to misstate my position on taxes for there own personal and political gain. This letter was written to provide my own personal thoughts on an important issue that I care about as an elected official and conservative republican in Lee County.

This position paper is not meant to push or develop a campaign for the State House as Mr. Fleming suggested. As I am committed to serving out my second four year term on the East County Water Control District Board. I have not ruled out a bid for higher office in the near future, but the timing of this open seat is right for my family nor I. A dear friend as spoken to me about family above politics. Advice that I have taken to heart. It would be unfair for me to put my own ambition over the future of my young children. I care deeply for my family. To run, (Against me, by Carpetbagging and moving to another District) I would have to uproot my family from the only home they have lived in for the past five years. It would also be to stressful for my wife to run a third campaign in a six year period.

But, let me make my position clear on (a classic Richard Nixon cliche) impact fees (This is the murkiest "position" I have ever read.) This position should be of know surprise to my supporters and foes alike. (It's "know" surprise to me.) As I have always in public and private maintained a No New Tax commitment. If you feel as I do in No New Taxes. If you have taken a No New Tax pledge as I have. If you believe government should live within it;s means as I do. Than you should understand my position that impact fees are a new tax imposed on business and new residents.

The underlining principles in my position is that Lehigh Acres and other pre platted communities have a lack of commercial and industrial parcels. Most of the parcels in these communities were divided into quater acres lots for residential use to maxims profits in home sales, while at the same time small strip malls were set aside to provide basic services. As our population has grown the need for more commercial and industrial business is badly needed. With the lack of lands developed for these uses communities like Lehigh Acres face a shortage. Thus forcing governments to tax residential properties more to make up for the lost income to govern. (?) Government must find a more equitable way to balance this unfair burden on residential property owners. This cannot and should not be done by raising taxes and calling them fees on new construction. (This is absolute double-talk).

We can only find a more equitable way by providing tax cuts, waiver of fees, low interest loans, (Loans?) and other incentives that invest in local business (?). A tax on business as some have suggested is clearly wrongbut, by providing incentives, the commercial and industrial industries (?) in our community will thrive. This new growth will expand the tax base. Lessen the burden on residents, provide local job opportunities, stimulate our local economy, and build a brighter future for our community. Not a sentence. Vintage, Boy's State rhetoric.

Saying all of this, we still must provide affordable housing for our younger and aging population. When I talk about affordable housing I mean medium household income of $40,000-$90,000 a year. We are losing our middle class housing to skyrocketing property values, at the same time paying higher property taxes. Instead of Mr. Fleming always attacking someone for his own purpose, he should help develop Lehigh Acres into the gem that it could be. (It is Mr. Barrett who is always on the attack with these Crayon essays.)

This is the letter Mr. Fleming was attacking: (I was not attacking his poorly written letter, I was citing his foolish public statements at an open public meeting when he stated that he was tired of sticking it to the builders and developers, and that he wanted to do away with impact fees altogether) In recent weeks I have read with keen interest the debate over impact fees being used by our local governments. These governments celebrate these fees as "Growth Paying for Growth." These fees are just another tax on businesses and new homeowners.

During the past five years Lee County and City Governments have been caught flat footed by the increase of a little less than 100 new residents a day entering Lee County. These residents move to Lee County and our cities for new opportunities in homeownership and the red hot job market. While this influx of new residents to the county/cities has generated a thriving housing/econmic boom for Southwest Florida, our infrastructure has not been so lucky (Can an infrastructure be lucky?).

Our governments failed to take the necessary steps to properly plan for this future growth. Lehigh Acres is a prime example of growth over running our infrastructure of the community. Our schools are over crowded, our streets are clogged, and all other infrastructure is being pushed to the max.

To make up for this lack of planning these same governments have now relied on the old phrase of robbing Peter to pay Paul. They take from my neighbor and return the money to me. (Then, by all means, let's get it back) At the same time governments have held the property taxes high, while imposing an unfair burden on new construction of homes and business of up to $10,000 in new taxes. (Total B.S.)

They have imposed this tax (impact fees) so they can say growth pay's for growth. As a conservative community leader, I see these fees as another tax which harms business, hurts first home buyers (Hurt business and first home buyers? Have you read the papers?), and takes away options for our seniors on fixed incomes.

Government cannot and should not impose new taxes on it's currant or future residents without a vote of the people. Government must be accountable to the people, and not it's own interest. Imposing new taxes, imposing new regulations on property owners without a vote of the people is clearly undemocratic. (Barrett voted Against a referendum on the Lehigh Acres Plan).

Government should provide incentives through tax breaks, low interest loans to encourage development, (You've got to be kidding? Government loans to encourage more overdevelopment?) cut regulation that hinders smart growth in a timely fashion (?), and not increase taxes with impact fees to encourage new development, especially commercial developments in pre-platted communitas such as Cape Coral and Lehigh Acres (?). More incomprehensible double-talk. How can he do all that? How can he be all things to all people?) As a County we should continue to support pre-platted lands legislation in the State House and at the local level. This will allow smaller lots to be assembled and then sold off to a developer to help a community grow smartly. (I started this statewide legislative initiative when Barrett was still in Jr. High School).

With tax incentives, cutting regulatory rules, governments will spawn a new ownership society that President Bush speaks about often, which would create new jobs, affordable housing, and a thriving business class. If we don't do this Lee County will slowly push the working middle class out of the county along with stalling commercial growth which is so badly needed in our pre-platted communities. (Sheer demagoguery, puffery and empty rhetoric without substance.)

In the end growth will pay for growth only when we expand the tax base reducing taxes to new and old residential property owners, help small business owners grow and developers develop projects that grow Lee County smartly and affordably. (In the end he equivocates, as always).

(That's the Real) Desmond Barrett

Mr. Barrett's true identity and motives ????????

It is Mr. Barrett's true identity and motives that most people in Lehigh Acres question these days. Is he for incorporation, or against it? Is he for union members, or against them? By quitting the Citizens Against Increased Taxes inc., is he now for increased taxation? By quitting the LACPC, is he for community planning, or against it? Will the real Desmond Barrett please stand up for something? Anything Please?

If Mr. Barrett, who founded the anti-incorporation group Citizens Against Increased Taxes, agreed to pay a $200 fine to the Florida Elections Commission. Then if the Lehigh Acres Watchdog was wrong about the charges then why did he pay the $200 fine?

Although we (Jim Fleming, Frank LaRosa, Rick Anglickis, Frank Lohlein & Robert Anderson) have often been at odds on our views and our policies, but we all love Lehigh Acres and we respect each other's dedication to this community. Desmond Barrett's characterization of us as "the gang of five," is laughable. Unlike Mr. Barrett, each of us marches to the beat of our own drum, and nobody could ever consider us an "alliance," except in the defense of the people of Lehigh Acres. I categorically refute Mr. Barrett's childish and immature remarks, his baseless accusations, and his incessant flip flopping and troublemaking, and I trust that the people will reject it too.

The Lehigh Acres Watchdog will continue to fight Desmond Barrett's fluff projects and spending programs. i.e. Such is the Desmond Barrett Adopt a Canal project - this project will spend at minimum $34,000 of taxpayers money just on signage, this doesn't take in account of the millions of dollars of liability insurance and staff man hours needed for the project. It was reported that Mr. Barrett is a leading voice for smaller government and less taxes than why is he wanting to spend taxpayer money on signage?? Could this money be use to the lower ECWCD debt?

Mr. Barrett, the young, ambitious and opportunistic politician tries to be all things to all people, and he will be whoever you want him to be depending on your views and money, not his. Desmond's emotional flip flops, and his practiced phony rhetoric must be ignored, and his political aspirations must be cut short by the people of this great community.

The Citizens of Lehigh Acres simply cannot afford Mr. Flip-flop at the School Board, the Courthouse, the State House or wherever his tax and spend mind wanders.

Statistics Contradict Barrett's Claims About the Negative Affects of Impact Fees

Statistics Contradict Barrett's Claims About the Negative Affects of Impact Fees

Desmond Barrett's recent contention that Builder Impact Fees are killing the housing market for young families in Lehigh Acres is provably false. All you have to do is look around at the tremendous construction activity in every section of town to realize that there's a housing boom in Lehigh. The swing sets in the backyards of newly completed homes tell you that this boom is being fueled by people who are Barrett's age.

In fact, according to respected local Realtor, John McWilliams, households headed by Generation X-ers, and members of the "Echo-Boom" generation, like Barrett, purchased over 60% of the 3,700 + new homes, and nearly 60% of the existing homes, in Lehigh Acres in 2004.

If we didn't have Builder Impact Fees for new school construction, think of how much the taxpayers who already live in Lehigh would have to pay for all the new schools we will need to accommodate these newcomers over the next 5 years? And to make matters even more challenging, the growth in the trend toward younger homebuyers is actually accelerating.

This new generation is viewing the housing market from an entirely different perspective than Baby Boomers like John McWilliams and me, who have traditionally dominated industry trends.

According to National Association of Home Builders Executive Vice President and CEO Jerry Howard, these new buyers are, "Techno-savvy and are more likely to do their house-shopping on the Internet. They have a strong awareness of all their options."

Gen-Xers in particular are wielding their buying power to shape today's new-home characteristics and market trends. They, and younger buyers, were responsible for more than half of all new-home purchases in 2004 across the nation, reflecting the Lehigh Acres trend, and are twice as likely to purchase new homes in the immediate future as Baby Boomers and seniors are.

American Housing Survey (AHS) data from the U.S. Commerce Department shows that, while households headed by those aged 27-40 (the "Gen-X" generation) accounted for only 28% of all U.S. households in 2004, they were responsible for fully 51% of new-home purchases that year. Another 6% of newly built homes were purchased by Echo-Boomers (born after 1979), 31% were purchased by Baby Boomers and only 12% were purchased by seniors aged 60 and up.

Meanwhile, NAHB research on consumer preferences indicates that 37% of Gen-Xers and 27% of Echo Boomers intend to buy homes in the next two years, compared to just 13% of Baby Boomers and 6% of seniors. Look out, Mr. Barrett, here they come.

I'm no fan of Builder Impact Fees, but I am dead set against the alternative, which is to tax the people who already live here for the cost of new growth. The facts don't back Mr. Barrett's notion that Builder Impact Fees are hurting the housing market. He is a day care provider, he should know better.

Builder Impact Fees are the hidden cost of doing business, and are passed along to consumers equally in a one-time charge.

The main reason I strongly oppose Mr. Barrett's contention that Builder Impact Fees should be abolished, is the fact that the system works. Why fix it, especially at the expense of those of us who already live here? Like many readers, I paid my impact fees when I bought my new home years ago. Why should my neighbors and I pay for growth again, and again?