Lawmakers question Everglades land deal
TALLAHASSEE (AP) – State lawmakers Tuesday questioned the cost and other aspects of a proposal being pushed by Gov. Charlie Crist to pay $1.34 billion to U.S. Sugar Corp. for land to help restore the Everglades.
Some members of the Senate Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee suggested the state might do better by bowing out so another company can buy U.S. Sugar and then dealing with the new owner.
Sen. Nan Rich, D-Weston, said she couldn’t believe the South Florida Water Management District could swing the deal for 180,000 acres – or about 285 square miles – without raising property taxes to repay a bond issue.
Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Sole assured the panel a tax increase wouldn’t be needed.
“We can afford this,” Sole said. “In fact, we can afford it at $1.75 billion.”
Crist initially announced the deal at that price, but since then the acreage and cost have been scaled back.
The deal does not need legislative approval, but Sen. Lee Constantine, the committee’s chairman, said he wanted to give lawmakers a chance to let officials know what they think about it.
“At least we can probe, question, prod, move forward, suggest alternatives,” said Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs. “There is a great deal of concern about the long-term viability of this and, frankly, when that happens that means we’re on the hook.”
Sole told the panel he also doubted sufficient land could be obtained if U.S. Sugar is sold to The Lawrence Group. The Tennessee company has offered $300 a share, or about $550 million, for Clewiston-based U.S. Sugar.
The sugar company’s board has not yet decided which, if either, offer it will accept.
“The opportunity is now,” Sole said. “That opportunity probably won’t occur in the future.”
Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, said lawmakers received a letter from Lawrence saying it intended to keep U.S. Sugar going, retain all employees and sell the state all the land it needs for Everglades restoration.
“That sounded like a win-win-win-win for everybody,” Dockery said.
Lawrence lobbyist Ron Book said his client would be willing to sell at least 60,000 acres for Everglades restoration but less than 100,000 – not as much as some had suggested.
Some senators and David Goodlett, vice president of government and community relations for the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, also questioned a provision for leasing some of the land back to U.S. Sugar at a bargain price of $50 a year per acre for the first seven years. Agriculture acreage usually rents for at least three times that amount.
Goodlett said it would put his company at a competitive disadvantage that could force it to shut down its mill.
Sole said charging more could put U.S. Sugar’s mill out of business. He said the lease provision was the result of negotiations and the state often includes such sweeteners to close land deals.
Dockery said lawmakers have even more heartburn over another provision that would let U.S. Sugar sublease the land to others at a higher price.