« Dan Gelber'$ in the AG race lead | Main | Thrasher on Greer severance: 'It was what it was' »

Sugar wars moves to airwaves with Everglades Trust ad

In the latest salvo in the sugar wars between U.S. Sugar and Florida Crystals over the troubled Everglades deal, the Everglades Trust is airing this 60-second radio spot in Tampa/St. Petersburg, Orlando and Daytona media markets.

"The proposal to buy 100 square miles of property from US Sugar is the best, cheapest way to save the storied River of Grass,'' writes Thom Rumberger of the Everglades Trust in a statement. "But a faction of disgruntled sugar growers and their friends are trying hard to stop it...The 60-second spots remind voters in key legislative districts that the same polluters who nearly destroyed the Everglades are now threatening to ruin our best chance to save them."

EvergladesTrust-REV60


 

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lorraine Ston1

We moved to Florida in 2004 and heard of the U. S. Sugar Corp./Everglades land deal controversy. Six years later, not much movement. The United States Constitution provides, under the doctrine of Eminent Domain, in instances where a communal necessity is proven, a governmental taking of property in the interests of the entire population, with due and proper compensation to the owners, is permissible. Several years ago, the U. S. Supreme Court even broadened that legitimate provision, to some controversy. There is no doubt, however,it seems, that the overriding interests of a great deal of Florida's population and ecology is involved in the present controversy. It has been six years since we moved to Florida and heard of this issue and thus far, nothing has appreciably changed. If, as asserted, this land is vital to the well-being, perhaps survival, of vast swaths of Florida, it is impossible to comprehend why the doctrine of Eminent Domain has failed to be even mentioned, much less even approaching implementation. Surely, the overwhelming, provably best interests of present and future generations supersedes that of the small, self-involved segment of lawyers, politicians and sugar producers. Why hasn't the Eminent Domain procedure ever been even mentioned in this more-than-half-decade "dispute" ever been broached?

The comments to this entry are closed.