Title: SWFWMD: Correspondence Action and Routing
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00001981/00001
 Material Information
Title: SWFWMD: Correspondence Action and Routing
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: SWFWMD: Correspondence Action and Routing, 1/23/1976
General Note: Box 10, Folder 1 ( SF Taxation, ad valorem tax referendum-SWFWMD-1975 - 1975 ), Item 29
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00001981
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text


SOUTH Tr FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIe iCT
Correspondence Action and Routing


XEROX I B
ROUTE
INFORMATION V
8
Executive Director__
Director I.C.____ **
Director M. & A.
Director Ops.
Director WRD&R ____
Attorney Lf__
Dir. Admin. Services
Dir. Employee Rel.
Dir. Field Operations
Dir. Finance__
Dir. Planning
Dir. Real Estate
Dir. Regulatory_
Dir. Resource Development
Exec. Asst.
Public Rel. Off.
r. -Gibbons L0__
L. M. Blain w L
Chairman, Gov. Bd. L.
District Board
Basin Boards
Other


Io1 23 1976


ORIGINAL TOf

ACTION

(COORDINATE WITH)


---. ~mtrie' r"Ti. C.
Director M. & A.
Director Ops.
Director WIk&R_______
Attorney
Dir. Admin. Services
Dir. Employee Rel.
Dir. Field Operations
Dir. Finance
Dir. Planning
Dir. Real Estate
Dir. Regulatory
Dir. Resource Development
Exec. Asst.
-Public Rel. Off.
Other
SUSPENSE:
REMARKS:


----------~--











71 JAI 21 All: 16


-A Route 2, Box 246
ATI: NT Leesburg, aa. 32748
DiSTRiCT January 20, 1976

Mr. Don Feaster
Executive Director
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
P. O. Box 457
Brooksville, Fla. 33512

Dear Don:

Your letter of January 8 came to me late because it was
delivered to the newspaper rather than directly to me.
Reference to the Leesburg Daily Commercial should be re-
move 'zrom my address.

In response, I invite your attention to the enclosed let-
ter copy.

In addition to what is contained in the letter copy, I
have at hand an opinion from Attorney General Shevin
which indicates his agreement with my belief that the
proposed amendment will not accomplish its supposed pur-
pose. The amendment definitely does not give taxing au-
thority to water management districts, it mentions no dis-
tricts, and only provides thqt taxes for water management
may be authorized by law. Other than that, it simply puts
a cap on millages.

What will happen if the amendment fails of approval I can
not know. However, I suspect that Judge Aulls very likely
will be reversed in higher courts, and present taxing au-
thority for the FCD and SWIFTIIUD will not be lost There
seems to be ample precedent on which to base this view.

I am sorry if I disappoint you.

Sincerely,


en S. Burton


_ _~;CI




SI i i I




RECEIVED


76JAN21 All: 16 Rout 2, Box 246
SLeesburg Fla. 32748
January 20, 1976

Hon. Kenneth H.- M; lay, Junior
P. o. Bdx'1668
Ocala, Florida 32670

Dear Senator MacKay:

Please refer to my memorandum of January 7, noting the re-
marks contained in the first paragraph,

Also please read the last paragraph to mean that proposed
constitutional amendment should be approved only if the
repealers mentioned are to become effective,

Although I do not deviate from my view that ad valorem tax-
ing authority should be given to water management districts,
I shall not support approval of the amendment.

My reasons for taking this position are (1) the amendment
will not accomplish what is claimed for it; (2) it is vague
and ambiguous, lacking specificity; (3) should this amendment
be approved, the present chaotic condition in water manage-
ment is likely to be worsened, because taxing authority is
proposed for water management, with no specificity; (4) I
believe the amendment is in violation of both the Florida
and the U. S. consitutions in that the .05 mill specified
for one district versus 1 mill for others is discriminatory
and violates due process provisions; (5) there is no way in
which passage of the needed repealers can be guaranteed.

I believe the constitution should be amended, but I cannot
avoid the belief that the legislature should try again to
come up with a sensible amendment.

Finally, the identities of some of the outspoken proponents
of the amendment give me cause to wonder what are the polit-
ical machinations involved.
Very sincerely yours,


Ben S* Birton


__




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs