Q&A of the Day – Johnathon Dickinson State Park Development Updates & Change.org Petition
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Brian, I learned about Florida's plans to build golf courses in Jonathan Dickinson State park on your show... thank you for keeping us informed. As I was looking into it, I found that there was a petition on Change.org. When I signed the petition they asked for money. In looking a little bit I could see that there is a for profit portion of Change.org and a non-profit arm of Change.org. Is it safe/legal/effective to sign online petitions on Change.org and what happens to money that is given when you sign? Thanks for all you do!
Bottom Line: Thank you for listening which allows me to do what I do. In Friday’s Q&A I addressed the history of the efforts to develop Johnathon Dickinson and other state parks (the failed 2011 Jack Nicklaus Golf Trail) along with the details of the current effort to develop nine state parks including Johnathon Dickinson as part of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s “Great Outdoors Initiative”. As part of that breakdown, I mentioned this... For those seeking to stop the current effort from taking place, the road map as to how to do so is the same as what stopped the bill 13 years ago from becoming law. Significant public backlash. And what we’ve seen is that folks like you taking a stand and making your voice heard had a significant impact. Before diving into the mechanics of Change.org and the JD petition on the site let’s start with an update about what’s changed since Friday morning.
Thursday afternoon Congressman Brian Mast sent a scathing letter to Governor DeSantis and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection demanding answers, transparency and greater consideration for a public hearing that was to be held Tuesday afternoon in Stuart. On Friday, Florida’s Senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio signed onto Mast’s letter as did several state and local officials. In their commentary Florida’s senators called the proposal “absolutely ridiculous”. Notably, Rubio started his political career in the state legislature and Scott was governor at the time the previous effort within the state legislature was stopped in 2011. As noted, many residents have taken to grassroots efforts to oppose this including the referenced Change.org petition that as of Sunday had collected over 93,000 signatures. The public backlash had an instant impact.
First, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection announced they had cancelled the scheduled meeting Tuesday afternoon. As noted by the DEP (Citing high demand in this year’s Great Outdoors Initiative): This meeting is being rescheduled. In the interim, the public can continue to submit comments to the agency through this portal and JonathanDickinsonSPPublicMeeting@FloridaDEP.gov. In a first win for conservationists and concerned citizens alike, the state acknowledged that the small venue and rushed meeting schedule, at a minimum, was insufficient to accommodate the public response to the proposal. Next came the announcement over the weekend that the plan was being withdrawn.
The Tuskegee Dunes Foundation, which was the entity behind the Johnathan Dickinson Plan, withdrew their proposal. In a letter from the FDEP they stated: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection appreciates the Tuskegee Dunes Foundation's good-faith proposal for a public golf course at Jonathan Dickinson State Park.
While they are withdrawing their proposal, the Foundation worked with the state to pursue a project that would have created a public, world class golf course for all, while supporting veterans, first responders, and their families.
Their plan to honor the Tuskegee Airmen was noble. We appreciate their decision to pursue projects outside of the park and will continue to support the Foundation's mission. This project will be removed from agency review.
In the meantime, you should still submit public comment through the direct link and email address provided. Signing onto the various third-party petitions and groups fighting the development proposal has obviously had an impact. But making sure that the people responsible for this proposal and who will ultimately decide what happens with it should absolutely hear from you directly. Now, about Change.org specifically.
Change.org is the largest petition website in the world. It is also a San Franciso-based for profit company. It does have a charitable arm within the organization as noted by the listener. According to Charity Navigator, the most credible arbiter of charitable organizations, Change.org has a failing 55% score – meaning that one shouldn’t put much weight into “chip in” donations on the site making a significant impact with the matter at hand. The profit side of the business has accepted advertising as well as collecting information from site users that also has value when shared with partners. The charitable side of the business is said to have the resources invested back into the platform (though it’s unclear at what percentage rate). According to the company:
- All revenue we make is reinvested into the platform to help empower people to win their campaigns, every day. We’re one of a growing number of news and publishing websites that have membership programs so that they continue to provide people with information and other free services.
Of course, reinvesting back into the platform could mean many different things a la paying salaries at undisclosed rates for those running the operation. With that said hopefully this has been helpful and keep making your voice heard about the FDEP proposal. As I closed on Friday... This type of proposal has been stopped once. It can be stopped again. For now, at least, your efforts have stopped the development of Johnathan Dickinson Park. Questions still remain about the proposals at the other eight state parks and whether this matter is closed or whether another organization could step in with its own development plan.