Mythbusters

Correcting Misinformation with Official Records

Topic: The Southern Blvd. Corridor & State Planning Grant Funding
Updated: December 2025

PURPOSE & BACKGROUND

THE RUMORS: There is misinformation circulating regarding the Town’s application for grant funding and the definition of the Southern Blvd. Corridor.

THE REALITY: This page separates emotional accusations from procedural facts. It focuses strictly on the administrative validity of the process, backed by specific transcript details from the August 2024 FAAC and Council meetings.

THE CLAIMS vs. THE TRUTH
Based on the official grant documentation and the transcripts of public meetings from August 2024.

THE CLAIM (The Rumor) THE TRUTH (The Evidence)
"The Town 'secretly' invented a plan to create a taxing district without resident input." FALSE. This recent initiative stems from the Finance Advisory and Audit Committee (FAAC). 

THE EVIDENCE: On 8/14/24, FAAC Chair Cassie Suchy explicitly asked: "Can we tax the commercial district separately?" to stop residents from being "saddled" with cost increases.
"There was no public discussion about making commercial properties pay more." FALSE. This was debated publicly during the August 2024 Budget Workshops.

THE EVIDENCE: On 8/22/24, Council Member Laura Danowski stated commercial properties need "more skin in the game" regarding the budget. On 8/20/24, Former Mayor Robert Shorr presented a tax analysis showing that raising the millage rate would shift the burden to commercial properties.
"The grant is a plan to 'urbanize' Loxahatchee Groves." FALSE. The grant documents explicitly state the purpose is "preserving its rural identity".

THE DIRECT QUOTE: Page 4 of the Application states the Town is applying specifically because: "...it is a small rural community trying to save their ruralness and quality of life."

IN THEIR OWN WORDS (or what’s in the public record?)
Who actually asked for this? It wasn't Town Staff—it was the residents and Council.

  1. “TAX COMMERCIAL SEPARATELY" (FAAC Meeting | Aug 14, 2024)
  • Who: Resident & FAAC Chair Cassie Suchy
  • The Transcript: Chair Suchy asked, "Can we tax the commercial district separately?" She argued that assessments hit residents with five acres harder than smaller lots and noted that "more crime occurs in commercial districts."

2. "TAX SHIFT" ANALYSIS (Joint Budget Workshop | Aug 20, 2024)

  • Who: Former Mayor Robert Shorr
  • The Context: Mr. Shorr presented a Tax Roll Analysis demonstrating that raising the millage rate (instead of the assessment rate) would effectively shift the tax burden to commercial properties (like AutoZone and Wawa) and away from residential agriculture.

3. "SKIN IN THE GAME" MANDATE (Council Workshop | Aug 22, 2024)

  • Who: Council Member Laura Danowski
  • The Context: Explicitly stated that commercial properties need to have "more skin in the game" and advocated for a Business Improvement District (BID) structure to ensure businesses pay for the traffic and police calls they generate.

30 YEARS OF CONSISTENCY (1995–2025)
We are not "changing" the plan. We are finally funding the plan residents wrote.

  • 1995 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Designated the Collecting Canal as the "hard edge" buffer to protect rural neighborhoods from Southern Blvd commercial impacts.
  • 2008 STRATEGIC PLAN: The Directive: "Create a special taxing district south of Collecting Canal." (This is the exact concept being explored now, 17 years later).
  • 2019 VISIONING REFRESH: Residents voted 91% in favor of Sit-Down Restaurants on Southern Blvd, but 0% in favor of Office Space on Okeechobee Blvd.
  • 2024/5 BUDGET WORKSHOPS: FAAC and Council agree to study separate taxing district along southern corridor.

THE DATA (Visual Evidence)

CHART 1: The "Southern vs. Okeechobee" Consensus (2019)

  • What it proves: Residents explicitly voted to keep commercial services on Southern Blvd and away from Okeechobee Blvd.
  • [INSERT IMAGE HERE: 2019 Bar Chart from 'Progress to Date' Report, Page 4]

CHART 2: The "Category 6" Approved Uses (2019)

  • What it proves: Residents specified exactly what kind of "Rural-Style" businesses they wanted (and rejected Big Box stores).
  • [INSERT IMAGE HERE: 2019 'Commercial Development' List from Page 3]

MAP 3: The "Collecting Canal" Buffer Zone (2008)

  • What it proves: The boundary "South of the Collecting Canal" was established in 2008, not 2025.
  • [INSERT IMAGE HERE: 2008 Strategic Plan Map from Page 15]

THE COST OF INACTION
Why are we doing this study? If we do not act, the cost falls on YOU.

According to the official grant scope, the Town is currently facing specific threats. The grant provides $75,000 to solve them.

  • $ The Traffic Threat: "Cut-through traffic on lettered roads" and "driveway conflicts."
  • $ The Environmental Threat: "Environmental risks caused by canal dumping" and "degraded canal banks."
  • $ The Safety Threat: "Pedestrian and equestrian infrastructure" has "limited separation from vehicles."
  • $ The Financial Threat: "Road and drainage improvements in this corridor are disproportionately expensive" and "PBSO public safety contract costs are driven up by corridor-related incidents."

THE BOTTOM LINE: We are not creating a new commercial district. We are utilizing State funds to protect the residents from the costs of the existing one.