I read Lee and Amy Munizzi’s piece in The Beacon, Oct. 10-16, with respect for its overview of the choice for Volusia County chair. Volusia voters, your choice on Nov. 5, this between Jeff Brower and Randy Dye. I agree that accusations of Dye as “a rich guy in the pocket of developers” is the unfortunate language of attack politics. In that spirit, Dye’s flyers saying “Brower made our kids less safe” stoops to attack mode.

Instead of relying on that kind of talk, I’ll tap the toolbox from my day job. In the history business, we ask how change happens: by individual choices or by structural rules? The Munizzis provide the example of an individual developer, Scott Vanacore, touched by Dye’s entreaty to preserve some land in DeLeon Springs for a conservation easement with Volusia Forever.

The other choice, Brower, based on his votes on the council, has a record of seeking, for environmental health, government restrictions on individuals who would gain private profits from development. Vanacore Homes is also developing land at Kepler and 44, despite the objections of surrounding residents.

Dye has placed a campaign sign near there, and Vanacore has contributed to Dye’s campaign. Dye’s approach appears to line up with the views of Fair Use Environmentalists, who believe that the owners of landscapes are the ones with a stake in preserving it — even as they profit from those landscapes, with those profits a surplus available for environmental conservation. A downside of this view is that nature is left hat in hand, surrounded by profit seeking, with its advocates seeking scraps from the largesse of the wealthy. Dear Volusia voters, who do you trust, Dye’s reliance on individual generosity or Brower’s attempts to limit development?

It’s a real trade-off. Reliance on developers might achieve some short-term economic gains with natural health supported in balance with those economic interests when they so choose. By contrast, more thorough natural protection might slow some of those economic gains but let them last longer with more enduring natural health and community engagement. Given the other current council members, if Brower exits the chambers, the focus on economic development will be unanimous.

I have not yet voted. In this election, I am pro-community for the health of the economy and the natural world. I’m listening for who is likely to do that best.

At browerforvolusia.com, Brower mentions “overdevelopment” right up front because “our

development pattern needs to be changed.” Instead of zoning that causes increased flooding, he says, enable “infrastructure that works with the environment.” This statement is in tune with the large number of citizens who spoke before the County Council Oct. 15 about widespread flooding after the recent hurricanes.

Brower claims his approach will both make Volusia County “business friendly” and “protect… neighborhoods.” The prominent place of growth calming in his statements show his heart is in the right place for protecting nature. Will this structural defense of communities and the environment work? At randydyeforcountychair.com, Dye opens with the statement that “Growth can’t be stopped” then hopes for it to be “managed in a way that doesn’t degrade our quality of life.”

In keeping with Fair Use thinking, he seeks “a balanced approach,” with “common sense” for “effective …  regulations.” His thinking is that this will ensure that “a healthy environment” won’t “suffer because of growth.” Will it? This leaves a question inspired by the Bee Gees, “How Deep is Your Love?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpqqjU7u5Yc.

A more sober version of this question is, How substantial is this approach for protecting landscapes and water in the long run? I am leaning toward Brower because he is right up front about “infrastructure that works with the environment and protects … neighborhoods” from the kind of flooding we’ve seen and from pollutants in the water supply for the long run. But would Dye’s readiness to work in balanced ways with developers achieve similar community goals?

So far, it appears that Dye’s major asset for protecting the environment is that he is an insider with developers. If developers are so powerful, with evidence of recent County Council votes, Dye will be effective by serving, perhaps, as a voice for nature from within the world of developers making profits on the landscape. Is the generosity of the powerful, and Dye’s work in their circles, sufficient to maintain environmental health in the long run?

For his affiliation with developers, Dye would likely get the vote of President Lyndon Johnson, who might have said about this electoral choice, in his shrewd but crude way, “Better to have [those sympathetic to developers] inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.” By contrast, the environment would likely vote for Brower, figuring he shows more explicit interest in limiting human damage on nature’s ways.

As a human and as a county resident, I’m keeping an open mind, and I’ll keep trying to figure this out before Election Day. Dear Volusia voters, the choice is in front of us, reliance on individual generosity or on structural action. What’s it going to be? From my perch in The Public Classroom, https://publicclassroom.substack.com/about, I’m happy to talk it out with you. For a healthy community and a healthy environment, our future public purposes hinge, as the Munizzis pointed toward, on whether to rely on individual initiative or on structural action.

Consider your choice, check out the candidates, and be sure to vote — vote early, or vote on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 7 a.m.-7 p.m.

Paul Croce

DeLand

— Paul Croce taught history at Stetson University since 1988 and directed the American Studies Program. With retirement, he is applying his teaching and research to The Public Classroom, https://x.com/PublicClassroom, for bridging the academic world and public life and for listening across differences.