What's with the Sarasota School Board ideologues? Schurr

 WHY DO KAREN ROSE AND BRIDGET ZIEGLER WANT TO GET RID OF SUPERINTENDENT BRENNAN ASPLEN?

There are so many reasons, not least that they want a superintendent who is a lapdog. Remember that there was a time lapse of only three weeks between Asplen’s evaluation by the Board at the November 1 school board meeting and Rose’s move to fire him at the November 22 board meeting. It is interesting that the board’s evaluations do not support the actions of Rose, Ziegler and the two new board members.

At the November 1 meeting, Dr. Asplen’s written evaluations (link to the evaluations copied below) were provided to the public as an attachment to the agenda and each board member gave his or her comments to their respective evaluations. Brown, Edwards and Goodwin rated Asplen as Highly Effective, Rose gave him an Effective rating, and Ziegler gave a Needs Improvement rating (which she verbally negated by saying she saw it not as negative, but as an “opportunity” see 1:15:47 of the November 1 Board meeting located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEaWL4alfMc). There was no discussion of terminating his contract for cause or otherwise at that meeting.

It was most interesting that although Ziegler gave a Needs Improvement rating overall, this was not supported by her individual ratings: 2 Highly Effective, 4 Effective and 4 Needs Improvement. Basic math tells us that does not support a Needs Improvement rating. Denise Cantalupo provided a summary of all five evaluations, which resulted in a Highly Effective rating overall. And Rose’s overall rating was Effective, yet she voted against confirmation of the overall rating and was outvoted 4-1. Is this a case of, if you don’t like the overall results, you just ignore them and vote against them? And hold a grudge until you can fire him or drive him out, for no cause? Or is this a case of two vindictive board members with a plan, who do not like being challenged with facts against their opinions in the evaluation system? It is clearly a situation where the action is not supported by the facts.

After each board member gave their comments, Dr. Asplen was afforded an opportunity to speak. Asplen graciously thanked each of the board members for their evaluations and then respectfully rebutted in detail, some of those areas where certain board members had noted areas for improvement. Remember, this was a public evaluation, where everyone had an opportunity to present their opinions, even the person being evaluated. Unfortunately, it appears that retaliation is the result of such transparency. Watch the YouTube video of Asplen’s comments starting at 1:31:44.

Another very telling moment can be seen at 1:43:07. Ziegler had accused Asplen of playing politics and being divisive in her evaluation, because of a letter to the editor of the Sarasota Herald Tribune that he wrote a year and a half ago in June 2021 (link to the letter attached below). As a result of one of Ziegler’s countless visits to Fox News and other media outlets to fan the flames of the false narrative that CRT is taught in our schools, Asplen was inundated by calls and emails from concerned parents and residents. To reassure the public that CRT is not taught, never has been taught in our schools nor will it ever be taught in our schools, Asplen wrote a letter to the editor. Apparently, Ziegler finds it “divisive” when the superintendent seeks to reassure the public and the truth is told. Particularly when it goes against her false and divisive narrative.

I have been a very vocal opponent of Dr. Asplen and have often disagreed with his decisions, even going so far as threatening to sue him and the board for removing books from the shelves without having gone through the board mandated policy for media center challenges. But I have never doubted that he was more than competent to do his job and more importantly, that he had the best interests of our children at heart and that he was dedicated to public education. Unfortunately, I do not think Rose and Ziegler share those qualities.

We know why Rose and Ziegler (and possibly the new Board members?) are so keen to terminate Asplen’s contract. They want a lapdog, not a superintendent whose first allegiance is to the students and stakeholders in this district. Perhaps it is time to cut out the politics, Ms. Ziegler and Ms. Rose, and concentrate on closing the achievement gap, bringing up reading scores and last, but certainly not least, it is past time to support our teachers, rather than attacking them.

Lisa Gialdini Schurr

Parent and CEO Support Our Schools

=========

Link to the written evaluations given by the five board

Link to November 1, 2022, Board Meeting

Asplen letter to the editor

Sarasota now has two fake boards

A community's mental health isn't something you kick down the road - unless you're Sarasota County's Board of Commissioners. Local experts volunteered 526 hours to review and recommend the most valuable mental health services for our citizens -- only to watch Moran, Maio, Ziegler, Cutsinger and Detert punt -- incoherently. Carrie Seidman.

The same five Commissioners agreed there's no space west of I-75 left for affordable housing, then granted Pat Neal's request to dodge a formal commitment to build affordable housing east of it. Sarasota's moneybags developer apparently can't afford affordable housing -- details in The Sarasota News Leader.

This Tuesday, Nov. 29, the newly elected Sarasota School Board will meet to consider terminating the Superintendent - no reason given. Brennan Asplen has high marks for his performance. Karen Rose made the motion. "Asked about the motion following Tuesday's meeting, Rose continued walking past a Herald-Tribune reporter and declined to comment." 

To email all School Board members: schoolboardmembers@sarasotacountyschools.net

​

"THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES CLASSIC URBAN SPRAWL"

Friends and Supporters of Keep the Country … Country – As we all continue to recover from Ian and try to help our neighbors and community reclaim our lives, the threat of destruction of over 4,000 acres of the remaining rural lands in Sarasota County looms larger than ever. 

ATTEND THE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25

Lakewood Ranch SE – or Pat Neal’s lipsticked pig – has its final public hearing this Tuesday, Oct. 25th. The County Commission meeting begins at 9 am, but the issue is No. 29 (A&B) on the agenda, which makes it unlikely to be discussed before noon. Important: Whatever time you come, please sign a speaker's card on which you state your opposition to Lakewood Ranch SE (Item #29), and hand it to the recording clerk. You can later forfeit your speaker's slot, but your opposition will still be on the record.

Like the Death Star from the Star Wars story, LWR and SMR want to destroy our rural and agricultural lands. Why? Greed. If SMR gets to develop at hugely increased densities and use “open space” for facilities required for its development, it makes more money. At the cost of environmental, stormwater and economic benefits to the entire County and region from rural lands. We will all pay for this development – through loss of our rural and agricultural lives and through increased costs to the public from this urban sprawl of 5,000 mansion behind gates (“urban sprawl”) that will add over 45,000 additional daily car trips on our road system. This county commission is about to grant SMR special status that would override the county's comprehensive plan. Residents of Old Miakka, one of Sarasota County's oldest continuous settlements, are trying to save their rural lifestyle, agriculture, and everyone's open space, wildlife habitat, and environmental assets.

Even if you can’t attend the public hearing on Tuesday, please send emails to the Commissioners. Copy and paste all or some of the points below to tell them to DENY Lakewood Ranch SE – don’t make Sarasota County an extension of Manatee County’s “Stepfordville”. With the 2050 Plan, Sarasota County residents rejected cookie cutter houses crammed together covering acres and acres of land previously providing forage and cover for wildlife, stormwater retention, open space, agriculture, dark skies, and a place where people can breath and enjoy nature and rural life. Tell the Commission to say NO.

==========

 

Please email the County Commissioners and the Planners (email addresses shown below – ask for your email to be included in the official record of the Oct. 25, 2022 public hearing on Agenda Item #29 (Lakewood Ranch SE).  PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME AT THE END OF THE LETTER. 

 

SUBJECT:  DENY Lakewood Ranch SE (Item #29, Oct. 25, 2022) – include in official record of public hearing

SARASOTA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AL MAIO   amaio@scgov.net

MIKE MORAN  mmoran@scgov.net

NANCY DETERT  ncdetert@scgov.net

RON CUTSINGER  rcutsinger@scgov.net

CHRISTIAN ZIEGLER  cziegler@scgov.net

ALSO copy planner@scgov.net

Brett Harrington  bharring@scgov.net

Hannah Sowinski hsowinski@scgov.net

 

Good Day Commissioners:

 

I am opposed to Item #29 on your agenda for October 25, 2022.  Please make the following comments in opposition to CPA 2022-B and the DOCC part of the official record of the Oct. 25, 2022 public hearing.

 

STATE AGENCY REVIEW OF CPA 2022-B – Among other comments made by the Department of Economic Development (DEO), the Department's letter supports residents’ objections regarding the greenway buffers and open space. The proposed alternative greenway configurations and design criteria lack the "meaningful and predictable standards" required by §163.3177 (1), Fla. Stat. 

        Residents have objected to the reduction of open space greenbelts for their failure to provide adequate protection for native habitats and failure to ensure that the location, size, configuration, quality or other components of any preserved open space will be adequate to ensure the protection of the land's ecological functions. The Department stated that the County must "require a greenbelt minimum width that is wide enough to appropriately ensure that the greenbelt functions to clearly separate urban uses from rural uses." The Department also told the County to only allow those uses in "open space" that are consistent with the definition of open space, and that "public safety stations and community centers should not constitute open space". (DEO letter, p. 2)

DEO also found that the County and applicant have not shown that the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment does not constitute urban sprawl. It said that the County must either provide further explanation of how the allowed future land uses are not urban sprawl or modify the amendment to not constitute urban sprawl. (DEO letter, p. 2). 

We do not see how the County can produce professionally acceptable data and analysis to support a claim that the development proposed by the FLUM change is not urban sprawl. In terms of modifications to the proposed amendment, based on the location and relevant facts about the property, the changes necessary to allow the proposed amendment to avoid violating the urban sprawl provisions of the statute would significantly reduce the amount of residential development and supporting uses being introduced into this special rural and agricultural area. 

COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS BY LEGAL AND PLANNING EXPERTS - Residents opposed to CPA 2022-B and the related DOCC have engaged two experts who have submitted a number of written comments and statements to the Planning Commission, the BCC, and DEO and state agencies. Legal expert Richard Grosso (hired by the Miakka Community Club) and planning expert Charles Gauthier (hired by Keep the Country, Inc.) have identified numerous significant issues and problems with the proposed CPA and DOCC. I endorse all of the comments and statements by these experts and ask that this development proposal be denied.


DANGEROUS CONDITIONS ON ROAD SYSTEM - Rex Jensen’s proposed expansion of Lakewood Ranch will consume over 4,000 acres of rural lands in northeast Sarasota County. With 5,000 dwelling units, over 45,000 additional daily car trips will be added to our road system. Among many valid arguments against this development are the dangerous and worsening conditions on our roads. Fruitville Road, a state evacuation route and primary east-west access, already operates significantly below acceptable levels of service. Commissioners seem mesmerized by vague and unenforceable deals proposed by Rex, in his blurred dual roles as head of SMR and the LWR Stewardship District, to “fix” Fruitville. Rex/SMR have not fulfilled existing legal obligations for linear wetlands on this land – why would anyone think he will fulfill unenforceable verbal proffers on Fruitville Road? The result - residents will pay the cost of worsening conditions on Fruitville Road and will pay with our taxes and public funds for development impacts. There is not enough funding to fix existing problems on Fruitville – much less to address the impacts of this and other developments. Lakewood Ranch SE must be denied.

NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT- LWR developers are asking for approval of a 2050 comp plan amendment, to once again move the Old Miakka Countryside line, amend the comp plan Hamlet allowances to high density development, to create a new high density Village Transition Zoning, (VTZ) zoning. 2022-B proposes density increases to the existing Lake Park Estates, reduces green ways and buffers from 500' to 50', with no town center or commercial planned in the entire 4100 acres. Seventeen percent (17%) of the Lakewood Ranch SE site occurs in a flood plain, which includes Gum Slough, Myakka River headwaters and Donna Bay. Development of these lands at increased density will cause degradation of water quality, increase and change the character of stormwater runoff, and cause damaging impacts to significant waterways. Amendment 2022-B is a plan to create sprawl, hopscotched to nearly the end of Fruitville Rd and Sarasota County. These lands begin across from the existing entrance to HiHat ranch, which received density increases far beyond Hamlet allowances and was approved by this board as high density village zoning.

If these 4,100 acres were developed under the current existing zoning or at allowable Hamlet densities, the number of houses could be as little as 200 houses and as many as 1,600. If the land were developed at the highest density of 1,600 houses, this would create traffic increases of 12,768 daily trips impacting our overburdened roadways. What LWR developers are proposing instead is 5,000 houses. These units won't be required to be developed on 1/2 acre lots, but the lots can be any size. This would create traffic increases to 45,000 daily trips, as opposed to the total traffic generated under the existing 1 to 5 acre zoning of 5,722 daily trips.

Developers are also proposing a reduction of the required 500' buffer to only 50' and limit the Open Space requirement to as little as 43%. The Hamlet open space requirement is 60%. The current 1 unit per 5 or 10 acres zoning requires 80% open space.

The requested density increase from 1 unit per acre to 2 units per acre with the proposed VTZ designation, is not a transitional zone, but urban sprawl on top of Rural Heritage zoning of 1 unit per 5 or 10 acres. The 4,100 acres is within the boundaries as defined in the Old Miakka Neighborhood Plan. These are historic rural and agricultural lands that were guaranteed protection under the 2050 Plan and the county approved, Countryside Line.

This amendment is not compatible with 5 acre homesteads in Old Miakka. CPA 2022-B is nothing more than a plan to create urban sprawl in a remote rural location of Sarasota County. Calling it a Village Transitional Zone (VTZ) doesn't change the fact that it's urban sprawl proposed right over the top of the Countryside Line and the historic Rural Heritage community of Old Miakka.

The proposal is devoid of wildlife corridor locations and appears to be planned with home sites from district line to line. Protected species must be identified by an independent consultant and wildlife underpasses must be planned with all the new roads. These are details that would be addressed during the construction plan review, but it's important to note that the concept plan does not contemplate ribbons of green space throughout the site, to provide interconnected corridors for threatened and protected species. How can the public believe that interconnected corridors are planned and of sufficient size to protect the threatened and endangered species that inhabit the area?

This amendment proposes classic urban sprawl, the exact opposite of what the 2050 Plan was created and approved to do, by the Board of County Commissioners, landowners and developers and this community.

PLEASE DENY CPA 2022-B and related DOCC. I and many other residents are strongly opposed to this proposed urban sprawl.

Attorney: "Both Amendments should be a NO Vote"

Citizens for Sarasota County asked Susan Schoettle-Gumm, a former assistant County Attorney, to review the two items added by the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners to the November Ballot. Her answer:

"In my opinion, these two proposed charter amendments – individually and definitely in combination – would effectively block future citizen-initiated charter amendments in Sarasota County.  

If the amendments proposed for the November 2022 ballot are approved, Sarasota County would have the most stringent and difficult requirements in the state for citizen-initiated county charter amendment petitions.  

Both amendments should be a NO Vote."

Below is a comparison of Sarasota's Charter Amendment provisions with those of other counties in Florida:

Commissioner Al Maio

Sarasota County already has the shortest time period for collection of signatures among all charter counties in Florida (the 90-91 days from January 1 to April 1, with possible additional 30 days for signatures added to required number already submitted) and a high signature requirement.  Fifty-five percent (55%) of charter counties allow 180 days for signature collection (some with an additional 30 days if signatures are rejected) and some counties allow even longer time periods for collection.  Half of Florida’s charter counties require signatures from only 5% - 8% of registered electors. Only one charter county in the State currently imposes a substantive legal review of a petition prior to allowing it to be on the ballot (Orange County, which uses a board of 3 independent attorneys hired annually to make the determination).  If these 2022 proposed amendments had been in the Charter in 2018, the petition for single-member districts would have been rejected and never on the ballot.

Question 1 changes would apply only to citizen-initiated amendments and would require:  

A) the signatures of 10% of registered electors to be collected as 10% within each county commission district (rather than county-wide), and, 

B) after collection of 1% of required signatures and submittal to the County, the following are required: County review/approval of the form of the petition, County review/approval of the legal sufficiency of the petition (terms not defined), a fiscal impact analysis (terms not defined) by the County, and a presentation of the petition to the Charter Review Board, if it has a meeting during the relevant time period.

Comments:  This makes the high 10% signature requirement even more difficult as 10% within each commission district would be required.  So use of centralized petition collection points will be more difficult.  Less urbanized districts may be very difficult to efficiently obtain signatures. When the requirement of 10% signatures from each district is added to the already very short signature collection period, collection of the necessary signatures would be nearly impossible.  

• Review of petition format is widely required in other county charters but does not appear to be a significant problem – but it would depend on what requirements are included in the County ordinance proscribing the form.  
• Three charter counties currently require a fiscal/economic impact analysis, so this is not widely adopted.  
• Requiring a determination of “legal sufficiency” and that it be decided by the County is like having the fox guard the hen house when the hen house has no door.  

• The combination of the legal review and signature requirement by district are very damaging and unacceptable provisions.

Question 2 would add the requirement that any proposed amendment, whether proposed by the Charter Review Board, the County, or by citizen petition “shall not conflict with the Florida Constitution, general law, or the Charter.”  

Comments: Charter provisions, whether proposed or already adopted, must already not conflict with the Florida Constitution and general law.  So this change is really focused on prohibiting any major changes to the Charter.  Any proposed change that could not coexist with existing charter provisions would be prohibited.  And presumably the County would make this determination for citizen petitions as part of its “legal sufficiency” review under Question 1.  For example, if this provision had been in the County Charter in 2018, the question to change county commission elections from at-large to single-member districts would not have made it on the ballot.  Presumably, provisions in a new subject area, such as ethics, might not “conflict” with the Charter, but again, with the County making this determination, the fox guarding the hen house would be choosing which chickens might live or die.

I believe that the proposed amendments are terrible intrusions into the authority that remains with the citizens of Sarasota County under home rule.  

The County has not granted the power of amendment by petition to the citizens – rather the citizens have retained this power to themselves.  We cannot give up more of our power to the County.  In fact, we should consider a citizen petition to amend the Charter to allow the proposal, amendment and recission of ordinances by citizen initiative – as is authorized in at least 75% of Florida’s charter counties.  

I hope this information is helpful to you.  We need to get this out to the public in any and all ways possible. 

The message must be to Vote NO on the Sarasota County Charter Amendments.

Regressive Sarasota invites citizens to diminish their own Charter Amendment Power

Since We the People voted for Single Member Districts, the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners has tried and tried to repeal our vote.

• First, Al Maio said people voting for SMDs were confused. People showed up in droves to assure them that we knew precisely what we voted for.

• Then they held a special election to repeal our Charter Amendment, and again they were defeated.

• They kicked the issue to the Charter Review Board, which heard from dozens of citizens, and in the end told the Commission to take a hike.

• In the upcoming election they're trying to diminish citizen power to amend the Charter. Page 3 of your ballot has the nerve to invite you to vote to make it more difficult for private citizens to amend the Charter.

The Board's public policy is totally REGRESSIVE, and wants your help to continue. Send them a resounding NO on both County Charter Amendments (p. 3 of your ballot).

#singlememberdistrictvoting #ballot #charteramendments #progressive #regressive

Sarasota County Disaster Assistance Resources

Disaster Assistance available in Sarasota County 

Please see a list of disaster recovery resources available to Sarasota County:

Shannon Staub Library is serving as a Disaster Recovery Center (DRC) from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., daily.

DRCs provide information from Florida state agencies, FEMA, U.S. Small Business Administration, and other available resources for individuals, families and business owners. DRCs also assist federal assistance applications and disaster loans and updating in-progress applications.

It is not necessary to visit a center to apply for assistance, visit disasterassistance.gov, use the FEMA mobile app or call 800-621-3362.

Shannon Staub Library is located at 4675 Career Lane, North Port.

--

FEMA/USACE Blue Roof Program

Sarasota County homeowners who suffered damage to their roofs from Hurricane Ian may now be eligible for Operation Blue Roof, a federal program that provides fiber-reinforced sheeting to cover roofs until arrangements can be made for permanent repairs. Operation Blue Roof is a priority mission managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This is a free service to homeowners.

Residents can begin the application process at disasterassistance.gov or by downloading the FEMA app online. If you don't have access to internet, you can also apply by phone: 1-800-621-3362 or TTY 800-462-7585.

--

Nokomis Community Park is serving as a Volunteer Reception Center (VRC) from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., daily.

The VRC is now open for individuals who would like to offer their skills to help other with disaster response. Individuals should bring their equipment and should be ready to be assigned to a larger organized to be dispatched into the community.

Sign up to volunteer here: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/8972daff4bf44b1694cba5b9cb6512dd

Find other ways to help here: https://www.scgov.net/government/emergency-services/how-you-can-help

--

Crisis Cleanup is available for those needing assistance by calling 800-451-1954.

Free assistance is available for cutting fallen trees, tarping roofs, mold mitigation, drywall, flooring and appliance removal.

Remember, the following library locations are open and offer internet services:

📖 Selby Public Library

📖 Betty J. Johnson North Sarasota Public Library

📖 Fruitville Public Library

📖 Gulf Gate Public Library

📖 Osprey Public Library

 

How much are Sarasota Commissioners worth?

Maio continues to lead the way in net worth among Sarasota County commissioners, latest state Commission on Ethics filings show

Sour

Source: Sarasota News Leader, November 25, 2021 by Rachel Brown Hackney, Editor & Publisher

Cutsinger in second place, with Detert reporting smallest figure

Sarasota County Commission Chair Alan Maio continues to outpace his board colleagues in terms of net worth, the latest Florida Commission on Ethics financial disclosure filings indicate.

However, Maio reported a smaller figure for 2020 than he did for 2019, his latest report showed.

As of June 17, Maio wrote that his net worth was $3,082,300. In June 2019, he noted that the figure was $3,252,097.

In second place, Commissioner Ron E. Cutsinger of Englewood reported that his net worth as of July 1 was $1,589,314 — slightly more than half of Maio’s total.

Commissioner Michael Moran narrowly edged out Commissioner Christian Ziegler for third place. Moran reported that his net worth as of April 30 was $927,150.25. That compared to $620,716.38 as of May 1, 2020.

On Dec. 31, 2020, Ziegler noted, his net worth was $876,233.25. That was more than three times the amount he listed as of Dec. 31, 2018: $206,324.83.

Ziegler won his District 2 seat during the November 2018 General Election.

Rounding out the board members, Commissioner Nancy Detert attested that her net worth as of Dec. 31, 2020 was $392,213. That was up slightly from her Dec. 31, 2019 total of $322,206.

More detail here

Brunch for the Bay Update

Brunch for the Bay is on!  

Join Suncoast Waterkeeper on October 15 to mark the 50th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act with an afternoon filled with food, fun, friends, and great information.  All Details here

Suncoast Waterkeeper will direct a portion of its proceeds raised at Brunch for the Bay on October 15 to Hurricane Ian environmental recovery efforts.  We are working with community partners to ensure our resources bolster environmental recovery that lends to increased resiliency.

There is still time to purchase tickets.

Thank you, together, we can protect the Suncoast.

1. Volunteer Clean-Up

Join Amaryllis Park Neighborhood Association, one of Suncoast Waterkeeper's Environmental Working Group partners in north Sarasota, to assist the elderly through a community clean up on Saturday, October 22, at 9 AM.  Bring water, gardening gloves, and rakes (if you have one); we will remove debris.  Please meet us at Bay First Bank at 1782 MLK Way, Sarasota, FL 34234.

2. Contribute

When we lost power, we also lost all the food stored in our refrigerators and freezers.  Amaryllis Park Neighborhood Association is working to take the sting out of that loss by collecting gift cards from any grocery store (Publix, Walmart, etc.) and water (because of boil water notices) to distribute to neighbors. Please consider donating to Amaryllis Park Neighborhood Association.  If you are interested in donating, please contact the Association President, Mary Butler, at mary40butler@....

3. Assist Local Food Producers 

I attended Manatee County Extension's Water School this week, where I learned that many local farmers and ranchers experienced heavy losses.  Manatee County Extension noted the importance of eating local and contributing to the relief efforts for food producers in our area.  You can help with this effort by donating to the Farm Bureau's Hurricane Ian Relief Fund.

If you have a need, please let us know.  We are working with community partners to aid recovery.  

Finally, remember to be careful in our local waters as they work to recover from the unprecedented amount of pollution that entered from Hurricane Ian.  Suncoast Waterkeeper will be back out sampling early next week to report the conditions of local waters on our website and social media.

Sincerely,

Abbey Tyrna

Executive Director & Waterkeeper

Suncoast Waterkeeper

http://www.suncoastwaterkeeper.org/

Suncoast Waterkeeper · PO Box 1028, Sarasota, FL 34230, United States

 

Industrial corridor threatens Polo Club and Waterside tranquility

Lorraine Rd in Waterside

]From The Observer:

Polo Club and Waterside at Lakewood Ranch residents are worried the makeup of their peaceful, rural area is about to be challenged as the county explores a zoning change for the Lorraine Road corridor.

In an Aug. 30 meeting, Sarasota County commissioners will decide whether to send a county-initiated amendment to designate Lorraine Road from University Parkway to Fruitville Road and Lorraine Road from Clark Road to State Road 681 as a Business Corridor overlay. Such an amendment would allow office space, light industrial and some business and service uses along Lorraine Road.

On April 26, the Sarasota County Commission adopted a new Business Park zoning district. The intention was to provide economic development and employment opportunities by allowing light industrial, office space and limited business and service uses in areas not previously zoned for such uses. Four original corridors — Fruitville Road east of Interstate 75, Bee Ridge Road east of I-75, the S.R. 681 and I-75 interchange and South River Road — were created.

Property owners with a minimum of 10 acres and access from an adjacent arterial roadway could request a zoning change that would allow them to host the above uses.  

On May 24, the two Lorraine Road corridors were added as potential Business Park Corridors.

Although virtual public workshops have been held, those living along Lorraine Road have received no written notice of the amendments.

"It's almost like Sarasota County is trying to do this in secret," said Polo Club resident Tim Hornung, who has been trying to notify all his neighbors about the significance of the Aug. 30 meeting.  More here

Click on Agenda item #85 for the relevant August 30 planning documents

Watch the August 17 Neighborhood Workshop:

 

Support Old MIakka - Send this email

From Becky Ayech:

This is the second in the series of emails we are sending to the Board of County Commissioners in opposition to CPA 2022-B.

It is important they know about Old Miakka.  To know it is to save it.

I am the author of this email.  The other ALERTS will be excerpts from Attorney Richard Grosso's comments to the Board of County Commissioners.

PLEASE SHARE this email with your social media friends and ask them to email this to the County Commissioners.

The "drop dead " meeting is August 31st.  I do not yet have a time.

Becky Ayech

PS Be sure and sign your name.

Old Miakka

=========================================================

Commissioners email:

• Mike Moran  mmoran@scgov.net
• Al Maio     amaio@scgov.net
• Ron Cutsinger  rcutsinger@scgov.net
• Christian Ziegler  cziegler@scgov.net
• Nancy Detert  ncdetert@scgov.net

Subject:  OLD MIAKKA

Good day Commissioner

Founded in 1850, the rural Community of Old Miakka predates Sarasota County.  Never the less, this is a uniquely special place in Sarasota County.  Special to the people who homestead there, special to all the residents of Sarasota and surrounding counties and special to Sarasota County.

In the early 80’s, John McCarthy, Sarasota Historical Department, wrote this:

The project focuses on the unique lifestyles and the values which Myakka residents share…

…a portrait of the people who live in the small rural communities of Miakka and Myakka City.

In 1989, Sarasota County funded A HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY OF OLD MIAKKA AND SELECTED PORTIONS OF THE MYAKKA RIVER, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA.

2005, the Board prioritized the Old Miakka Neighborhood Plan.

County Staff set the boundaries of the Old Miakka study area.  These boundaries have never been disputed.  They are the Manatee County lines to the north and east, the Myakka River State Park and Myakka Valley Ranches to the south and west by Dog kennel Lane known now as Lorraine Road.

The community spans approximately 57 square miles or 36,590 acres.  The western edge is approximately 5.8 miles from the city of Sarasota and occupies the northeastern corner of Sarasota County

“Old Miakka is particularly rich in local history.  With historical records dating further back than many areas of Sarasota County, and the county itself, the area not only prides itself on its impressive history but also its ability to continue to preserve it.”  This is a quote from Sarasota County Staff.

Many stories and articles have been written about the Community of Old Miakka:

• 1976 A HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE OF SARASOTA COUNTY FLORIDA
• 1986 Better Homes and Gardens
• 1987 Beall’s Sunday insert
• 1988 Publix TV commercial
• 2000 Old Miakka article by Linda Maree
• 2003, 2018, 2020 2019 Sarasota Herald Tribune articles
• 2019 Sarasota Alliance History and Preservation Coalition chose Old Miakka as one of the “Six to Save”.  Spotlighting the most threatened historic properties, archaeological sites, and cultural resources in Sarasota County! The preservation community in Sarasota County wants to bring awareness to historical resources at risk.
• 2019 Recognized as a “This Place Matters”, part of the Place Matters national campaign that celebrates special communities in the U.S.
• 2020 Sarasota Magazine
• 2020 Bitter Southern magazine
• 2020 ABC local station Mike Modrick's story on Old Miakka

All these stories/articles are about what a uniquely special place Old Miakka is and how it needs to be preserved.  NOT ONE said it should be paved over!

Linda Maree stated it best: “Heavy population density is not a component of true rural living, so we can’t all live in places like Old Miakka. But even us city folks like to know that the “country” is there when we want to visit it”.

CPA 2022-B is an intrusion into this 172 year old rural and agricultural Community, i.e. Old Miakka.

It is NOTHING reasonably close to the lifestyles/homesteads in Old Miakka.

Keep the Country …Country for current and future generations to live on, learn from and love the land.

Deny CPA2022-B

Thank you.

Sincerely,

 

Help Save Old Miakka: Email the Sarasota County Commission

This email from Becky Ayech provides some of the background on Old Miakka, the rural NE corner of Sarasota County. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2022-B would transform the land use in the Northeast to allow 5,000 more homes to sprawl eastward, basically paving 89% of what is now Old Miakka. 

The future of the rural area would be canceled - the opportunity for current and future generations to live on, learn from and love the land would be gone forever.

Ayech urges all who care about the county's history and legacy to write to the Board  -- the Commissioners' emails are below. It's fine if you wish to copy the text and send it as is. Becky writes:

It is important they know about Old Miakka. To know it is to save it.
PLEASE SHARE this email with your social media friends and ask them to email this to the County Commissioners.

The "drop dead " meeting is August 31st.  I do not yet have a time.

Becky Ayech

============================================================

Mike Moran  mmoran@scgov.net
Al Maio     amaio@scgov.net
Ron Cutsinger  rcutsinger@scgov.net
Christian Ziegler  cziegler@scgov.net
Nancy Detert  ncdetert@scgov.net

Subject:  OLD MIAKKA

Good day Commissioner,

Founded in 1850, the rural Community of Old Miakka predates Sarasota County. Nevertheless, this is a uniquely special place in Sarasota County. Special to the people who homestead there, special to all the residents of Sarasota and surrounding counties and special to Sarasota County.

In the early 80’s, John McCarthy, Sarasota Historical Department, wrote this:

The project focuses on the unique lifestyles and the values which Myakka residents shar… a portrait of the people who live in the small rural communities of Miakka and Myakka City.
 
In 1989, Sarasota County funded A HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY OF OLD MIAKKA AND SELECTED PORTIONS OF THE MYAKKA RIVER, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA.
 
In 2005, the Board prioritized the Old Miakka Neighborhood Plan. County Staff set the boundaries of the Old Miakka study area. These boundaries have never been disputed. 

They are the Manatee County lines to the north and east, the Myakka River State Park and Myakka Valley Ranches to the south and west by Dog kennel Lane known now as Lorraine Road.

The community spans approximately 57 square miles or 36,590 acres.  The western edge is approximately 5.8 miles from the city of Sarasota and occupies the northeastern corner of Sarasota County.

“Old Miakka is particularly rich in local history. With historical records dating further back than many areas of Sarasota County, and the county itself, the area not only prides itself on its impressive history but also its ability to continue to preserve it.” This is a quote from Sarasota County Staff.
 
Many stories and articles have been written about the Community of Old Miakka:

• 1976 A HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE OF SARASOTA COUNTY FLORIDA
• 1986 Better Homes and Gardens
  
• 1987 Beall’s Sunday insert
• 1988 Publix TV commercial
• 2000 Old Miakka article by Linda Maree
• 2003, 2018, 2020 2019 Sarasota Herald Tribune articles
• 2019 Sarasota Alliance History and Preservation Coalition chose Old Miakka as one of the “Six to Save.” Spotlighting the most threatened historic properties, archaeological sites, and cultural resources in Sarasota County! The preservation community in Sarasota County wants to bring awareness to historical resources at risk.
• 2019 Recognized as a “This Place Matters,” part of the Place Matters national campaign that celebrates special communities in the U.S.
• 2020 Sarasota Magazine
  
• 2020 Bitter Southern magazine
• 2020 ABC local station Mike Modrick's story on Old Miakka

 
All these stories/articles are about what a uniquely special place Old Miakka is and how it needs to be preserved. NOT ONE said it should be paved over!

Linda Maree stated it best: 

“Heavy population density is not a component of true rural living, so we can’t all live in places like Old Miakka. But even us city folks like to know that the “country” is there when we want to visit it.”

Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2022-B is an intrusion into this 172-year-old rural and agricultural Community, i.e. Old Miakka.

The Amendment is NOTHING reasonably close to the lifestyles/homesteads in Old Miakka.

Keep the Country … Country for current and future generations to live on, learn from and love the land.

Deny CPA2022-B.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

______________________

(Your name)

A gaping barn door: The collapse of Sarasota's public planning

8.16.22

To the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners:

amaio@scgov.net, mmoran@scgov.net, rcutsinger@scgov.net, cziegler@scgov.net, ncdetert@scgov.net

RE: CPA 2022 B and CPA 2022-F - Failure to see the Big Picture

It's been a while since Sarasota could legitimately claim to be one of Florida's outstanding counties with regard to thoughtful planning. At one time, it was known for taste, moderate growth, and modest plans. Today it's in a dead heat with Broward County for Growth Gone Wild.

"Wild" not only because of the excessive overreach of developments such as Skye Ranch, Hi Hat, Wellen Park and Waterside, but also because you -- the County -- utterly failed to consider future needs, and to prudently provide for them before approving these and other large housing projects.

One specific proof of this is coming this Wednesday, when a half-baked plan to allocate lands on Lorraine Road for industrial and business uses comes up for a 6 p.m. neighborhood workshop. [Video of this workshop is now posted below.]

As you know, Lorraine will be an important North-South artery. When complete, it will extend south from Manatee County, running alongside key parts of Waterside, and Hi Hat down past Artistry to Skye Ranch before terminating where 681 connects with I-75:

When the proposal to set aside spaces for industry on Lorraine (CPA 2022-F) recently came up at the Planning Commission, it was voted down. The Commission didn't cite potential impacts to homeowners as its reason. Rather, the major sticking point was that Rex Jensen, Pat Neal, and the other developers involved with Waterside and Skye Ranch would not wish -- or allow -- such uses on their land.

Waterside, Hi Hat,
Skye Ranch

But there's a prior issue. You believe you are obligated to find land to meet the needs of future economic development, but have you done the analysis to demonstrate that this need exists? 

I ask because it has come to you only now, after Waterside is built out (and wishes to double its size), Hi Hat is approved, and Skye Ranch is well underway.

According to members of the Planning Commission, the developers whose wishes you approved are advising you in no uncertain terms that they will refuse industrial and business uses near their large, pricey developments.

And there's the rub: You knew the scope of Waterside, how it extended from University Parkway to Fruitville Road, and from I-75 to Lorraine. You knew the proposed scope of Hi Hat and that of Skye Ranch. You knew all this before these mega-housing projects were approved. Wouldn't that have been the moment to say:

Wait a second, Messers Jensen, Turner, Neal, et al, we will have a need for economic development east of I-75. We will need you to work with our planners to allocate space for future businesses before we can consider approving your plan.

Not only did you not apply forethought and public sense when you had bargaining power, but in fact you were giddy with delight in giving Rex and Pat the power to re-write Sarasota County's 2050 Plan-- the plan that is supposed to represent the collective vision of residents, builders, and the County. Rex and Pat took full advantage to write a chapter that allows them to increase density, to skip a host of planning steps, and to get underway while the market is hot.

Throughout this process, no one seems to have considered the big picture -- balancing the whole set of needs that come with shaping a well organized, very attractive county. You handed over the controls built into our Comp Plan to Rex and Pat, who have rewritten it to satisfy their highly profitable business plans.

In short, Commissioners Maio, Moran, Cutsinger, Ziegler and Detert, the barn door is wide open, the horses are long gone. You're wondering how to meet the growing needs of Sarasota's business and industrial sectors, but where is the analysis that proves this need exists?

One  recent industrial "need" you tried to meet was Jim Gabbert's. You nearly approved putting a dump next to the Celery Fields, with no analysis of need.

At that time, our residents suggested looking at other areas where such uses could more sensibly be organized. 

Now, having now carpeted most of Northeast Sarasota with plans for yet more gated communities, you are facing two challenges: (1) Where to find space for putative industrial uses, and (2) How to justify erasing 89% of Old Miakka - our last unique rural community - in order that Pat Neal and Rex Jensen can pave it with yet more boring human warehousing, without their having proved any demonstrated need. 

Appeasement of private interests rarely meets the comprehensive demands of well-thought-out public planning.

                                                                                             Respectfully,

                                                                        Tom Matrullo

Business Parks on Lorraine: Neighborhood Workshop