South County Explodes

Graphic and story courtesy of 941CEO.com

For years overshadowed by North Sarasota, sleepy little South County is waking up with a roar. Bulldozers, construction workers and brand-new gated communities cover a swath from S.R. 681 in Nokomis south to Toledo Blade and I-75, just outside the southern North Port city limits. More than 33,000 new residential units are already planned for the decades ahead, bringing an estimated 54,000 newcomers by 2030 and sparking new businesses of every sort. “It’s a place where people want to be,” says Venice Mayor John Holic. “It’s no longer a secret.”

Here’s a look at some of the major projects that will transform the region in the coming years. 

South County Stats

Nearly half of Sarasota County’s population of395,000 now lives in SOUTH COUNTY

South Sarasota County, which measures368.92 square miles  has a population of178,268 nearly60,000 more residents than in 2000.

Growth estimates will reach 191,445in five years and 232,270 by2030

The area isolder, whiterand has ahigher percentage of women than the nation overall.

The median age in South County is 58.3

The population is 91.4 percent white And 52.2percent are women

North Port

West Villages

A new city is rising south of Venice, one that will alter South County just as Lakewood Ranch has transformed Manatee County east of I-75 since it was announced 20 years ago. Called the West Villages, the community has a Venice zip code but became part of North Port more than a decade ago when North Port annexed the former Taylor Ranch. The annexed community is separated from North Port’s former northern border by about nine rural miles. But that separation will disappear as the West Villages develops.

Canadian-based Mattamy Homes, North America’s largest privately owned homebuilder, saw the potential to build a city in a growing retirement area and bought thousands of acres for the West Villages several years ago. The company looked at legendary planner John Nolen’s blueprint for downtown Venice, and New Urbanist communities, such as Celebration, for inspiration.

“It’s 9,800 acres within a mile and a half from the beach,” says Marty Black, the West Villages’ general manager (and Venice’s former city manager), who helped Mattamy find the property. “There aren’t many parcels left like that.”

Mattamy will build 23,000 residential units and 3 million square feet of commercial development over the next three decades. The West Villages is a community development district, which can tax residents to build infrastructure. It has a governing body and functions much like its own city. But it’s not just the sheer number of homes that will change North Port. The mammoth development also is aimed at a more affluent market.

For years overshadowed by North Sarasota, sleepy little South County is waking up with a roar. Bulldozers, construction workers and brand-new gated communities cover a swath from S.R. 681 in Nokomis south to Toledo Blade and I-75, just outside the southern North Port city limits. More than 33,000 new residential units are already planned for the decades ahead, bringing an estimated 54,000 newcomers by 2030 and sparking new businesses of every sort. “It’s a place where people want to be,” says Venice Mayor John Holic. “It’s no longer a secret.”

Here’s a look at some of the major projects that will transform the region in the coming years. . .

MORE here...

The Pinelands Reserve: Questions about Transparency

Cathy Antunes has questions for the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners regarding the publishing of all emails related to the County's application for a shooting range in the Pinelands Reserve.

County email describes Fiscal Neutrality Methodology Project and "Public Involvement"

This email from Sarasota County Planning & Development arrived late this afternoon:

Fiscal Neutrality Methodology Development Project & Public Involvement Description

Based on your interest in the Sarasota 2050 Evaluation, Sarasota County would like to let you know about its pending process for development of a transparent methodology on Fiscal Neutrality analyses associated with Sarasota 2050 developments (please see the Project Overview description below).  The development of a Fiscal Neutrality Methodology will be coordinated through Sarasota County staff and a technical consultant, AECOM, which has been the County’s primary, independent reviewer of Fiscal Neutrality analyses.  AECOM has a national practice in conducting Fiscal Impact Analyses. 

Please be advised that there will be ongoing opportunities for public review and input throughout the process (see the Public Involvement description below).  This project is just now beginning and we estimate that the project will be approximately 7 months long.  

PROJECT OVERVIEW

OBJECTIVE

Develop a clearly understandable technical manual that establishes a methodology for determining Fiscal Neutrality on 2050 developments that can be used on a consistent basis and is transparent in its calculations.

County policy and regulations specify that the following elements of public cost for new or expanded facilities and services required due to new 2050 development be accounted for:

1.      Transportation facilities;

2.      Public transit;

3.      Schools;

4.      Water supply and delivery;

5.      Sewage transmission and treatment;

6.      Solid waste;

7.      Storm and surface water management;

8.      Law enforcement;

9.      Fire and emergency management;

10.   Justice;

11.   General government;

12.   Libraries;

13.   Parks and recreation; and

14.   Public hospitals.

County policy and regulations also specify that the Capital Costs and Operational Costs associated with each element listed above be accounted for:

·        Capital Costs – Initial cost of providing new or expanded facilities (infrastructure) for new development.

·        Operational Costs – On going cost of maintaining new or expanded facilities (infrastructure), and for providing services for new development.

Achieving the above stated objective requires not only the identification of the public costs listed above, but also:

A.     How those public costs are to be calculated;

B.     What public revenues are to be accounted for as a result of development; and

C.     How those public revenues are to be calculated.

TASK 1: Review documents and data.

1.      Review the County Fiscal Neutrality policies and regulations and provide an evaluation as to their ability to achieve the above stated objective.

2.      Identify other governmental units nationally that utilize fiscal impact analysis similar to the County, and provide an evaluation on their effectiveness.

3.      Review and evaluate common practices utilized in determining the full Capital Cost and Operational Cost for each of the listed elements above.

4.      Review the Fiscal Neutrality Plans prepared for each of the approved 2050 developments to date, and evaluate whether they have accounted for the full public costs and revenues.

5.      Review the report prepared for the County on Fiscal Neutrality dated January 31, 2014, and address issues identified.

6.      Review the methodology utilized in determining County Impact Fees for each element listed above, and evaluate whether said methodology results in a full fiscal impact accounting of the public cost associated with new development.

7.      Determine whether the methodology for each Impact Fee represents an effective way to calculate full fiscal impact.

8.      Identify a generally accepted methodology that has been utilized successfully in determining full fiscal impact for each element listed above that has potential applicability here.

TASK 2: Development of assumptions, metrics, analytical approaches.

Public Costs -

1.      Identify and quantify all public costs that are attributable to new development (review elements listed above).

2.      Identify each public cost as Capital or Operational.

3.      Relate public cost to a unit of measure derivable from a new development’s program.

Public Revenues -

1.      Identify and quantify all public revenues that are attributable to new development.

2.      Identify each public revenue source as being eligible for Capital or Operational.

3.      Relate public revenue to a unit of measure derivable from a new development’s program.

TASK 3: Prepare Technical Report. (Work Product)

1.      An analytical report providing all background/supportive documentation and references for recommended methodology.

2.      A technical manual that provides clear directions to be utilized by applicants in preparing Fiscal Neutrality Plans for 2050 developments that includes:

·        A formulated methodology capable of quantifying full public cost anticipated to be generated from 2050 developments for each element listed.

·        A formulated methodology capable of quantifying full public revenue anticipated to be generated from 2050 developments for each element listed.

·        A standardized system of comparing full public costs to full public revenues for each element listed.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Information Collection

1.      Consultant will conduct interviews during the Task 1 phase of the project with fiscal impact practitioners and governmental practitioners of fiscal impact analysis.

2.      The consultant shall prepare a summary of each interview documenting the time and place along with the names (and who they represent) of all those present to be included within the analytical report.

3.      A questionnaire will be developed seeking input from the general public which may include various representative groups within the community during the Task 1 phase of the project.  This questionnaire will be provided at the County’s web page at www.scgov.net under ‘Sarasota 2050 Evaluation’ **.

4.      Consultant will review responses to the questionnaire and address identifiable issues within the analytical report as appropriate.

Informal Public Input

1.      All draft documents will be made available for public inspection and review on an ongoing basis at the County’s web page at www.scgov.net under ‘Sarasota 2050 Evaluation’.

a.      This web page will announce newly posted draft documents.

b.      Comments on draft documents will be gathered by county staff.

2.      County will send out notices to all contacts on Planning Services’ distribution list announcing all newly posted draft documents on the web page.

3.      All draft documents will be available during normal business hours in the Planning and Development Services Department at 1660 Ringling Blvd., 1st Floor, and written comments may be submitted to the above address, or by email to:  planner@scgov.net

Formal Public Input

1.      A draft of the Analytical Report and Technical Manual on Fiscal Neutrality will be made available for approximately one month (tentatively scheduled to occur during March). These draft documents will be available online at the County’s web page www.scgov.net (Sarasota 2050 Evaluation) and a hard-copy will be available during normal business hours in the Planning and Development Services Department at 1660 Ringling Blvd., 1st Floor. Written comments may be submitted to the above address, or by email to:  planner@scgov.net .

2.     Planning Commission Public Hearing (tentatively scheduled to occur in May).

3.      Board Public Hearing (tentatively scheduled to occur in July).

**Please note that the website content, including a questionnaire seeking input into the development a Fiscal Neutrality Methodology, is currently being developed and is scheduled to be available beginning the week of December 1^, 2014. 

For further information or questions, please contact Sarasota County Planning Development Services at (941) 861-5140 or email:planner@scgov.net .

Allen Parsons, AICP

Planning Division Manager

Sarasota County Planning & Development Services Department

1660 Ringling Blvd., 1st Floor, Sarasota , FL 34236
Mobile 941-254-1716 |  Fax  941-861-5593  

All mail sent to and from Sarasota County Government is subject to the public records law of Florida.

Planning and Development Services is committed to maintaining the highest levels of service and values your feedback. Please take a few moments to complete our Customer Service Survey here- http://bit.ly/1cPOFLC.  Thank you in advance for letting us know what you think.

Lasting scars

Re-posted from the SH-T:

After 2050 plan revamp, lingering rancor and potential fallout

Photo taken by Zac Anderson on Monday October 20 Activists gather outside the Sarasota County administration building Monday morning to protest changes to the 2050 growth management plan.

Zac Anderson

By Zac Anderson
zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com

Published: Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 8:01 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 8:01 p.m.

One speaker called it a “betrayal.” Another said Sarasota County commissioners were engaged in a “staggering violation of ethical public service.” A third said it appeared “the fix” was in.

While some degree of conflict seems inevitable, debate over the county's 2050 growth management plan has been especially rancorous. And it could leave lasting scars.

Some predict the 2050 overhaul — it largely came to a close last week after commissioners approved a final batch of revisions — will have political ramifications, while others hope the community can find a better way to talk about such issues going forward.

With demographic experts predicting more than 46,000 people will move to the county over the next decade, more clashes over development are unavoidable in a community that has long struggled with how to manage growth.

Such tensions will animate local politics for years to come and could grow more pronounced as some of the development allowed under 2050 begins.

The changes made over the last two years to the county's rural growth plan will make it easier to develop large swaths of land in eastern Sarasota County.

Landowners have been closely monitoring the revision process, and some are likely to move ahead now that the regulations are becoming less restrictive.

But they are also sure to encounter continued resistance from environmentalists and growth control advocates, who are bitter over how the 2050 debate unfolded.

Indeed, few issues have more sharply divided the community in recent years.

Kerry Kirschner, a former Sarasota mayor and executive director of the pro-business Argus Foundation, said he was struck by the “nastiness and lack of collegiality” in the 2050 public hearings.

A number of speakers at last Wednesday's hearing on the third and final round of changes to the plan accused county commissioners of being in the pocket of developers who donate to their campaigns.

Others predicted widespread environmental destruction and rampant overdevelopment.

Kirschner said many of the comments were over the top.

“I think it's distrust and, quite honestly, fear. So many people have moved here from someplace else and many moved here because they didn't like the environment in which they were living,” he said. For instance, he said, one man who spoke Wednesday said he came from Houston and did not want Sarasota County to develop in a similar manner.

“God bless him, I don't want to live in Houston either,” Kirschner joked, before adding that he believes such fears are misplaced.

But while Sarasota County may be a long way from becoming Houston, critics of the 2050 overhaul say they remain justified in feeling angry and frustrated.

Sarasota architect and growth control advocate Bill Zoller said he was surprised that the final 2050 hearing was “as genteel as it was” considering that “everybody felt completely discounted, disregarded and abused.”

Zoller noted that the county began the process of revising 2050 — adopted more than a decade ago as a compromise that allowed more intense development on rural lands but mandated higher standards — by holding a series of meetings with developers to get their complaints about the plan. That process excluded the public and started “on the completely wrong foot with a tin ear.”

The meetings that followed contained few chances for the public to truly influence the debate, he said.

Those concerned about the 2050 revisions also took issue with a controversial report, commissioned by the county, that blasted the plan. And they protested the dismissal of former county administrator Randall Reid, who was viewed as taking a more deliberate approach to reviewing 2050.

“They left our side completely alienated, absolutely alienated, but they didn't care,” Zoller said.

Those hard feelings could carry over into future conflicts as some of the new 2050 projects break ground.

After a lull during the recession, interest in developing rural properties governed by the 2050 plan is starting to pick up. And the Fruitville Road corridor may see the most immediate impacts.

The Villages of Lakewood Ranch South — which covers 5,500 acres between Fruitville Road and University Parkway east of Interstate 75 — is approved for 5,144 homes and a number of smaller projects are in the works for the area.

Among those testifying at Wednesday's 2050 hearing were three people who own land along Fruitville, all of whom supported the plan revisions and seemed interested in developing their land.

Also attending was Sarasota attorney Jim Turner, whose family owns the expansive Hi Hat Ranch between Fruitville and State Road 72 east of the interstate.

Turner has been a strong advocate for overhauling 2050.

“As to when or if Hi Hat would proceed, that remains to be seen,” Turner said. “We certainly don't have anything on the drawing board.”

A series of large housing projects in what is mostly a rural area could further inflame anti-development sentiment.

“Eventually one hopes it will translate into political changes,” Zoller said.

Charles Hines — who voted for most of the nine revisions to 2050 approved Wednesday and has been a steadfast supporter of overhauling the plan — is the only commissioner among the current five who is not term-limited and could stand for re-election.

Hines said that he focused on crafting a workable plan that can accommodate Sarasota County's projected growth in a responsible manner, not politics.

“The political stuff, save that for a year, year-and-a-half from now,” Hines said. “We make decisions every day and you try to do what's right for the community and some people are going to be happy and some people are going to be upset.”

Clashes over growth are nothing new in Sarasota County: The building boom that reached its apex in 2006 sparked citizen initiatives led by Zoller to amend the county's charter and put the brakes on development.

Three growth-related amendments were approved from 2007 to 2008 by wide margins.

They gave the county final approval over developments in land annexed by local cities, required a super majority commission vote for changes to the county's comprehensive plan that increase development density or intensity and required a unanimous vote to move the county's urban service boundary.

But public opinion started to shift shortly after the amendments were passed. The Great Recession wiped away thousands of high-paying construction jobs in the region.

County leaders came under pressure to stimulate the economy, and one strategy was to loosen development regulations.

In recent years the county commission has slashed road impact fees and taken other steps to encourage growth, culminating in the overhaul of the 2050 plan. But public opinion may be shifting again.

Only 11 percent of county residents surveyed in a recent poll cited jobs and the economy as their top concern, down from 18 percent last year. Growth-related issues were the top priority for 37 percent of residents, up from 20 percent in 2013.

Sarasota Audubon Society conservation chairman Wade Matthews cited the figures during Wednesday's hearing in arguing that commissioners were not listening to the public. Concerns about growth could play a big role in future county elections, Matthews predicted.

“The trend is on our side again,” he said. “How it will play out remains to be seen.”

"Our quality of life is at risk" - Cathy Antunes

On Wednesday the County Commission will be voting on amendments to the Sarasota 2050 plan. The original 2050 standards for rural land outside the Urban Service Boundary (USB) were the result of a robust collaboration with community leaders and development interests. Since 2050 was adopted over ten years ago, understanding of best land use practices has improved dramatically. The 2050 changes fail to incorporate these new insights, nor are they the result of community collaboration. Rather, the changes are the result of County meetings with a handful of landowner/developers focused on facilitating development of their rural land.

The proposed 2050 changes ignore the reality of supply and demand. In the unincorporated County, Sarasota’s total potential housing supply (unbuilt) in 2010 was 45,000 units. Since then at least 9,000 units have been added. Add over 10,000 units in the City of Sarasota and 70,000 units in North Port, bringing total potential housing to 134,000 units. Those numbers don’t include the City of Venice and Longboat Key. Sarasota County’s projected ten year housing demand is 16,400 units. With potential units over 134,000 units and a projected demand of 16,400 units , our supply vs demand ratio is over 800%. Cities known for wise planning (like Portland, Oregon) move their USB when they don’t have enough potential housing to meet 10 year demand. With a supply vs demand ratio of 800%, why would the County make it easier to develop rural parcels by weakening 2050 standards? Is the practical result of these undisciplined amendments a de facto elimination of Sarasota’s Urban Service Boundary?

Proposed 2050 changes to walkable design standards enable inefficient subdivision development. Joe Minicozzi studied Sarasota County’s property tax base and found it took subdivision housing 42 years to pay off its infrastructure needs - longer than the life of the infrastructure! Charles Marohn is another planning thought leader who has documented how subdivision style development provides a short term cash benefit to municipal budgets for about eight years, until the long term costs of infrastructure maintenance and public services start kicking in, sinking municipal budgets. This important data is missing from County policy.

Walkable development leads to real value and healthy municipal budgets. Walkability isn’t the mere presence of sidewalks. Walkability provides a lifestyle which enables residents to work, shop, go to school and live in an area with zero to minimal need for a car. Minicozzi found Sarasota’s walkable, mixed use development delivered a much higher tax yield per acre - one that paid off it’s infrastructure costs in as little as three years. Changes to Sarasota 2050 plan eliminate design standards which deliver a truly walkable neighborhood.

Real estate studies show walkable communities are in demand. A1999 study by the Urban Land Institute of four new pedestrian-friendly communities determined that homebuyers were willing to pay a $20,000 premium for homes in them compared to similar houses in surrounding areas. A 2012 Milken Institute study shows strong correlation between walkable urbanism, educated residents, and local GDP. According to their findings “The six highest-ranked walkable urban metropolitan areas have an average GDP per capita of $60,400 . GPD per capita in walkable urban metros is 38 percent higher than the average GDP per capita ($43,900) in the 10 low-ranked walkable urban metros. Incorporating this information into our local planning policy is critical to our economic vitality. Creating walkability where we already have infrastructure, inside our USB, is an obvious economic game changer for Sarasota County. Why are our local leaders focusing on building rural lands instead?

Proposed 2050 changes do not include appropriate analysis of their impact on wildlife habitat, transportation (accidents, evacuation, congestion),and agriculture. Sarasota County’s Land Management Master Plan is out of date. According to the County website, it was due to be updated in 2010. This document is the roadmap for stewardship of our natural resources. Why has it been allowed to languish?

According to 1000 Friends of Florida, 2050 changes do not comply with Florida Law (statutes 163.3177(1)(a)9, 163.3177(1)(b) and 163.3177(1)(f)). These changes benefit a handful of landowners, but those who chose a rural lifestyle and those who work, live and own property west of I75, will ultimately be subsidizing overdevelopment at odds with their own economic well being. 

Enough is enough. Attend the County Commission vote this Wednesday at 1:30 pm, 1660 Ringling Blvd in County Commission Chambers. 

Our quality of life is at risk. Oppose these Ill-conceived policy changes.

Cathy Antunes serves on the boards of the Council of Neighborhood Associations and Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government. She is organizing the 2050 Action Network, a growing network of civic groups advocating for the preservation and enhancement of Sarasota’s natural resources, economic diversification and quality of life.

-- Reposted from the SH-T

Jono Miller: County Painting Itself into a Corner

Ms. Valerie Brookens
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
107 East Madison Street
Caldwell Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4120

                                                                                                                                                                        19 October 2014

Ms. Brookens et al.

I’m writing to share some concerns regarding proposed changes to Sarasota County’s comprehensive Plan. I stand with Becky Ayech, John Wesley White, Maynard Hiss, Bill Zoller, Cathy Antunes, Dan Lobeck, Ann Kaplan, Mollie Cardamone and others who are questioning the process and outcome of the proposed revisions to Sarasota County’s comprehensive plan. I’ve worked with all the above-mentioned citizens, some for decades, and while we don’t always agree, I can attest to the fact that all of the above care deeply about the future of our county. I’ve attached some brief material related to my qualifications at the end of this document.

To begin with, I don’t object to any interest group prodding the County Commission to initiate major changes to our comprehensive plan. But when the County commits to doing so, it should be following adopted procedures, fully involving the Planning Commission, taking a comprehensive approach, and proceeding in a logical sequence. In my opinion, the County has failed to do so.

My intent is to focus on some procedural or structural issues others may not have focused on, and there are three I find most relevant: Failure to involve the Local Land Development Regulation Commission, Failure to be comprehensive, and Improper phasing of adoption.

 Failure to Appropriately Involve the Local Land Development Regulation Commission

1) Since 2011 an adopted Scoping Process pursuant to Sec. 94-85 has required that staff conduct a two part scoping process wherein “the proposed amendment will be clearly defined and all pertinent issues identified.” The County followed this process when considering changes to the Transfer of Development process in 2013 and it required LPA (Planning Commission) involvement. Commissioner Barbetta mistakenly implied this wasn’t the case.

2) The Board initiated the scoping process in this case when they directed staff to prepare a scoping document and posted that intent on the 2050 webpage (screenshot from County 2050 webpage below). The staff initiated the scoping process as directed and held the required workshops.

3) The next step according to the law and the flow chart used in the TDR process should have involved going to the Planning Commission and providing for public comment. Then, once the Planning Commission weighed in, it should have gone back to the County Commission, which authorizes the scope and processing of the CPA (or not). This makes perfect sense because you would want the LPA involved in determining what should and shouldn’t be considered in an amendment.

4) Instead the County Commission aborted their adopted scoping process. Instead of following the adopted procedure they were partway into, on May 8th 2013 they took a short-cut, aborting the legally-required scoping route they started on, thus depriving the public and Planning Commission of the opportunity specifically laid out in Staff flow charts.

Millennials Shunning Malls Speeds Web Shopping Revolution

This story from Bloomberg was noticed by David Brain of New College on the page entitled 2050 Comprehensive Plan sor Sarasota Citizens.

By Matt Townsend Jun 25, 2014 9:42 AM ET

Facebook

CJ Chu is a retailer’s nightmare.

The 24-year-old associate for a private-equity firm does “99 percent” of his shopping online -- even toothpaste. He’d rather buy groceries on the Web than walk to the supermarket.

“Convenience and free time is something I value,” said Chu, who works for Bridge Growth Partners LLC in New York. “Ordering online just makes more sense.”

Chu is an extreme case. Yet millions of Americans like him are abandoning stores faster than executives predicted, pushing the industry to a precipice. Traditional retailers, for the first time ever in 2014, will generate half their sales growth on the Web, according to Stifel Financial Corp. That means about $18 billion in new revenue generated this year will come from online purchases, an analysis of U.S. Census data shows.

The stampede online will only accelerate as 80 million U.S. millennials start families, buying homes and filling them with stuff. Mobile shopping is giving e-commerce another boost. Next month, Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) will start selling a smartphone that will allow shoppers to scan a product in a mall and purchase it from the company’s online store, giving retailers another reason to fear their most potent Web rival.

Matrullo: Flawed, Missing Pieces, Disfigured Image

Oct. 17, 2014

Dear Mr. Eubanks and Ms. Brookens and Sarasota Commissioners,

Sarasota County to the East of I-75 is largely an open, green world populated by ranches, a few farms, some multi-acre homesites, and waterways.

Now there is substantial interest from developer/builders in transforming that rural landscape into another sort of world, replete with subdivision-style development and commercial shopping. They feel the time has come for a scattering of “villages” and “hamlets,” despite the fact that as many as 50,000 infill locations are open on the West side of I-75 which would place fewer demands on the taxpayers for services and support.

The developer/builders also are seeking to shift the risk of development from their enterprises to the taxpayers of the County through modifications to the Fiscal Neutrality provisions of Sarasota County’s 2050 Comprehensive Plan.

Regarding the proposed Amendments, I wish to make three brief comments:

1. Flawed process: The original 2050 plan grew organically out of a long process of consensus and compromise between planners, citizens and developer/builders. The amendments, on the other hand, are the product of closed-door conferences between county staff and developer/builders. The proposed revision deviates from the original pact, and from ethical governance, in ways so serious that some are researching grounds for legal action.

2. Missing Pieces: If one were to attempt to draw a map of what the Amendments organize within the areas of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, one would have little to go on. The guidelines call for villages and hamlets that would presumably be built on various tracts of land now used for ranching or agriculture.

What neither the Amendments nor the original 2050 guidelines address is some positive purposeful plan for all the lands and waters between the housing subdivisions. In other words, what the developer/builders and the county are proposing is nothing but a loose set of rules for new housing. That might be all developer/builders need to think about, but it is hardly what the governmental custodians of the County’s future land use ought to be concerned with.

Specifically, to my knowledge there is little or nothing in this plan that uses the metrics and analytical methods of physical planning to meaningfully integrate:

1. Wildlife
2. Environment
3. Water and water quality
4. Public use, e.g. recreation
5. Tourism
6. Anchoring elements that add community value - a university, for example, or a research institute, think tank, park, public sports facility, etc.
7. Incentives to create a coherent, walkable configuration, when studies show walkability adds real value to a community.
8. A systematic plan for roads, commercial spaces, greenways, amenities so that each developer does not have to reinvent the wheel for his/her particular subdivision.

In short, we are looking at a large swath of Sarasota County that will contain isolated housing products that lack a unifying context, a theme, and coordinating incentives. Each builder can entirely ignore what each other is doing, or, more likely, compete with them to attract buyers. This is not a plan but a carte blanche to ignore planning. A plan that actually makes provisions for the public lands, waterways, wildlife corridors and elements of community value - indeed, a plan that actually serves as a PLAN pure and simple, is not what’s coming before the Sarasota County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 22, 2014.  

3. Disfigured Image: From what I’ve heard so far from the developers and builders who have sought these changes, it seems they have given no thought to the landscape, history, natural qualities, or public value of the Eastern portion of Sarasota County. They simply view it as land, pure and simple, as if all land were the same, in some idealized Cartesian universe.

All land is not the same, nor are all counties the same. In our public hearings, over and over we have heard people say that they never intended to move to Florida -- what they saw did not have the sort of cultural values they sought in retirement. Then they happened upon Sarasota, and found a community of intelligent residents passionate about the arts, nature, science, thought, and community. And now they fear, as do I, that that social identity, that “Brand Sarasota,” is slipping away, to be replaced by a mechanical, cliche-driven machine that has been called “Browardization.” The resulting damage to the image of Sarasota could be irreparable.

One final irony: By pressuring the County administration and planners to jettison key aspects of the original 2050 plan, the developer/builders are more likely to open themselves to failure. If they simply build replicant gated communities as they have done forever West of I-75, they may end in producing costly disasters. The younger generations want real land, and are interested in Nature, in growing real food, breathing real air, drinking real water. The developers are behind the Zeitgeist, but suffer the illusion they are leading the way.

As a citizen who believes that Sarasota’s old values are worth preserving, I ask that you reject the changes to the County’s 2050 Comprehensive Plan on the grounds that they reflect aberrant judgment, poor if not unethical governance, and an abandonment of the civic and aesthetic values to which Sarasota citizens have long subscribed.

What we need to do is bring back to the table all the original stakeholders -- the people of Sarasota, the county planning staff, and the developer/builders, and hammer out a practical vision worthy of all -- a vision that will underscore how Sarasota is not a cluster of tired cliches, but a special community that will continue to attract people of taste and discernment.

Thank you,

Tom Matrullo