Argus District 5 Sarasota Candidate Forum 4.9.20

Three candidates for the District 5 seat on the Sarasota County Commission address questions from the Argus Foundation on a variety of issues. 

District 5 is generally the southernmost district, including much of North Port.

The candidates in alphabetical order are Ron Cutsinger (R), Chris Hanks (R) and Alice White (D). Argus executive director Christine Robinson asked the questions.

The zoom session has not been edited in any manner, but simply replays the video posted by Argus to YouTube.

Questions for District 5 Candidates from the Argus Foundation

BOARD of Sarasota County Commissioners POLICY AGENDA 2020:

Top Priorities 

• Future of County Administration Location j
• Medical Examiner / Coroner / Emergency Services Building
• Mote Funding: If, When, How
• Affordable and Workforce Housing
• Solutions to Ensure Wastewater at AWT Standards
• Modern Mobility/Transit

High Priorities 

• Bay Park Conservancy 

• Sports Tourism Development Strategy: Goals, Best Practices, Report with Options, County Role and Direction 

• Progress on Design and/or Funding for “Gap” Roads 

• Road Resurfacing: Service Level, Direction and Funding Increase Decision 

• Stormwater Policy and Management: Direction, Project Priorities and Funding Mechanism 

1. Here [above] is the County Commission board policy agenda for 2020. This was set by the commission at their December 2019 retreat.  Do you agree with this list? What do you think is the most important issue for the county and what would you specifically do to tackle that issue?  What is the most important issue for your district and what would you do to tackle that issue?

2. Businesses have been shut down or severely scaled back due to COVID-19.  Do you believe county government has a role in jumpstarting the economy when we open back up for business?  Why or why not? If you do, what would you do to jumpstart the economy?

3. What is your opinion of CRAs (Community Redevelopment Agencies), and how well you think they have worked in Sarasota County?  Would you expand this program in other areas of the county? If so, how many areas? If so, how would you make up for the loss in tax revenue to the general fund?  If not, what can be done to help blighted areas of the county?

4. What is your opinion of the county property tax rate and what area of the county budget do you think we spend too much on, what area too little on? 

5. Give the county a grade on their relationships with the municipalities?  What would you do to further improve the relationships?

6. Water Quality.  There are many aspects to it - Septic to sewer, stormwater run-off, advanced wastewater treatment, agriculture, old infrastructure, fertilizer run-off, sewer spills, red tide, etc.  What area of water quality do you think the county should be focusing its attention and funding on and why?

7. Do you believe the county has kept its promises to North Port with the extension of the Legacy Trail?  What would you do as a county commissioner to ensure that the Legacy Trail extension to North Port is completed expeditiously?

8. What is your opinion on growth?  What, if anything, should be done to stop or control it?

9. According to the county, in fiscal year 2020, Sarasota County will spend $9,011,146 in budgets to Health and Human Services, 12th Judicial Court Administration and the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office for mental health and supportive services. Of the local mental health and supportive services Sarasota County funds, the county's contribution represents approximately 24% of the total $36,984,582 spent. The remaining funding is contributed by multiple partners, including Federal and State grants, local philanthropic organizations, private donors and insurance.  What is your position on the proposed mental health care district in Sarasota County- would you create it, what should it look like, and would you increase taxes to provide more money for the district?

10. Transportation is an important issue in Sarasota County.  The county is coming up with a modern mobility plan. What do you think of eliminating SCAT routes in favor of modern mobility?

The Syndicate strikes back

When it became apparent in 2018 that the Citizens Amendment for Single Member District Voting could win at the ballot box, the development interests in Sarasota County spared no expense. Within a few months, the syndicate raised over $155,000 to squelch the citizens' initiative. Where'd all that money come from?

The major contributors, according to the Superintendent of Elections site are:

• The Argus Foundation (exec. director Christine Robinson)
• The Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce
• The Manatee-Sarasota Building Industry Association (exec. director Jon Mast)
• Gulf Coast Builders Exchange
• Pat Neal
• Benderson Development Co. Inc.
• Taylor Morrison, builder at Skye Ranch
• Siesta Key Chamber of Commerce

Who got the cash?

Direct Mail operators and political marketeers:

• Political Ink, inc. - Washington DC
• Strategic Digital Services - Tallahassee, FL.

What came of this?

Under the (ripped off) rubric of Stop! Stealing our Votes, the ads swarmed:

One ad used in this negative campaign was remarkable: It mounted the lie that voters should oppose Single Member District voting because it would give more power to developers (!). 

Sarasota's esteemed business leaders were not above this level of public disinformation - i.e., fake news.

Pretending to oppose the very interests that in fact you are working to advance is known in the world of strategic digital media as "astroturfing." It might also be called bullshit.

What did the Syndicate find so frightening about single member districts? Did the possibility that citizens might choose their representatives based on real knowledge of who their candidates were and what they stood for scare them because it meant the Syndicate would cease to control the major planning, zoning, financing and infrastructure decisions facing Sarasota County?

The thought of having an Board that wouldn't rubber stamp Pat Neal's roads, Benderson's fake critical area plans, or Gabbert's special exceptions must have been terrifying, because they paid and paid and lied and lost. The citizens Amendment won all five districts and virtually every precinct, including precincts that are supposed to be heavily Republican:

After working for more than a year to collect enough signatures to get the proposed Sarasota County Charter amendment on the ballot, leaders of the Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections (SAFE), won 59.84% of the 193,439 votes cast on that measure - Sarasota News Leader

Argus et al were not pleased. It wasn't long before the County, with the aid of a fictive mapmaker who turned out to be disgraced political operative Bob Waechter, concocted fictive reasons to redistrict all five districts. Conveniently along the way, the Hail Mary Waechter Map to Save Mike eliminated two prospective candidates known to have considered opposing Moran in District 1.

And that in turn brought a Federal lawsuit, accusing three Commissioners -- Detert, Maio and Moran -- of racist motives to carve minorities out of Moran's district. The suit is expected to be heard this spring.

 ~ Stay Tuned ~

Screenshots from Sarasota County's Supervisor of Elections site:

Astroturfing Sarasota

Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. Wikipedia

A group is buying ads on Facebook to mimic the look and style of STOP! - a Sarasota civic group that has worked to put residents back into the city of Sarasota's planning process.

Yourobserver.com: A new political group, whose name includes the word “STOP!” in all-capital letters with an exclamation point, says it’s rallying against uncontrolled growth and the pervasive influence of developers on local officials. 

The group is called “STOP! Stealing Our Votes,” a political committee formed to campaign against a proposed county charter amendment that would create single-member districts for the Sarasota County Commission. Ahead of the November referendum, the group has paid for Facebook ads that claim big developers are backing the amendment. 

All of this is a source of concern for a different group: STOP!, the citizen activist group formed in 2016 to advocate for changes to the city’s development regulations. On Wednesday, STOP! issued a press release accusing STOP! Stealing Our Votes of intentionally misleading voters with its name and messaging.

The civic STOP! group has returned fire with its own "STOP! Stealing Our Name! blitz:

Who are the operatives behind the Astroturf? Not surprisingly, it's a familiar Sarasota claque that is opposed to lots of things, but NOT to developers.

Yourobserver: [Russ] Bobbitt, president and CEO of the Purmort & Martin Insurance Agency, claimed the political committee represented a broad coalition of opponents to the proposed charter amendment. He declined to name any other individuals connected to the group. The political committee has not yet filed a financial report with the Sarasota County Supervisor of Elections.

We can update: The committee has now filed a financial report -- the "broad coalition" turns out to be the usual mokes:

The Argus Foundation often speaks of its leadership, vision, and high-minded dedication to the betterment of Sarasota. More astroturfing?

Robinson vs. Robinson

In a recent opinion piece in the Herald-Tribune, Christine Robinson, former County Commissioner and executive director of the Argus Foundation, argued that the future of properties zoned for ILW -- Industrial, Light Manufacturing, Warehouse -- is threatened by residential and recreational development.

Citing the Legacy Trail and the community's efforts to protect the Celery Fields as examples of land use initiatives that "hamper" ILW-zoned properties, Robinson wrote:

"Every year, we lose industrial light warehouse properties, both currently designated and those planned to be designated. Residential dwellings are being approved on or next to industrial lands. This is hampering owners’ ability to use those industrial properties for what they have been intended." May 14, 2018 HT guest column.

Robinson correctly notes that the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners has voted to approve locating residential near industrial, and that it has also approved converting existing ILW properties to residential. She strongly contends that existing ILW uses need to be "protected" from the "mission creep" of housing, parks and open space amenities.

What's striking about Robinson's championing of ILW properties is that as a Sarasota County Commissioner, she was at the forefront of the movement to convert ILW to residential use. In some cases, the conversion was approved over the objections of the neighbors.

In short, Argus director Robinson's concerns about issues of land use infringement did not prevent County Commissioner Robinson from voting for the precise rezoning changes she says have damaged the public trust.

The public record shows that Commissioner Robinson voted to approve converting commercial, office, and industrial uses to residential. In warning of the dangers to industry and to public trust, Robinson is taking issue with her own voting record. Here are three public hearings at which Commissioner Robinson voted to rezone ILW to residential:

25 May 2016: Adopted Rezone No. 15-23

On May 25, 2016, Robinson voted to adopt Rezone No. 15-23 "to redesignate approximately 21 acres of the Palmer Ranch Increment IV Development of Regional Impact (DRI), Parcels A8 and A9, from commercial/office and industrial uses to residential uses for the development of 140 multi-family dwelling units."

Commissioner Robinson voted to convert 21 acres of ILW to residential.

27 Oct 2015: Adopted Rezone No. 14-36.

Robinson voted on October 27, 2015 to adopt Rezone No. 14-36 "to redesignate an approximate 20 acre portion of Parcel A7 within the Palmer Park of Commerce, from commercial/office and industrial uses to residential uses for the development of 260 multi-family dwelling units." see page 1 of staff report.

• highlighted copy of the staff report 

• see page 13 for the definitive redesignation statement. 

Commissioner Robinson voted to convert 20 acres of ILW to residential over the neighbors' objections. See 27 August 2015 hearing for additional information.

9 July 2014: Adopted Rezone Petition 13-27

On July 9, 2014, Robinson voted to adopt Rezone Petition 13-27 "to redesignate approximately 68 acres, known as Parcels A2 and A6 within the Palmer Park of Commerce, from commercial/office and industrial uses to residential uses for the development of 180 single-family residential dwelling units." 

• see pages 1,2, 35, 46, & 54 of the staff report. 

Commissioner Robinson voted to convert 68 acres of ILW to residential over the neighbors' objections.

Summing up: In three votes, Commissioner Robinson voted to remove over 100 acres from lands set aside for light industrial, office, and warehouse use and let developers build houses and apartments there instead. Robinson's record on the Commission is at odds with her posture as director of the county's influential Argus lobby.

The public conversation about planning and land use is important and complex, and it needs the perspective of business leaders as well as voices from the whole spectrum of the community. But to truly benefit our community, every perspective deserves to be presented with informed transparency.

Organic rising: A planner's take on land use & planning

Work with Legacy Trail and Celery Fields, not against them

Herald Tribune, 6.7.18
By Daniel Herriges, Guest Columnist

In a May 14 guest column, Argus Foundation Executive Director (and former Sarasota County commissioner) Christine Robinson wrote that industrial businesses near the planned extension of the Legacy Trail could see their future jeopardized by the trail’s completion. Robinson urges that the county act pre-emptively to protect these properties from “mission creep.”

Robinson’s warning is misguided. The question she fails to answer is: What mission?

The mission of the Legacy Trail is, presumably, to create a major new amenity for Sarasota County residents — one which will simultaneously become one of the region’s largest parks and a vital corridor for non-motorized transportation.

The potential benefits are tremendous, as similar endeavors around the country illustrate.

Why not embrace the happy accident that this rail corridor — whose builders certainly never envisioned the Legacy Trail — represents? Once-industrial and derelict waterfronts in Portland, Baltimore, Chicago and more are now parks and tourist attractions.. . . 

Another local happy accident is the Celery Fields. Robinson spent much of her column discussing last summer’s contentious decision not to allow a recycling facility on surplus, county-owned land adjacent to the beloved birding destination. But she draws precisely the wrong lessons from it.

Robinson’s premise that an injustice was done in the Celery Fields case rests on decades-old planning documents which describe the area as future industrial and a “major employment center.”

But to insist that the ideal fate, the highest and best use, for public land abutting the Celery Fields in 2017 was to fulfill its destiny as “industrial” evinces a remarkable lack of imagination. Or perhaps just mistaking land-use planning, which is the means to a variety of ends, for an end in itself.

This is a common malady: an overly prescriptive, “SimCity” approach to planning. In 1938, the American Institute of Planners stated as the purpose of the discipline “determination of the comprehensive arrangement of land uses and land occupancy and the regulation thereof.” In other words, “We’re gonna tell you what goes where.”

Most modern-day planners don’t view that as an ideal. Instead, we recognize the value of happy accidents. Nearly all great places arise organically, because someone did something on their land that made others want to be near. That has happened with the Celery Fields. And it is happening in the Packinghouse District, a cluster of very successful, distinctive local businesses just across I-75 from the Celery Fields.

Robinson is correct that industry, a source of living-wage jobs not tied to tourism, is important to our economic health. The County Commission could direct staff to study barriers to industrial development: Are we losing these jobs for lack of suitable land? If so, we should tackle this problem head-on. Modern manufacturing is often quiet and non-polluting, and potentially compatible in many locations from which it is currently excluded.

The role of land-use planning is to promote the public interest, not to insulate incumbent land owners and businesses from change. 

Daniel Herriges is an urban planner and a regular contributor to Strong Towns, a nonprofit organization which supports a model of development that allows cities to become financially strong and resilient. He lives in Sarasota.

-- Further Reading -- 

Robinson: Industrial and commercial properties need protection from Legacy Trail mission creep

Jono Miller: Miller: Argus concerns over Legacy Trail not based on facts

Bob Clark: Irony in Argus executive warning of ‘mission creep’ 

For a change

Dump developer Carlos Beruff sues resident concerned about developing homes on toxic area.

John Garcia’s mission was simple. He wanted to make it less likely that people in his neighborhood would suffer from the environmentally-caused cancers that had plagued so many of his friends . . . - Dennis Maley.

UPDATE: Beruff drops Million-dollar Lawsuit against Activist - Dennis Maley.

Letter to the Editor responds to peculiar Argus diatribe

To a former commissioner who holds the Celery Fields responsible for infringing on heavy industry.

Letters regarding a sweet, senseless deal

 A former Planning Commissioner asks why 100 acres of county land wasn't good enough for a new Sheriff's truck garage.

Feel a little dumped on? Tired of 50 years of toxic same-party, same-gene-pool rule? 

There are alternatives -- take a moment to get to know them:

Ruta Jouniari co-founded a free healthcare clinic and runs her own staffing agency.

Lourdes Ramirez needs only a few more signed petitions to qualify without having to spend $5,000 - the deadline is days away.

Wesley Beggs has stepped up for her first race

Alexandra Coe has just announced her candidacy for the Commission

Letter to the Editor responds to Argus Celery Fields Editorial

On May 14, 2018, he Herald Tribune ran an editorial by former Sarasota Commissioner and current Argus Foundation executive Christine Robinson in which she appears to hold the Celery Fields -- not those in the community who love them, but the Fields themselves -- responsible for causing a "businessman" to lose "a lot of money." That would be James Gabbert, who with his eyes open sought to put a heavy industrial waste processing plant on public lands quite near an eco-tourist masterpiece of nature. The area also includes schools, more than 1,600 homes and businesses, and a fragile road system, but:

We recently saw a problem with a park and a property that cost a reputable local businessman a lot of money and shook the business community’s trust in county government.. . . The Celery Fields were created as a stormwater system to alleviate flooding and to filter water. It has turned into a park, with birds and other wildlife.. . . Typical comments were: “How can you put an industrial use next to a park?”

The faith of the business community was shaken.  

                                         Robinson's statement is here in full.

This letter to the editor by Bob Clark of Venice appeared in the Herald Tribune on May 16, 2018:

Irony in Argus executive warning of ‘mission creep'

Did anyone else catch the irony in Argus Foundation Executive Director Christine Robinson’s opinion piece (Herald-Tribune, Business Weekly, May 14), cautioning about Legacy Trail “mission creep?”

Ms. Robinson argued that further extension of the Legacy Trail should not be considered without putting in place guarantees that there would not be any “mission creep” that might impact industrial and commercial properties abutting the trail.

She cited, as an example, the “mission creep” the Celery Fields posed on a landowner who wanted to build an industrial-materials recycling facility on land adjacent to the nature park.

Was it not the recycling businessman, in asking for an exception to the allowed zoning use of the land, who was guilty of mission creep, pure and simple?

And talk about mission creep: Ms. Robinson states that “every year, we lose industrial light warehouse properties,” in part apparently due to “residential dwellings ... being approved on or next to industrial lands.”

Well, Argus Foundation, perhaps the big problem is the mission creep of developers, who are granted exceptions to comprehensive plans right and left to take over all the available land in our county and state for whatever use they’d like.

You say that “the faith of the business community was shaken” by the zoning decision at Celery Fields? Well, the faith of the entire community is shaken every time we have to decipher another rezoning request and consider going up against developers, their lawyers and lobbyists to protect the rest of us from their mission creep.

Bob Clark, Venice

(Hyperlinks added to original text)

Sarasota at Risk: Lobeck on Final Oct. 25th Hearing

Nature, Neighborhoods, Mobility and Taxpayers at Risk

Giving It Away to Developers

Final County Commission Public Hearing

Tuesday, October 25   1:30 pm

1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota

The rules of the game may be about to change, in terrible ways for anyone who cares about reasonable controls on development.

They call it an “Update” of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. 

What it really does however is gut numerous important protections of neighborhoods, nature, traffic mobility and good planning, to serve the developers who bankroll County Commission campaigns.  Their slogan is, “Today, Tomorrow, Together” but the only people moving together on this are our County Commissioners and their patrons in the development industry.  The rest of us get left behind, with traffic gridlock, threatened neighborhoods and increased destruction of the natural environment.

Many of the worst changes were written by developer attorney Bill Merrill for a coalition of development interests that include the Argus Foundation, of which County Commissioner Christine Robinson serves as Executive Director.

This Comprehensive Plan “Update” is up for its final public hearing on October 25, at 1:30 pm, at 1660 Ringling Boulevard in Sarasota. Citizens will be allowed to speak for up to five minutes each.

Also, you can email the County Commissioners at Email to County Commissioners.

It would be well to identify specific changes you oppose, together with comment generally on the others.  You have a broad choice of topics from those identified in this handout.  It is possible the County Commission could relent on some of the changes.  At least one County Commissioner, for example, recently expressed reluctance to support the proposed change to the neighborhood compatibility policy, although he voted for it at the first hearing.

You can also send a letter to the editor of 250 words or less to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune at Letter to the Editor Link Here.  Do it right away, however, as time is growing short.

Among the many measures on the chopping block are the following:

• Neighborhood compatibility protections
• The square foot limit on the size of commercial centers
• Concurrency, the rule that developers must produce traffic studies and pay their proportionate share of needed road improvements -- without the replacement policy allowed by state law which would keep traffic studies and limit rezoning and Plan changes that overcrowd our roads
• The level of service C standard for county roads, lowering it to D and thereby accepting more traffic congestion
• The requirement that the County plan for needed infrastructure over a ten-year period, leaving only planning for five years at a time
• The requirement that affordable housing built with density bonuses in mixed use centers remain affordable, be built to green standards and have a jobs-housing balance
• Current protections of wetlands and other natural habitat from development impacts
• Environmental and other “quality of life” standards for new businesses sought for the County

A fuller analysis of this proposed destruction of important protections of the public interest is set forth on the following pages.  It's a lot to digest, I know.  However, I hope you read through enough to get as upset as I am about this and to give you enough ammunition to speak out against this injustice at the public hearing.

Thank you for your consideration.

  -- Dan Lobeck
Join Control Growth Now

Click below for details . . .

Lobeck: Nature at Risk Wednesday

Nature at Risk Wednesday

Comprehensive Plan “Update” Weakens Environmental Protections

The Sarasota County Commission will hold its hearings on proposals to severely weaken controls on developers Wednesday June 8 at 1:30 pm and Friday June 10 at 9 am, at the north County Administration Center, 1660 Ringling Boulevard.

The proposals are in an “Update” of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.

The changes have been proposed by County staff but made worse by the County Commission-appointed Planning Commission, which includes two developers and four top executives of construction companies, among others who make their living in development.

It is possible that the County Commission will make the “Update” even worse.  

More bad changes are being sought by COBA, the Sarasota Coalition of Business Associations – in addition to those they got already.  At the top of COBA's list of members is the Argus Foundation.  One of the County Commissioners, Christine Robinson, is the current Executive Director of the Argus Foundation.  COBA’s principal spokesman in the “Update” is attorney Bill Merrill, president of the Argus Foundation when they hired Robinson.   Also on the County Commission is Alan Maio, who is a managing partner for Kimley-Horn, a consulting firm for developers who will benefit if restrictions are weakened.  All of the other County Commissioners  are also heavily indebted to developers for their generous campaign contributions and support.

The question to be answered:  Will our County Commissioners serve the broader public who they are elected to serve or their employers and patrons in the development industry?

The Wednesday hearing is on changes to the Environment Chapter and various others.  The Friday hearing is on the Chapters for Land Use, Economic Development, Mobility and Public Utilities.

Members of the public may speak for up to five minutes at the hearings on any Chapter.  Just fill out a speaker card available at either side of the back of the room and hand it to the clerk at the front on the right, then wait until you are called. Concerned citizens should protest betrayals of the public interest in the Comprehensive Plan Update.

Among the proposed changes in the current County draft of the Environment Chapter, which will be taken up for discussion by the County Commission Wednesday are the following:

• Destroys this very important requirement on developers: “The clustering of residential developments or the implementation of other measures to first avoid, then minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts shall be required whenever areas of significant native habitats are involved.”  This would be eliminated by striking the words “shall be required” and inserting the word “Encourage” at the beginning.  [Policy 1.3.6, replacing Policy 4.5.11] 

• Allows currently prohibited environmental destruction and adverse impacts so long as they are deemed “de minimus” (minor) by the developer’s consultant and accepted by the County.  That is a potentially serious new loophole, particularly because the standard is undefined.  [Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in Native Habitats] 

• Weakens the current wetland protection being litigated in environmentalists’ challenge to the County allowing the developers of Whole Foods and Wawa stores to pave over a valuable urban wetland.  At present, if a wetland has value, it must be preserved unless “no other reasonable alternative exists.”  The amendment would allow that finding based on the “landscape context” and “long-term viability of the native habitat.”  In other words, if there is development around a valuable wetland, particularly if it is at all harmful to any habitat, the developer can use that to justify paving over the wetland. [Principles, VI.2. 

• Deletes the strict requirement for 30 foot wetland buffers and 50 foot mesic hammock buffers, providing that a developer may provide “variable buffer widths” so long as the developer’s consultant says (and the County agrees) that will provide “equal or greater native habitat value.” [Principles, VI.2.j]

•  Deletes the County Objective to “Identify, manage and protect all ecological communities, habitat corridors and wildlife, especially critical habitats and endangered, threatened, and species of special concern identified in official federal, state, or international treaty lists.”  That is replaced with a much weaker Objective to “Identify, manage, and protect ecological communities, and native habitats.”  [Obj. 1.1, replacing Obj. 4.4]

•  Deletes the requirement that prior to disturbing any listed species and its habitat, a developer must identify them by recognized sampling techniques and provide such documentation to the County.  Instead, simply prior “coordination” with the government is required and as such the species and habitat identification can be conducted later.  [Policy 2.1.3, replacing Policy 4.4.4]

•  Deletes the Policy requiring that open space in a development “favor factors such as onsite and adjacent off-site habitat connectivity”, leaving in place only a weaker policy that requires connectivity to established greenways. [Policy 1.3.3, replacing Policy 4.5.4]

•  Weakens the requirement that a developer remove invasive and nuisance vegetation in native habitats and conservation areas, by removing the word “maximum” from the present requirement that it be done “to the maximum extent practical.” [Policy 1.5.6, replacing Policy 4.6.6]

•  Weakens scrub jay protection by protecting them to “support” their persistence rather than “ensure” it, as at present. [Policy 2.1.0, replacing Policy 4.4.8]

•  Deletes the conditions of necessity and feasibility for additional access to Gulf and bay waters. [Objective 4.3, former Obj. 1.3]

•  Deletes the requirement for the development of a Beach and Inlet Management strategy.  The statement of six short bullet points that deserve “consideration” by the County in managing its beaches and inlets is not a sufficient substitute for the plan which the Chapter currently requires be created by 2015. [Policy 4.7.1, replacing Policy 1.2.3]

•  Deletes the requirement of an Urban Forestry Management Plan (which has been overdue since 2006).  The new policies proposed to, in one sentence each, promote tree canopy and community gardens are sparse and unclear and do not adequately substitute for the presently required Plan. [Policies 1.5.1 and 5.1.7, replacing Policy 4.6.1]

•  In a matter of some recent local controversy, deletes, “The County shall support and fund the Environmental Library.”  Originally, the proposal was to replace that with, “The county shall support and fund environmental education programs.”  Since public and press objections to actions even now  to dismantle the Environmental Library, on June 1 staff added to that, “including a collection of environmental resources accessible to the public through the county library system.”  However, even that wording could allow the county library system to follow through on its moves to eliminate the Environmental Library at Selby Library and disperse what remains of the collection through the broader library and to colleges and elsewhere where the materials would be accessible “through” the library system, although not in it.  [Policy 5.1.2, replacing Policy 4.7.2]

Dan Lobeck

Join Control Growth Now

Corrupt Sarasota - an eyeopening read

Cathy Antunes on Institutional Corruption in Sarasota County:

Tax dollars turning into PAC donations, County Commissioners working as lobbyists, SANCA using public money without the accountability of government procurement—these and other County practices work against the public interest. We have Institutional Corruption in Sarasota County.

Read about it here.

Reliable Unreliability: AECOM, ARGUS, and the parody of Civic Responsibility in Sarasota County, FL

The AECOM report on Fiscal Neutrality Methodology offers this interesting disclaimer:

This document was prepared solely for the use by the Client. No party may rely on this report except the Client or a party so authorized by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a reliance letter). Any party who is entitled to rely on this document may do so only on the document in its entirety and not on any excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon this document is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings from (project name) resulting from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and materials, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behaviour of consumers or competitors and changes in the owners’ policies affecting the operation of their projects. 

This hilarious spectacle of a consultant backing away from its own product comes after a series of hedges and admonitions early in the paper that repeatedly express skepticism about the very possibility of coming up with a reliable methodology. What comes across most emphatically in the AECOM report is that Fiscal Neutrality Methodology -- and in particular, the AECOM presentation to the Sarasota County Commission about it -- are what the term "unreliable" was invented to mean.

Sarasota Taxpayers paid how much for this?

Last year, when the County was choosing AECOM and planning a series of meetings with the new consultant, a group of residents asked to be included in the meetings. The idea was to avoid what has happened so often in the past: The County meets with representatives of only one side of a countywide civic issue that has at least two sides, and they hash out a "plan," which is then presented as if it were somehow the distilled brainstorm of all of the people (see, for example, what happened with the revisions to the 2050 plan.)

Citizens for Sarasota County asked that one or two residents be included so that actual people would have a voice in the process. It would have brought an added perspective, they argued. Instead, we the people have the opportunity on July 8, 2015, to kill a few minutes speaking in a hearing after all was "worked out" to the satisfaction of County staff, its "Unreliable 'R' Us" consultants, and the developers to whom their bosses owe their loyalty.

Of course the citizens' request to participate was denied -- for reasons yet to be distinctly made clear.

What is clear, on the other hand, is that the developer + finance + construction sector of the Sarasota economy has a strong and intimate relationship to the outcome of the AECOM decision: One Commissioner, Christine Robinson, is also the salaried executive director of the Developer-Driven Argus Foundation. The other four Commissioners have only offered silence when the community sought to challenge the legitimacy of a public official simultaneously required to execute the business of a private lobbying group.

Perhaps the most reliable thing to come out of any hearing about AECOM's Fiscal Neutrality Guidance document is that the Community had no say in the development of its proposals, and will have no influence over their adoption. This in fact is how things work when what you have is the very definition of an oligarchy.

Other citizens' comments on the Fiscal Neutrality Report are here.