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?

Swimming in debt - through growth

Someone might want to hand the Argus Foundation a clue:

If growth pays for itself, as we’ve so often heard in Central Florida, then local governments like Sumter County — the epicenter of The Villages’ development — must be swimming in cash. 

Instead, it’s acting like a government drowning in the costs of growth.
Sumter is so desperate for money that its five Republican county commissioners look ready to vote next week for a whopping 25.6% increase in the current property tax rate. - Orlando Sentinel

County officially drops traffic concurrency standards

Courtesy of the Sarasota News Leader

Subscribe to the SNL

County Code revision puts into effect standards for transportation analyses related to new construction, as detailed in 2016 Comprehensive Plan policy

May 30, 2019 by Rachel Brown Hackney, Editor & Publisher

Only proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and Critical Area Plans can be subjected to more intensive traffic reviews, staff says

Florida’s historic and new capitols. Courtesy State of Florida

In 2011, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 163 of the Statutes to allow local governments to either continue analyzing proposed developments for their impact on transportation systems or to use an alternate approach, which focuses not just on traffic but on upgrades to bicycle and pedestrian accesses related to the new construction.

As part of its 2016 update of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, the County Commission approved a new transportation policy that reflected the Florida Statute changes. That policy, 1.3.12, says, “Sarasota County shall continue to review individual applications for rezoning, special exceptions, and approvals under the Land Development Regulations for safety, adequate ingress and egress, compatibility, operational issues at impacted intersections and circulation, as provided in the County Code, but shall not apply traffic concurrency standards to them. The county will review proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Critical Area Plans, and take into consideration their effects on the multi-modal transportation system and the adopted levels of service, and any need for facility improvements they cause or exacerbate.”

However, Matt Osterhoudt, director of the county’s Planningand Development Services Department, explained to the board on May 21, the commission never actually approved changes to the applicable county ordinance to reflect the Comprehensive Plan modifications.

As a result, following endorsements from eight speakers, the commission did just that, on a 4-0 vote. (Commissioner Michael Moran was absent from the meeting.)

Included among the changes is language that establishes traffic impact analysis and site access assessment requirements for specific types of projects.

Osterhoudt emphasized that “more of a robust analysis” of traffic impacts is warranted with proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and Critical Area Plans (CAPs). Those reviews would include the adopted levels of service for the roads that would be affected, he said.

“Level of Service” refers to a driver’s assessment of how well traffic flows on a road, with “A” being the best level and “F” the worst.

Former Commissioner Christine Robinson of Venice — who had to step down from the board in November 2016 because of term limits — was among those eight people who applauded staff’s efforts to take the steps necessary to amending the County Code.

Former County Commissioner Christine Robinson. Image courtesy Sarasota County

Representing the Argus Foundation of Sarasota, which she serves as executive director, Robinson also pointed out that the County Commission adopted the use of mobility fees, “as a result of a technical report that was brought to [the board].” Those fees replaced the previously used transportation impact fees, she noted, which could be used just for the road network. Conversely, Robinson pointed out, mobility fees paid by developers can be used for sidewalks, for example.

“It’s up to you to decide how to use those [mobility] fees,” she told the commissioners.

Earlier on May 21, Paula Wiggins, manager of the county’s Transportation Planning Division, pointed out that mobility fees would not produce enough revenue to cover the implementation of the county’s 2040 Thoroughfare Plan. However, Wiggins noted, staff has plans for a mobility fee update in 2020.

Another speaker during the later public hearing on May 21, Dave Langhout, vice president of Kolter Homes and past president of the Manatee-Sarasota Building Industry Association, offered the latter organization’s full support of the changes in the Code of Ordinances. “I can’t help but just use one word,” he added: “Finally.”

The lone person who did not endorse the revision of the county regulations was Pine Shores Estates resident Sura Kochman. Her neighborhood borders the site of the planned Siesta Promenade mixed-use development on the northwest corner of U.S. 41 and Stickney Point Road.

A table in a county staff report in August 2018 offers these details about anticipated traffic generation related to Siesta Promenade. Image courtesy Sarasota County

During her public hearing remarks, she quoted from a June 10, 2015 memorandum from then-County Attorney Stephen DeMarsh to the commission: “If a local government adopts a mobility fee system as an alternative to concurrency, the alternative mobility funding system adopted may not be used to deny, time, or phase an application for site plan approval, plat approval, final subdivision approval, building permits, or the functional equivalent of such approvals. Notably missing from this list are rezones, special exceptions, [developments of regional impact] and similar board-level discretionary approvals. As the statue is currently written, if the Board repeals concurrency and adopts a mobility fee system, it may not only deny Comprehensive Plan amendments because of traffic impacts, but also may deny or condition rezones and similar development approvals because of adverse traffic impacts so long as any conditions imposed do not constitute a concurrency system.”

Deputy County Attorney Alan Roddy. File photo

If the ordinance changes proposed that day were approved, Kochman asked on May 21, “Does this opinion still apply?”

(Opponents of Siesta Promenade have pointed to the thousands of extra vehicles it will add to one of the county’s most congested intersections.)

Deputy County Attorney Alan Roddy, who said he believed he actually wrote the 2015 memorandum, explained that it applied to the situation prior to the 2016 update of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the opinion Kochman read would not apply if the proposed amendment to the County Code were approved.

In making the motions necessary to put the changes in effect in Chapter 94, Article 7, of the County Code of Ordinances, Commissioner Alan Maio said, “I was here in 2015. It’s exactly as Mr. Roddy said. … This is not a policy change. It’s just enacting what we did in 2016.”

Courtesy of the Sarasota News Leader

Subscribe to the SNL

WTF Entrance at Palmer Blvd and Bell Rd.

The new entrance to James Gabbert's Waste Transfer Facility (WTF) is under construction - photos taken 5.23.19.

Mr. Gabbert's new curbed entrance at Waste Transfer Facility on Palmer Blvd.
To the West is the I-75 Underpass

Sidewalk removed - when replaced, will it pass in front of industrial entrance?

Intersection Bell Rd. at Palmer - looking south from Bell to WTF entrance

Traffic heading west toward I-75 underpass on Palmer

Additional photos here

===========

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)

PAC Money, Dark Money in Sarasota FL

Astonishing half-hour talk by Cathy Antunes tracking the flow of large sums through interlinked PACs in Sarasota County, FL

Cathy Antunes on Dark Money in Sarasota Politics - anonymous PACs whose sole function is to funnel money into the campaigns of politicians who serve the interests of developers, builders, contractors. Antunes explores the relation of their interests to Charter Schools who spend 40% of their revenues on rent paid to real estate groups from whom they lease their school buildings.

At the center lies Eric Robinson, whose accounting firm channels money at the behest of big donors like Pat Neal, James Gabbert (waste plant at Celery Fields), Rex Jensen (Lakewood Ranch), Gary Kompothecras (Siesta Key), Benderson Development and Carlos Beruff. It also earns rather hefty fees for its "consulting" work, notes Antunes.

The money flows from these developers to PACs run by an elected official (Robinson is on the Sarasota County School Board) to Republican political campaigns. A former head of the Republican Party in Sarasota, Bob Waechter, is active in finding malleable candidates for the County Commission, School Board, Hospital Board, Charter Review Board and other races.

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.

Phoenix Sun: A compendium of brute Benderson/Blacketter tactics

FACE OF $70 MILLION BENDERSON ROWING FACILITY IS "INTOXICATED, ABUSIVE, OUT OF CONTROL"---PAUL BLACKKETTER

BY JON SUSCE

With more than 42,000 rowers, coaches and support staff from across the globe planning on traveling to Southwest Florida for the 2017 World Rowing Championships at Nathan Benderson Park, THE SARASOTA PHOENIX has come into possession of a video which clearly shows Randy Benderson's "point man" for the event, a wild, out of control, abusive and intoxicated Paul Blackketter, verbally abusing and physically threatening a fellow employee of the Benderson rowing facility.

The video clearly depicts a completely out of control, enraged Blackketter, no doubt verbally abusing a fellow employee with the most foul, disgusting and repulsive language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDhyd1Yk0TA

[GO TO THIS YOUTUBE LINK TO VIEW BACKKETTER VIDEO]

Blackketter is the six figure ($175,000) Executive Director of the Randy Benderson controlled entity called Suncoast Aquatic Nature Center Associates (SANCA), which under Blackketter's direction manages the Nathan Benderson rowing facility. Blackketter, as mentioned above is also Benderson's point man indirecting the operations for the 2017 international rowing event and all other events at the facility.

Link goes to an earlier version of this story, which is still developing. . .

Blacketter

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.

Just a few of the 304 comments by Citizens of Sarasota about Argus and Robinson - have you signed?

Robinson's Conflict of Interest: Step down from Argus or the County Commission

Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government

The Petition1 Highlight304 Comments814 Signatures

The obligation of a Sarasota County Commissioner to serve the public interest must not be compromised by competing responsibilities to a special interest group. We the signatories call upon Christine Robinson to step down as Argus Foundation Executive Director, or resign the Sarasota County Commission. It is an unacceptable conflict of interest to do both jobs at the same time.

Background: Last November, Christine Robinson accepted an offer to serve as executive director of the Argus Foundation in 2015. The Argus Foundation represents the interests of over 170 members from development, legal, financial and other business sectors. Argus lobbies County government on a variety of issues, including impact fees, land use decisions and SRQ Airport governance. Argus also lobbies the City of Sarasota on issues including elected mayor, strong City manager, Newton redevelopment, and Downtown development. The executive director of Argus frequently weighs in with City and County Commissioners on these and other issues.

The Argus website states "The Argus Foundation has established liaisons with city, county, state and federal governments.....Activities of the various governmental bodies are monitored and positions are taken on selected issues. With the broad background and practical expertise of the members of The Argus Foundation, we are in a position to advise and assist public officials in decisions that will affect the life-style, environment and economic well-being of our area now and in the future." http://argusfoundation.org/

Argus is a long established local lobbying organization. This is Conflict of Interest 101. In DC elected officials leave office before working as lobbyists. This ill-considered move by a Sarasota County Commissioner sets a much lower standard.

As Mollie Cardamone, former Mayor of the City of Sarasota put it "Christine Robinson cannot represent both the citizens who elected her and the Argus members, the employers who are paying for her support and leadership in accomplishing their goals. Will she go out front to the podium and state the case for Argus like [former Argus Executive Director] Kerry [Kirschner] did and then run around to her commission seat and vote? It is my opinion she cannot serve two masters!"

Mrs. Robinson cannot faithfully execute her duties to the public free from undue influence while she is also Executive Director of Argus. We call on Christine Robinson to do the right thing. Embrace sound ethical standards. Resolve this conflict of interest. Step down as Argus Foundation Executive Director, or resign the Sarasota County Commission. It is an unacceptable conflict of interest to do both.

HIGHLIGHT

February 17

We are now live!