Bay Park under threat of commercialization, and a Control Growth Now Picnic

Development interests have their eyes on our parks. 

Both Warm Mineral Springs in North Port and The Bay Park in Sarasota are at risk.  Unfortunately, some in both City governments are supportive of plans to convert public lands to private gain.

Most immediately, on Monday March 20, the Sarasota City Commission will consider measures to facilitate opening up the 53 acres of City-owned bayfront known as The Bay to extensive private development.

The City Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend denial.  The City Commission should do the same.

Phase 1 of The Bay project has been wonderful, with environmental and civic improvements consistent with the present limits on development.

However, the private interests behind the Bay Park Conservancy, represented by Bill Merrill and Phil DiMaria, an attorney and planner respectively for developers including Benderson, are seeking changes that would open the door to extensive commercial and other private development in The Bay Park moving forward.

At present, most of The Bay Park is limited under the City’s Comprehensive Plan to “Recreation, Entertainment, Museum, and Cultural Facilities - (Civic Center Complex).”  That is exactly what is planned there now, in the City’s Master Plan for The Bay Park.

The north end, now called Centennial Park, is instead designated “Open Space-Recreation-Conservation.” Only “minimal” development for “food, beverage, and entertainment uses” is allowed, but “the type and scale of activities which have been associated with the ‘Marina Jack’ facility” are prohibited.  Again, this is consistent with the present Bay Park Master Plan, which includes only one modest “food and beverage” building in that area.

All of this would be replaced by the Comprehensive Plan amendments up for public hearing and approval Monday morning.

The new wording provides broadly for a “flexible mixed-used district” for all 53 acres.  Without any limits, the following would be allowed (emphasis added):  “uses including but not limited to parks and open space, government uses, restaurants, performing arts centers, museums and cultural facilities, galleries, retail, and mixed-use development with a maximum residential allowance for 10 live/work units within (The Bay Park).”

At present, the City Charter requires a supermajority vote of the City Commission (at least 4 to 1) to loosen the present restrictions on development in The Bay Park, as a Comprehensive Plan amendment.  If the amendments up on Monday are approved (by that supermajority vote) then any limits will only require a regular 3 to 2 vote, in the Zoning Code.

This is the same move in which development interests and their supporters in City government failed (by one vote short of a Commission supermajority) to move limits on downtown building heights from the Comp Plan to the Zoning Code.  It is the same as what they tried and succeeded (4 to 1) for density increases in much of the City.

Already, the Bay Park Conservancy has proposed massive restaurant development on the north end of The Bay Park, far more than in presently allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. In a Powerpoint to the City Commission, they presented plans for three-level restaurant buildings on all three sides of the boat basin, totaling 26,000 square feet of rooftop dining and 14,750 square feet of indoor dining, for a total of 40,750 square feet. Compare for example, the large Selva Grill restaurant in the UTC Town Center, at 5,000 square feet.   

Who knows what other commercial development they have planned in our public park?

The amendments would also eliminate public hearings and votes of the Planning Board and City Commission for Bay Park site plans and replace them with backroom administrative approval by supportive City staff.   

Although those site plans would have to be consistent with a one-page graphic which is the “Master Plan” adopted by the City Commission, already the Bay Park Conservancy shows how they can depart from that if they get administrative approval.  Amazingly, they contend that their extensive restaurant plan is consistent with the Master Plan when clearly it is not.

BPC leaders have also said that the Master Plan is “outdated” and should be changed in ways they do not disclose.

A requirement for a “public community workshop” prior to administrative approval “for structures of less than 10,000 square feet” was added.   That’s an obvious typo in that “less” should be “more.” Not only is that meaningless due to that size (none of the BPC’s restaurant buildings are over 10,000 square feet) but a workshop is no substitute for public hearings and Commission votes.

City Commissioners should vote NO on Monday.

Dan Lobeck, Esq.

Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.
2033 Main Street, Suite 403
Sarasota, FL  34237
(941) 955-5622

=======

Control Growth Now Annual Potluck Picnic

Saturday, March 25

11:30 am – 2 pm

Colonial Oaks Park, 5300 Colonial Oaks Blvd, Sarasota, FL

 

Please register today:  https://www.eventbrite.com/e/571055280717

 

Free and Open to the Public!  Come to Control Growth Now's Annual Meeting and Potluck Picnic at beautiful Colonial Oaks Park Saturday, March 25 from 11:30 am to 2 pm.  

Please register for yourself and anyone you are bringing with you. Enjoy our grilled burgers, hotdogs, veggie burgers and drinks -- bring a side dish or dessert to share if you like -- in the good company of people who care about the future of our community.  

At a short meeting in the clubhouse we will honor Valerie Buchand as our Citizen of the Year for her good work in bettering the quality of life in the Newtown Community and throughout Sarasota. Join Control Growth Now if you like, or renew your membership for 2023-24 (annual dues $20 – an option on the Eventbrite registration) or just be our very welcome guest!

                                                                                        -- Dan Lobeck    

An Evacuation Route next to a river

ManaSota-88, Inc.  a 501.c3 Public Health and Environmental Organization

AN EVACUATION ROUTE NEXT TO A RIVER River Road is a major hurricane evacuation route for south Sarasota County, Englewood and north Charlotte County. It is a great example of the historic and current  lack of thought given to hurricane evacuation when approving development. River Road is apply named as a large portion of the road parallels Myakka River, which makes it a very undesirable hurricane evacuation route. River Road is woefully inadequate to safely move residents out of harm’s way. The increase in residential density that has occurred adjacent to River Road leaves existing residents of Sarasota and Charlotte counties extremely vulnerable to the devastating effects of a hurricane. There are still thousands of homes planned for the area. There is no reason to continue to compound the mistakes of the past.  River Road already creates a dangerous hurricane evacuation situation, increasing density along River Road will not correct the mistakes of the past, it will put more people in harm’s way. The City of North Port previously expressed significant concerns regarding River Road as a hurricane evacuation route: There should be concerns regarding the impacts to River Road, this is a failing roadway and adding ever more trips just makes the failures that much more imminent as this is a hurricane evacuation route serving North Port, unincorporated Sarasota County, and Englewood… Finally, there should be concern whether or not there is the need for more home sites in southern Sarasota County at this time. The West Villages Improvement District in North Port has been approved for 15,000 Dwelling Unit's (DU's), Sarasota National in unincorporated Sarasota County has approximately 1900 DU's approved, and Stoneybrook at Venice has a similar number, therefore, almost 20,000 potential DU's have been approved to be located in roughly a 2-mile area. River Road still is and will always be an inappropriate hurricane evacuation route. But this problem could have been avoided. Hurricane evacuation should have been a priority in approving any development that relies on River Road as an evacuation route.

ManaSota-88 Website ManaSota-88 Email Phosphate Risk Website Copyright ©  2017 ManaSota-88, Inc. All rights reserved. Please support our efforts. Tax-deductible contributions should be mailed to:  ManaSota-88, Inc. P.O. Box 1728 Nokomis, Florida 34274 (941)966-6256 A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING TOLL-FREE 1-800-435-7352 WITHIN THE STATE, REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE."WWW.FLORIDACONSUMERHELP.COM  REGISTRATION # CH762

Impact Fees, Large Development, Celebration for Wade Matthews

from Dan Lobeck

Important Meetings of the Week

Tuesday, November 8, 1:30 pm, Anderson Center, 400 S. Tamiami Trail, Venice
Sarasota County Commission
Public Hearing on Increasing or Delaying Various Impact Fees

The County Commission will act on a consultant’s recommendation to finally update and increase – after 10 years – impact fees on new development to help pay for expansions of various facilities to serve that development.  The fees are for parks, libraries, fire, emergency medical services, law enforcement, justice (courts and jails) and general government.  They do not include impact fees for schools and transportation, which remain seriously lowballed.

The consultant has recommended that the miscellaneous impact fees rise for an average single family home less than 38%, from $4,397 to $6,061.

The County Commission has delayed this adjustment repeatedly over the past year but is finally poised to vote. 

The biggest problem is that although staff has for many months recommended full funding without delay, they are now proposing that the adjusted fees be phased in over three years (80% effective April 1, 2017, 90% April 1, 2018 and 100% April 1, 2019), based on push-back from some County Commissioners. 

This comes at a time when the County Commission plans to borrow tens of millions of dollars, to be funded with probable tax hikes over time, for expansion of government facilities for which there is insufficient money due to the impact fees being too low for too long.  The borrowing will be divided by projects to fall below the bonding cap beyond which the County Charter requires a voter referendum, which the County Commission previously planned but abandoned.

A further delay will cost the taxpayers substantial needed funds, just to serve the developers who control County government.



Wednesday, November 9, 1:30 pm, County Administration Building, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota

Development East of I-75: LT Ranch

Sarasota County Commission
Public Hearing on LT Ranch/ Clark Road Properties Village Development

Maps for LT Ranch 

This huge Sarasota 2050 “Village” would be east of I-75 south of Clark Road where it meets the Bee Ridge Extension – 3,450 dwellings and 300,000 square feet of nonresidential development (mainly a large shopping center on Clark Road) on 1,725 acres.  Severe traffic problems would be created on Clark Road from Proctor Road to the Bee Ridge Extension and on Proctor Road from Cattlemen Road to Clark Road, requiring the widening of those roads from four to two lanes.  The development would however only contribute a share of that expense, leaving the rest on the taxpayers. It also is not clear who would pay for a southern extension of the Bee Ridge Extension to serve the development.  Also, the Greenbelt setback along Clark Road would be reduced from 500 to 10 feet (a matter within the discretion of the County Commission), destroying the rural ambiance which that setback is intended to serve. 

The development would destroy much natural habitat, including 20 acres of mesic hammock, 86 acres of mixed wetland hardwoods (100% of the ones on the property), 30 acres of freshwater marsh,11 acres (again 100%) of streams and waterways, and apparently an eagle’s nest on the commercial site.  This is in addition to the fact that the County Commission previously excused this development from getting its densities by buying and transferring them from off-site Greenways, just giving them to the site instead when the developer complained that the Greenway requirement was “too expensive.”

The requirement that Sarasota 2050 Villages be walkable New Urbanist communities would be destroyed and replaced with a standard subdivision and shopping center by 15 “modifications”, including by allowing gated communities, changing public civic uses to private clubhouses, allowing longer cul-sacs and dead-end streets and changing requirements for setbacks, block configurations, intersections, roadway designs, alleys, street trees, multiuse trails and sidewalks and the public greens, square and plaza for the commercial center.


The fiscal neutrality analysis employs tricks to conclude that the development will pay its own way by the usual taxes and impact fees, such as by assuming no special costs for law enforcement and emergency rescue to reach this eastern sprawl, and assuming no need to contribute to capital repairs and renovations of existing schools despite the fact no new middle or high school is planned for the development, from which 598 new public school students are expected.  Also as to schools, impact fees are deemed fully adequate for the development’s share of the seven new elementary schools, two middle schools and two high schools which the School District projects will be needed by the time this development is built out, even though the School Board and County Commission have only set school impact fees at 26% of what the consultant says is needed for that purpose.

Thursday, November 10, 2016, 7 pm
Michael's on East Wine Cellar, Midtown Plaza,1283 Tamiami Trail South, Sarasota 

Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations 55th Anniversary Party,
A fundraiser benefiting CONA’s college scholarship fund, honoring Wade Matthews, retiring Sarasota Audubon Society conservation chair -- hors d'oeuvres, music, c ash bar, special door prizes.  Ticket donation: $50/ person.  RSVP to CONA Here.

Detox Sarasota: Vote August 30th

The Detail:

Since 1973, every single Sarasota County Commissioner has been a Republican. Every. single. one.

Where are we today? Corruption. Over-Development. Traffic. An environment that is turning toxic.

Corruption - Notorious Jim Ley memo gathering the cabal of developer/owners leading to the evisceration of the 2050 plan:

Thanks Jim!

Overdevelopment - Gated communities receive approval in defiance of the (vitiated) Comp Plan. Whole Foods wins permission from County Commission to pave a wetland:

Traffic

The Sarasota County Commission election is on August 30th, not November 8th.

Going Stupid

Anyone who has spent half a day in S. Florida knows that the folks over there blew it. Growth created hell, and it extends even to public lands. Here's an advisory from a public parks site near Avvventura:

* ALERT: PARK CAPACITY 

Once the park reaches capacity no one will be allowed to enter until space becomes available. If you have rented a pavilion, hosting an event or have been invited to an event please plan accordingly because you will not be allowed to re-enter until space is available. 

This is, simply put, stupid growth. For years, Sarasota County has tried to rein in cupidity and stupidity -- to allow for a slower, more organic, thoughtful pace of development.

Dan Lobeck's analyses of the new Comp Plan heading for State review convincingly show that smart growth is over:

Neighborhoods, Mobility under Attack

Nature at Risk

And Jono Miller notes a change that could make hunting in parks not the exception, but the norm:

On Friday the tenth of June 2016, the County Commission may consider amending PARKS Policy 1.1.5 to allow recreational hunting in areas voters were promised would not experience consumptive uses or activities that were not ecologically benign.

Jono's complete post is here.

What's behind all this?  

Start with Cathy Antunes on the dark money propelling these changes. 

And listen to Cathy's new show Friday at 2 pm on SRQ.

Is this the year Sarasota County officially goes Stupid?

Jeff LaHurd: With rampant development, Sarasota's charm is gone

via the Herald Tribune

By Jeff LaHurd, Guest Columnist

Published: Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 1:02 p.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 1:02 p.m.

Sarasota has always been about growth and development. They are the threads that run throughout our history, extending from the Scot Colony, which arrived in 1885, expecting to find a town, to the construction of the high-rise buildings being shoehorned throughout the community. Today, though, it is rampant.

There was a hiatus after the real-estate crash of 1926 that continued through the Great Depression and World War II. But that was an unintentional aberration.

In May 1955, Professor Ellis Freeman, who had been vacationing in Sarasota since the 1930s and who built the Four Seasons Apartments on Ben Franklin Drive, wrote of the beauty and atmosphere of the area: “The town had the tone and charm of a fishing village ... Artists and writers and professors like myself loved it for the complete absence of resort commercialism. It was what one hoped to find on Cape Cod and never did.”

Too bad the Sarasota he described did not take a page out of the handbook that Boca Grande planner's used. Better yet, an entire chapter: The one titled, “When Is Enough Enough?” That beautiful community to the south did not sell out; it did not build itself into extinction.

Instead, we embrace wholesale development on a scale certain to erase the very qualities that made Sarasota so singularly beautiful, relaxed and appealing to tourists and residents.

Look at an aerial photograph of the Sarasota core of 1955 and compare it with a contemporary shot. You do not have to be a misty-eyed sentimentalist to understand how much was sacrificed.

The lovely aesthetic that characterized yesteryear is continually razed in favor of a mind-set that believes that more is better. Despite some political resistance, in the end Sarasota never met a developer or a project that it did not embrace wholeheartedly.

It is worse than ever, and there seems to be no end in sight. Adjacent to already clogged streets, more hotels, apartments and condominiums, housing developments and shopping centers are planned. For motorists already angry and frustrated at the interminable delays, it is akin to stuffing 20 pounds of potatoes into a 10-pound sack.

Yesterday's charm has devolved into today's congestion.

During the post-World War II boom of the mid-'50s, local author Mary Freeman warned that Sarasota might turn into “an imitation Miami.” She offered hopefully, “But we can still take things in hand ... but the citizens must make a more intelligent and louder noise than the speculator. Otherwise he'll destroy our unique assets ...”

And we have raised our voices. When U.S. 41 was cut through Luke Wood Park in the mid-'50s, writer Betty Burkett spoke for many when she called it “A deed so ugly that it will remain like a welt across the minds of our people for decades to come.” It made no difference.

And it mattered not at all when there was public outcry against the removal of the Memorial Oak Trees beginning in 1955 — it was in the name of progress, we were told. Same with the years of struggle to save the John Ringling Towers and the Karl Bickel House in the late 1990s. Oftentimes citizens railed against the demolition of a cherished part of their past and to no avail. We even voted to save the Lido Casino — it was razed.

Perhaps the Jack Cartlidge sculpture outside City Hall explains it best. It's called “Nobody's listening.”

I read in the Herald-Tribune recently that, in spite of all the new construction, some of the millennials are having a difficult time finding affordable housing and are leaving Sarasota.

I empathize with them, but for me and my generation of Baby Boomers, we don't have to worry about leaving Sarasota. It has left us.

Jeff LaHurd is a Sarasota resident, historian and author.

Comment by Bill Z:


Those of us who grew up here, or have been here for a long time, know exactly what Jeff is talking about. Bit by bit, development nibbled, then chomped away at those things that gave Sarasota its sleepy charm. Florida boosterism continued its incessant message to "come on down", and, sure enough, they came. For a long time, the numbers were not too alarming, and development proceeded fairly slowly and in small bites. Soon, though, the rumble of earthscrapers, bulldozers, and the like was a constant hum as roads were widened, new roads were built, and more and more houses grew. It became very profitable to grow houses instead of food, so agricultural uses were pushed farther and farther out, which meant to the east. In the "old days", folks had chickens in their back yards...no special CLUCK ordinances needed.


As development and its costs, in loss of environment and in money, continued apace, voices were, indeed raised in calls for better plans, for control, for better rules of the game. For a long time, these voices were actually listened to, and bad proposals were often turned down. It did not take too long, though, for those who wanted free rein to do what they wanted, to figure out that the easiest solution to the getting rid of pesky limitations would be simply to elect those who made the final decisions...the city and county commissioners. They realized that all it took was a lot of money to get enough publicity out for the candidates they wanted, and against the candidates they did not want, and, voila, a docile board of commissioners! Before they learned how to play this game very skillfully, we actually had some commissioners who had the long-term interests of the entire county at heart...Jon Thaxton comes to mind immediately. After Jon was termed out several years ago, he applied to be appointed to the Planning Commission...and was denied a seat! Jono Miller, one of the top environmentalists here, ran for County Commission and was targeted by development interests in an exceedingly vicious advertising campaign...he was defeated. Lourdes Ramirez, another leading neighborhood advocate and an expert in Sarasota's land use issues, ran for County Commission and was not only targeted in another vicious advertising campaign, but Bob Waechter, a development activist, actually committed a felony identity theft thing in order to discredit her with voters. Think about it: given the experiences of those who oppose rampant, unchecked development in recent elections, would you want to subject yourself to the same thing?


There is one thing, though: citizens can propose charter amendments, get 13,000 petitions, and get them on the ballot... it is the only thing that cannot be controlled by the FOD (Forces Of Darkness). They can mount advertising campaigns against them, as they did when Citizens for Sensible Growth proposed its amendments, but the amendments passed overwhelmingly, because the voters understood what was at stake.... Even county commissioners cannot overrule the charter!


Any ideas for amendments??

Who ordered this?

via the Herald Tribune:

Traffic in the Sarasota metropolitan area jumped 152 percent in February compared with the same month last year, according to traffic and transportation analytics firm INRIX.

Because of traffic delays, the average trip took a Sarasota driver 7.4 percent longer in February than during the same month in 2014, the Kirkland, Washington-based company reports.

Meanwhile, the two-county region's year-round population is back in growth mode. On top of the 702,000 people who lived here in 2010, there will be 81,600 more by 2020, pushing the total close to 800,000, U.S. Census projections suggest.

Last week, the region's main traffic planning group published a report showing that 13 percent of Sarasota County corridors and 18 percent of Manatee's already are heavily congested. Out of possible congestion grades of A, B, C, D, E or F, that means, in general, that an eighth of our corridors get a D or worse grade.

More...

Overdevelopment moves onward and upward

Residents' Over-development Pleas Fall on Deaf Ears at BOCC Meeting

Published Friday, January 9, 2015 12:09 am

by John Rehill

BRADENTON — At Thursday's Land Use meeting, Manatee County Commissioners once again listened to the impassioned pleas of citizens with deaf ears, approving a 1,103 residential unit development despite widespread opposition and logical concerns.

It was #10, the last item on the agenda, and the 30 or more residents who came to the dais, did so to defend their way of life and the qualities that brought them to rural Manatee County. They were more prepared than most groups that are later forced to shield themselves from over-development.

The project: 803 single-family detached units, plus a 300 multi-family structure and 100,000 square feet of commercial/retail on 441 acres south of 69th Street East, east of I-75.

Residents from neighboring developments said they were totally opposed to multi-family buildings, the high density that was requested, the destruction of wetlands and wildlife, and the considerable commercial retail that was involved.

The Manatee County Planning Commissionrecommended denial on December 11, 2014 by a vote of 4-1, with some members stating the project was inconsistent with the county's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.

Resident Donna Meadows said, there are sand hill cranes, scrub jays, indigos, hawks owls and alligators in the proposed site, most of which are endangered.

John Ward questioned Margaret Tusing's (Manatee County's principal planner) obligations to the the county, and the appearance of rubber stamping without adequate knowledge of the facts. Ward also expressed strict concerns to the impacts to schools, the environment and the additional traffic from the more than 3,000 additional cars that will occupy the only road.

Charles Chappione, who came with well over 100 signatures from other residents opposing the project, said the road wasn't able to handle the traffic, that the schools were already at 130 percent of capacity and that the density wasn't compatible with the area.

There were many, many more who spoke about how the safety of the bridge, the wearing roads and the deadly turn needed to enter or exit Buffalo Road would be amplified by all of the additional traffic.

It became almost embarrassing to all who were there to hear commissioners twist and turn those concerns around, as if those who spoke didn't know what they were talking about.

The vote was 5-2 to approve, with Commissioners Robin DiSabatino and Charles Smith voting against the project. Stay tuned for more on this issue in our Sunday edition. 

=====

Comment shared by Bill Zoller:

For whom does the bell toll? It tolls for thee..... the bell is being sounded in Manatee and Sarasota Counties as compliant commissions approve more and more development in our rural areas. By 2050, the world's population will have increased by 60%; that many more people to feed. How does our 2050 Plan recognize or address our area's responsibility to be part of providing food for its population? It doesn't. We will live on manna from heaven, I suppose. Our commissioners have an extreme focus on the short term, somehow thinking their most important task is to grow jobs, jobs, jobs. Their main means to that end is to build, build, build..... Sadly, they are choosing to encourage building, building, building on the land that will be needed to grow food one day. They call it "planning". To paraphrase King Richard III, "A cow, a cow...my kingdom for a cow!"

"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

What is the cost of deteriorated wildlife habitats?

Reposted from the Herald Tribune -

NEW: Wildlife numbers cut in half, group says

Canada lynx

FILE - In this April 19, 2005 file photo, a Canada lynx heads into the Rio Grande National Forest after being released near Creede, Colo. Canada lynx gained federal protections in New Mexico on Thursday, Sept. 11, 2014, but U.S. wildlife officials again declined to designate critical habitat for the elusive wild cats in the Southern Rockies, parts of New England and other areas not considered essential to their survival. The two-part finding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service means the forest-dwlling lynx will be protected as threatened throughout the lower 48 states. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)

ASSOCIATED PRESS

JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press

Published: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 5:49 a.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 5:49 a.m.

GENEVA - Populations of about 3,000 species of wildlife around the world have plummeted far worse than previously thought, according to a new study by one of the world's biggest environmental groups.

The study Tuesday from the Swiss-based WWF largely blamed human threats to nature for a 52-percent decline in wildlife populations between 1970 and 2010.

It says improved methods of measuring populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles explain the huge difference from the 28-percent decline between 1970 and 2008 that the group reported in 2012.

Most of the new losses were found in tropical regions, particularly Latin America.

WWF describes the study it has carried out every two years since 1998 as a barometer of the state of the planet.

"There is no room for complacency," said WWF International Director General Marco Lambertini, calling for a greater focus on sustainable solutions to the impacts that people are inflicting on nature, particularly through the release of greenhouse gases.

The latest "Living Planet" study analyzed data from about 10,000 populations of 3,038 vertebrate species from a database maintained by the Zoological Society of London. It is meant to provide a representative sampling of the overall wildlife population in the world, said WWF's Richard McLellan, editor-in-chief of the study.

It reflects populations since 1970, the first year the London-based society had comprehensive data. Each study is based on data from at least four years earlier.

Much of the world's wildlife has disappeared in what have been called five mass extinctions, which were often associated with giant meteor strikes. About 90 percent of the world's species were wiped out around 252 million years ago. One such extinction about 66 million years ago killed off the dinosaurs and three out of four species on Earth.

In the new WWF study, hunting and fishing along with continued losses and deterioration of natural habitats are identified as the chief threats to wildlife populations around the world. Other primary factors are global warming, invasive species, pollution and disease.

"This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live," said Ken Norris, science director at the London society. "There is still hope. Protecting nature needs focused conservation action, political will and support from industry."

See also: rewilding