Growth a health, safety and welfare issue?

Miami Herald:

Valerie Preziosi and her husband, Jan Svejkovsky, left their home on Big Pine Key on Friday, along with their two cats. They booked a hotel room in Orlando but then changed course for Waldo, in north-central Florida, when the hotel didn’t answer their calls. Then, as Irma wobbled, Waldo found itself at risk of flooding. Like many evacuees, they had fled from one danger zone to another. So they drove even further north to Macon, Georgia.

In Irma, Florida became a giant bottleneck . . . 

The article in the Miami Herald raises unsettling questions for Bill Zoller:

Could growth (or too much of it) be a “health, safety, and welfare” issue? 

It is sometimes surprising how something like an Irma can trigger unexpected issues. The question of evacuation routes in Sarasota County is one that has bounced around for years (think: River Road), and eventually it has seemed to get a big shrug. In the event of a hurricane’s taking direct aim on Sarasota, can our government assure us that it would be possible to evacuate?  If not, what are the implications? That question must be answered…by our government officials.  Shall we ask them?

Updates:

A lesson from Hurricane Irma: capitalism can’t save the planet – it can only destroy it - George Monbiot

The Suburb of the Future, Almost Here

Letter to Sarasota Planning: Traffic and construction

It is time that health and safety be at the front end of ANY building proposal and approval process. Although there are other health and safety needs, the traffic issue needs to be on the forefront. Nothing should be considered or approved without a thorough look at the proposed impact on traffic. The data is there but hasn't been used in that fashion. It's time that the County and the FDOT traffic and accident data be studied together for this purpose. 

It must become a priority component of the building approval process.
If you have thoughts on how to make this happen, I am all ears.
This step is a win win for all. The developers can't say it's a costly study because it isn't and the data just needs to be pulled in that fashion so the planners shouldn't complain either and the residents and visitors all benefit. And instead of spending additional tax payer dollars to modify high accident intersections and roads after a tipping point of accidents occur, new building will be approved on the merits of it not adding further burden to high traffic/ high accident areas. 

I have yet to hear any good reason why this shouldn't happen. 

The only feedback I have gotten is that one entity feels this change fits better with another entity. In other words they say, I don't know what to do with this and it looks like it's someone else's problem to fix. Please take this on! 

Sincerely, 

Vicki Nighswander MAT, MPH