Showing posts with label sustainable development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainable development. Show all posts

Thursday, September 3, 2020

Sarasota's new candidates have a lot to say -- but will the public get the chance to hear them?

In our area right now, we are fortunate to have several candidates who are knowledgeable and articulate on a broad range of environmental issues.

Unfortunately, the current state of local media is such that it's likely very little broad public attention will be given to our area's local candidates or issues in the 2020 General Election. More on this below.

Here's a brief intro to five of these challengers, all of whom have made the environment a key plank in their respective platforms:



Andy Mele has a long and strong history of advocacy in both New York and Florida, where he's led Suncoast Waterkeeper as well as taking a lead role in opposing the huge gypsum mining firm Mosaic. Andy is running for Florida House District 71.





Mark Pienkos is running against incumbent Mike Moran in District 1, where large-scale developments are getting approved and moving eastward at an accelerated rate. Pienkos sees serious custodianship of the environment as integral to maintaining Sarasota's highly regarded quality of life.




Cory Hutchinson is running for the County Commission against Nancy Detert in District 3 - the Venice area. One key element of his platform is renewable energy. Hutchinson also wants to prioritize infrastructure repairs, to stop sewage spills into our water.






"Our environment is everything," says Alice White, "it's why we chose to live here." White, who's running for the District 5 County Commission seat, has been a longtime North Port voice for good planning and good planting -- In fact she's known as "The Tree Lady."          





Brian Kelly
 is a candidate for Venice City Council and a lifelong resident of Sarasota. A co-founder of Hands Along the Water, his focus is to preserve our lands from over-development, to protect our water quality and the environment as a whole, and to extend the reach of public health. "We must protect our natural resources," he says, adding, "our state's fragile environment is at risk from powerful interests. I am frustrated by developers' destruction for short-term gains. Our kids will pay the ultimate price if we don't act now."



There's a lot more about the County Commission districts, candidates and issues at Citizens for District Power.

From the sudden spate of super hotels planned for Siesta Key to the efforts of the Old Miakka Community in the most rural eastern portion of Northeast Sarasota, some of the most significant local issues have to do with the impacts of planning and intense development upon the environment.

Each candidate is following his or her individual conscience and commitment, but behind their concerns looms a larger common question, lurking in Red Tide, in storm surges, in ever-stronger hurricanes, in polluted aquifers, in the disappearance of rural life: Is our way of living reaching a breaking point? 

Where are the public debates?

None of these challengers is accepting developer handouts. All deserve to be better known. Voters deserve sustained, illuminating, in-depth discussion at this critical time.  

No public debates were organized by the corporate media in Sarasota during the August Primaries. The Herald Tribune is not staging any forums or debates for the General Election. And here's no word as of yet from WWSB-Ch 7, or the Observer, or any or our corporate media as to how they will cover the election.

Two local groups are holding online forums: - click the links to obtain their schedules: 

Tiger Bay and the League of Women Voters are organizing Zoom Forum events.

Are our media trying to socially distance themselves from these issues? Some residents think so. If you feel that candidates running without large funding from developers deserve more media attention, please sign this Petition:

Monday, June 29, 2020

What this man said about our neighbors is true of Florida

Thoughts shared by a man who has seen what is happening to the tourism industry in the Caribbean. Perhaps his thinking has some relevance for Florida:


The Caribbean: Thoughts on the Way Forward post COVID

By Hugh Magbie

"The discussion about whether to open or not should be easy. Don’t put anyone’s life at risk for [money]. That one is simple. Tourism has been the easy way out for the Caribbean. Slap-up some hotels, a dock, an airport and they will come. A little money trickles down to the “ natives, but most of tourism’s dollars go to the rich mainland owned corporations. Tourism has become the prime source of GDP for most islands.

The pandemic has changed all of that, even if tourism comes back to “normal”, many businesses have closed forever.

The massive layoffs mean increased homelessness, hunger, and crime. All at the same time we’re fighting a pandemic.

Most islands will not have contingency plans for such a catastrophe.

Think of St Thomas, six mega cruise ships a day, a day! The economy of St Thomas is dependent on those ships coming.

That’s not gonna happen for some time. No matter how hopeful and confident the cruise executives are, the fact remains the pandemic is raging in the US.

St Croix gets one or two ships a week but it has a lot of small businesses and an oil refinery, a more diverse economy. It also has an excellent internet infrastructure.

Now is the time for a comprehensive regional plan one encompassing as many islands that would wish to join.

Our mission?

To create a sustainable, growing economy that is diverse in its components, utilizing governmental grants assistance in transforming our islands into technologically advanced, locally invented and developed and sold to the world.

We could be world leaders in renewable energy, being blessed with the everlasting trade winds and abundant sunlight. Windmills and solar would decentralize our electrical systems, now reliant on Inefficient, expensive white elephants. They should also be user-owned electric co-ops.

I have a patent in wireless technology, it’s in every phone. It did not take millions to develop, it took brainpower, the collaboration of five minds, providing sweat equity.

Apple, developed in a garage, Microsoft, in a house, Facebook, in a dorm, and none of us have a degree.

There are thousands of engineers and scientists in the Caribbean and many more thousands working abroad.

There are industries that we need to develop; biotech, gasification plants to convert our garbage into natural gas, finding pharmaceuticals from our natural plants and seaweed, cannabis agriculture, food sustainability and eradicating hunger.

We must also serve the people, setting up some sort of Democratic socialism that provides the basic needs for all.

The engine that makes all of this run is education. Quality, high-quality education dedicated to the potential of each student is vital. Just a few thoughts."

==+==

For more thinking in this line, see this brief talk by Kate Raworth:




Monday, February 29, 2016

Proposed changes to DRI Review


Sarasota County is seeking your input on proposed changes to the application and review process for Developments of Regional Impact and Developments of Critical Concern.
 
What are these development types?
  • Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs):  developments of more than 2,000 dwelling units.
  • Developments of Critical Concern (DOCCs):  developments including 1,000 to 2,000 dwelling units.
 
Why are changes being proposed?
Because of their large scale, DRIs and DOCCs have historically required a coordinated and clearly-defined review process by local, state and regional agencies.
 
DRIs:
In 2015, the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 1216, which eliminated the DRI review process and requirements for new large scale developments:
  • eliminating the existing review process and requirements for DRI applications and
  • instituting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process for large scale developments.
 
DOCCs:
Sarasota County's DOCC review process was not impacted by this statutory change, but now is ripe for re-evaluation.
 
What changes are being proposed?
Eliminate a separate DOCC application and ordinance for new projects, and amend the rezone application requirements for large-scale developments (encompassing both DRIs and DOCCs).
 
The amended application requirements would include:
  • requiring a methodology meeting prior to application submittal
  • an addendum to the rezone application specifically for large-scale projects
  • additional analysis based on the application addendum
 
How can you share your thoughts on this process?
The Planning and Development Services Department will be collecting public comment between now and March 21, 2016, in preparation for anApril 26, 2016, County Commission discussion. Please reserve time to speak with planning staff about the proposed changes by calling 941-861-5000 or emailing planner@scgov.net.  Written comments will also be accepted at that email address, or mailed to:
Planning & Development Services
1660 Ringling Blvd, 1st Floor
Sarasota FL 34236

Sarasota County prohibits discrimination in all services, programs or activities. View the complete policy at https://www.scgov.net/ADA/Pages/default.aspx.


Copyright © 2016. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Congestion: Not just Bradenton and Palmetto...

Best of 2014: Why Subsidizing Developers on Road Improvements will Lead to More Congestion in Bradenton and Palmetto

Published Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:10 am
clientuploads/County_Commission/McClash_Portrait_SM.jpg
Recently, the Manatee County Commission has made several troubling decisions regarding the prioritization of roadway projects, even going so far as eliminating the use of local funds, mostly generated from development impact fees. This change will now use state and federal funds, robbing scarce dollars needed to eliminate traffic congestion in our downtown areas. State law, along with Manatee County's own comp plan, requires “new development pay for its fair share of the cost of County Capital Facilities required to accommodate new development through the imposition of Impact Fees.” Using state and federal dollars to subsidize private developers does not meet that criteria, nor is it a square deal for citizens. 

Since Governor Scott gutted the Department of Community Affairs, there exists almost no oversight of local government growth plans and approvals. Instead, we now have the Department of Economic Opportunity and its short-sided focus on the number of projected jobs it can report, rather than true sustainable growth or quality of life considerations. Our local Florida Senator, Bill Galvano (R-Bradenton), is following suit with a proposed bill that would eliminate Development of Regional Impact (DRI) requirements, since he feels that local government can provide the expertise. However, from the recent county approvals of incompatible and sprawling developments, to subsidizing what developers would pay in impact fees for roads, it becomes evident that state oversight is sorely needed.

Policies that reflect a philosophy that new growth must pay for the road improvements it requires, have been established for over 20 years, yet we are seeing a clear divergence in these recent decisions. Let us use University Parkway and the I-75 interchange and itsexperimental fix of over $60 million as one example. 20 years ago there were no developments east of the Interstate, so it would be safe to say that the original property owner, who owned most of this land; Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, developed Lakewood Ranch and should have to pay for the current needs of the roadways. Why else would we need them?

The developers presented the plans, along with the required traffic studies, while giving assurances that the Level of Service would be maintained. Betsy Benac, now a Manatee County Commissioner, represented most of these plans, and had they been accurate, we would not have failing roads. Benac recently voted to ask the state to pay for what should have been her ex-client's responsibilities. Benac also worked for Benderson Development, who now owns most of the property surrounding the I-75/University intersection and should be responsible for paying for needed improvements. Yet again, we do not see Commissioner Benac holding the developers she worked for accountable. Instead, she expects the taxpayers to foot the bill.

There is no doubt that the roads are congested in this area and need to be improved, but we have to recognize that our current system of trusting development procedures to insure that growth actually is paying for itself, has failed, at the very least, the intent of our laws, if not the laws themselves. We need new policies so that this failure does not continue to swallow up taxpayer money in order to pad the coffers of developers. 

44th Avenue is another roadway for which the county commission recently substituted state and federal dollars for what should have been paid for by developers, in order for SMR to maintain the level of services in their Lakewood Ranch development. So why are taxpayers again footing the bill? As a commissioner, I suggested that SMR realize those costs, as intended. The traffic studies that the county produced showed that these improvements were indeed needed, and since you have mostly one property owner east of the interstate, enforcing the requirement would have been simple. Maybe this is one of the reasons that developers spent so much money getting me replaced with one of their own.

The State of Florida even created a new taxing district for SMR called a stewardship district, in order to fund these and other improvements needed for their development. So far, they have not used this district to pay for all of the needed improvements. Meanwhile, developers are making record profits at the expense of the taxpayers. 

An even bigger consideration is the effects of losing the money that developers are not paying. It's one thing to have taxpayers in effect subsidizing new and profitable growth, but when money is taken from one pot to be given to another, it impacts our ability to fund other projects, such as improvements to critically-congested corridors like the DeSoto and Green bridges, where they intersect with Manatee Avenue. How many of us get stuck now in traffic that is backed-up because of these intersections, as people enter and leave downtown? It routinely gets so bad that the turning vehicles cannot clear the through lanes when the signals change. Don't get mad at the driver, it's not their fault. It is the failure to keep up with needed improvements. It is not just a downtown/city issue either. These corridors impact all of us. 

I submitted concepts over 10 years ago to improve these areas and pushed for several projects, but for too many others on the board, there was never a sense of urgency. These projects are unavoidable and will come at significant cost, which could be as high as a few hundred million dollars, and they only get more expensive the longer we put them off. Even if we made them a top priority today, it could take 15 years to get a project done. Still, that sense of urgency doesn't seem to have grown among board members, yet we see Commissioners like Vanessa Baugh rushing to Tallahassee in order to get funds for what developers were required to pay for. Why is there no such passion for the other congestion problems?

It's sad to say, but the only difference I see between funding for downtown and I-75 is that the citizens can't supply the kind of fundraising dollars that the developers routinely throw around, lining campaign accounts from local elected officials all the way to Congress. Isn’t our downtown just as congested as University and I-75? One look at the map of developer-owned property and their corresponding political donations and it's impossible to think that they are only expecting access to their elected officials. There's an old saying: if a plan doesn't make sense, it must be political. But it's nothing short of political corruption if those donations come with an expectation of something in return.

So why are impact fees not paying what they used to? County Administrator Ed Hunzeker wanted it that way, plain and simple. Hunzeker took over the impact fee study completed in 2011. During the recession, the majority of the BOCC voted to reduce impact fees in half, even though every report said it would not stimulate growth or increase jobs. But Hunzeker wanted to cut impact fees, so he changed the policy framework in which impact fees are calculated. It is evident that his goal was to reduce the impact fees in order to favor the developers, who meanwhile, brag about their record profits. It is also evident now that the impact fees have been too low, otherwise we wouldn't have to use state and federal dollars to pay for our failing local roads. It's simple math: expenses for roads needed for growth equals impact fee revenues and developer funded roads – unless that is, you want to ignore laws and policies for the benefit of special interests.

Another simple method we could use would be to establish what I call Infrastructure Planning Areas, and use them as a business plan for not only roads, but schools, parks and other needs created by growth. This becomes a financial plan and creates an easy way to measure accurate cost of growth. Our current system does not even relate impact fees to specific road projects needed for that growth. How does this make sense? Hunzeker is an accountant and he should have accountability!

The recent change in MPO priorities approved by commissioners also violate the Long Range Plan (LRP), a document required by the federal government for the use of federal funds, and one that the board must be consistent with. The most recent LRP placed the priority on mass transit and had projects like Bus Rapid Transit. Now the commission wants to change priorities set in the LRP, replacing Bus Rapid Transit with a section of 44th Avenue, in their words “effectively promoting it from cost-feasible-with-local-funds to cost-feasible-with-Federal-funds.” This shift in policy might sound harmless, but the LRP option without a mass transit focus included more roads, and that costs even more money. The total growth plan will not have enough money to pay for these new roads without impact fees or required developer improvements, creating still more problems down the line.

Amazingly enough, Hunzeker is working on a plan called How Will We Grow?, a fancy phrase which, based on his past performance (along with that of the majority of the commission), will only reinforce these current practices. Quality of life is important anywhere, but has always been at the heart of what residents treasure about Manatee County. However, as long as administrators and elected officials continue to place the bottom line of deep-pocketed developers above what is best for the vast majority of people who live in this wonderful community, I'm afraid we already know the answer to Mr. Hunzeker's question.

Joe McClash is a 22-year veteran of the Manatee County Commission and the publisher of The Bradenton Times. He can be reached at publisher@thebradentontimes.com.