Who decides what is "reasonable" land use?

Cathy Antunes on Whole Foods Market's proposal to destroy a healthy wetland:

Why do you live in Sarasota? Whether natives or transplants, if you ask us why we chose to live here most Sarasotans list the natural environment as a major reason. Sarasota residents value our water and green space, so much so that we tax ourselves extra to purchase land for preservation. Weaving environmental preservation into commercial and residential development is a community value, so it is critical that standards and ordinances created to achieve sound environmental stewardship are upheld and not redefined by outside interests. The recent approval of a Whole Foods development on a preserved and functioning wetland and the subsequent litigation around this approval highlight important questions: Whose interests are going to be paramount in defining Sarasota County’s environmental standards—those who live and work here, or those who wish to profit? MORE . . .

LTE: Whole Foods' Trophy

Whole Foods' Trophy

When defending a proposed Whole Foods parking lot on University Parkway that will destroy a long-protected and functioning wetland, Whole Foods’ spokesperson Tony Lesley said the company will “hire an arborist to identify trees that, once removed, can be repurposed into tables and wall art” for the new store.

This is akin to repurposing Cecil the Lion by hanging his trophy head on the wall.

Whole Foods as a corporation may support laudable “green” values but clearly does not understand or support core environmental values important to Sarasota County residents.

Whole Foods’ eco-friendly actions in energy efficiency and recycling will occur at any location. But they should happen at a different site — one without wetlands or other environmental features our community wants to protect.

Susan Schoettle
Sarasota

Tom Lyons on the Whole Foods Wetland Mitigation Fiasco

Follow-up via the Herald Tribune:

The decision to allow the total destruction of a long-protected 4.5-acre wooded swamp to accommodate a parking lot was an unpleasant surprise to some local environmentalists, only in part because the mitigation project offered in return wasn't in the same county. It was in Manatee County. Nothing about the mitigation site sounded like it would entice Sarasota County commissioners with visions of a local restoration project to point to as a worthy swap. 

But as reporter Emily LeCoz revealed in Sunday's Herald-Tribune, that wasn't the half of why this mitigation deal looks really bad.

Read the rest here.