Lobeck and Cunningham: An email exchange on transparency in Sarasota County

Email exchange of November 13-17 between attorney Dan Lobeck and Assistant County Administrator Mark Cunningham regarding the methodology for Fiscal Neutrality:

From: Mark Cunningham <mcunning@scgov.net>

Subject: Re: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Date: November 17, 2014 at 8:03:40 PM EST

To: Dan Lobeck <dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com>

Cc: Catherine Antunes <cathy.antunes@comcast.net>, Vicki Nighswander <nighswan1@gmail.com>, Thomas Polk <tpolk@scgov.net>, Allen Parsons <aparsons@scgov.net>, William Spaeth <wspaeth@scgov.net>, BCC <BCC@scgov.net>, Paul Caragiulo <Paul.Caragiulo@sarasotagov.com>, Alan Maio <amaio@scgov.net>, "josh.salman@heraldtribune.com" <josh.salman@heraldtribune.com>, "zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com" <zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com>, "Van Berkel, Jessie" <jessie.vanberkel@heraldtribune.com>, "Tryon, Tom" <tom.tryon@heraldtribune.com>, "tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com" <tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com>, William Zoller <zozz1@mac.com>

Good Afternoon Mr. Lobeck:

I have already outlined the process to you and everyone-else on this email chain.  

If you have information you want to provide germane to the subject methodology, you may do so at anytime and they will be considered and made available in an appropriate and public manner.  

As you are well aware, unless otherwise protected by law, all information submitted to the County becomes public information, are subject to public inspection, and are also subject to a public records request.  The County has always accepted input from anyone, including "stakeholders" during public proceedings, and this will also apply to this methodology process.  

If you have in your possession any "private pre-draft communication between AECOM and various development interest," please send them to me or any County employee and they will become public.  I am not aware of, nor do I have any such communications in my possession.  

If you have information of County staff facilitating such communication, please submit them to me or any County employee and they too will become public. I am not aware of any such facilitations.

Unless otherwise protected by law, all communications (including this chain of emails) with County employees are open, transparent and available to the public.  If you have information you want to submit regarding this or any other matter, please submit it and it will be considered as deem appropriate.  As you are also aware, we are governed by the "sunshine" law and we will govern ourselves accordingly.

Have a very pleasant evening.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Cunningham, AICP, CPM

Assistant County Administrator

1660 Ringling Blvd.

Sarasota, Florida 34236

Phone: 941-861-5293

Fax: 941-861-5987

Sarasota County, Florida

On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Dan Lobeck <dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com> wrote:

Mark:

You continue, with some exception, to answer questions other than the ones I am asking.

Please see my continuing questions in bold blue below.

I look forward to your responsive response.

Thank you,

  -- Dan Lobeck

From: Mark Cunningham [mailto:mcunning@scgov.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:34 PM
To: 'Dan Lobeck'
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Vicki Nighswander'; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Mr. Lobeck:

Please see below for my responses to your questions in bold red font.

Sincerely,

From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:15 PM
To: Mark Cunningham
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Vicki Nighswander'; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Mark:

This most certainly does not answer any of my questions.

Do you intend to answer them?

I have asked about the pre-draft input process and you keep coming back by saying that there will be an opportunity for public input on the draft.  There is not a public working group associated with this process.  It is a technical effort between County staff and AECOM; as such, there is no planned pre-draft input process.  I have not asked anything about a “public working group”.  I am concerned about private pre-draft communications between AECOM and various development interests, including but not limited to the fiscal neutrality consultant who Pat Neal has hired for that purpose and introduced at the adoption hearing on the Sarasota 2050 amendments.  The County’s contract with AECOM clearly calls for special AECOM communications with “stakeholders”, apart from any general public input on a published draft – that is what I am asking about.

My concern is that the development interests are being given exclusive and secretive input on the creation of that draft.

Again:

(1)   Are you and other County staff aware of communications by development interests with AECOM in the preparation of the draft of the fiscal neutrality methodology, to date or planned, and if so what are they?   I am not aware of any such communication.  Who on staff would know?

(2)    Have you or other County staff done anything to facilitate such communications, and if so how? Not to my knowledge.  Who on staff would know?

(3)    Will I and other taxpayer representatives on the Sarasota 2050 Task Force be given an equal opportunity to communicate with AECOM in the preparation of its draft, and if so how may we do that?  Please see the public input process outlined in my initial email.  That process only addresses public input after the draft is prepared.  The question, once again, is (emphasis added): “Will I and other taxpayer representatives on the Sarasota 2050 Task Force be given an equal opportunity to communicate with AECOM in the preparation of its draft, and if so how may we do that?” 

(4)    How does the County respond to my request that – for the sake of the transparency that the County says it seeks – such communications by development interests and others be in writing, as they are communicated or at least after the fact in notes by AECOM, and shared with other “stakeholders” including taxpayer advocates such as me?  All work products and drafts will be available on the County website as they are developed and throughout the process.  Will those “work products” include all written communications between persons in the private sector and AECOM as well as between AECOM County staff and officials?  That is what I am clearly asking about.

Please do not respond again by stating that after AECOM produces its draft it will be posted online and the public given an opportunity to comment on it.  At that point, it seems likely that the horse will be well out of the barn.

Thank you for your considerations.

  -- Dan Lobeck

From: Mark Cunningham [mailto:mcunning@scgov.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM
To: 'Dan Lobeck'
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; Vicki Nighswander; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Good Afternoon Mr. Lobeck:

As I stated in my initial email to you: “all work products and drafts will be available on the County website as they are developed and throughout the process.”  I also stated in my initial email that “we are planning on allowing a one month window for input on the DRAFT technical report/Methodology.  Subsequently, additional public input will be provided for during the public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Board.”

The above referenced opportunities and documents will be available to the public at the same time and in the same manner to ensure equity.

Sincerely,

From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:28 AM
To: Mark Cunningham
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; Vicki Nighswander; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom'; tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Are you telling me that you and other County staff are completely unaware of communications by development interests with AECOM in the preparation of the draft of the fiscal neutrality methodology, to date or planned?   

And are you telling me that you and other County staff have done and will do nothing to facilitate such communications?

What about my request for the taxpayer interests represented by the Sarasota 2050 Task Force to have comparable communications?  What about my request that such communications by development interests and others be in writing, as they are communicated or at least after the fact in notes by AECOM, and shared with other “stakeholders” including taxpayer advocates such as me?

It will be a farce if the developers are given exclusive, secretive access to AECOM in the creation of the draft and then there is the charade of an open process in the vetting of that draft.

Is that what you want? 

There is a limited opportunity to prevent that charade, if you desired to do so.

Again, thank you for your considerations.

  -- Dan Lobeck

From: Mark Cunningham [mailto:mcunning@scgov.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 9:38 AM
To: 'Dan Lobeck'
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; Vicki Nighswander; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Good Morning Mr. Lobeck:

As stated in my previous email, the development of the Fiscal Neutrality Methodology will be coordinated through Sarasota County staff and the technical consultant, AECOM.  There is not a public working group associated with this process.  The public input process is outlined below, will be available to all, and allows equal opportunity for all.  I cannot speak to your claim of “development interests are already hard at work influence the draft,”  as County staff has no such meetings planned or scheduled.  Again, there are no public working groups.

Sincerely,

From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 4:11 PM
To: Mark Cunningham
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; Vicki Nighswander; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Mark:

Thank you for your email.

However, you have not responded to any of my specific requests for measures that would provide transparency and inclusiveness in the process.  Am I to take it that those requests are denied?

Significantly, you do not address at all the opportunities for public input and transparency during the three months that lead up to AECOM’s production of a draft Methodology.  That may be the most important time at all, with the post-draft process you describe being an attempt to ride a horse that is already galloping out of the barn.   

I am very sure that the development interests are already hard at work influencing that draft, including through the opportunities given to “stakeholders” for private input in the County’s contract with AECOM.  Are the taxpayers not to be provided access to those communications or to be given comparable opportunities for input to AECOM’s preparation of the draft?

I look forward to your response to this at your earliest opportunity.

Thank you for your considerations,

  -- Dan Lobeck

From: Mark Cunningham [mailto:mcunning@scgov.net]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:33 PM
To: Dan Lobeck; 'Catherine Antunes'; Vicki Nighswander
Cc: Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Good Afternoon Mr. Lobeck, et al:

Over the past few days, several emails were sent to the Sarasota County Board of Commissioners (the Board) under the subject heading regarding public input associate with the development and adoption of the pending Fiscal Neutrality Methodology.  As such, I would like to take this opportunity shine some light on the process going forward.

The development of the Fiscal Neutrality Methodology will be coordinated through Sarasota County staff and a technical consultant, AECOM, which has been the County’s primary, independent reviewer of Fiscal Neutrality analyses.  AECOM has a national practice in conducting Fiscal Impact Analyses. 

Please be advised that there is not a public working group associated with the development of this Methodology.  Notwithstanding, there will be several opportunities for public review & input, the first of which will occur at a milestone that will result in a DRAFT technical report/Methodology.  We anticipate this will occur approximately 3 months into the process.  We estimate that the project will be approximately 7 months long.  We are planning on allowing one month window for input on the DRAFT technical report/Methodology.  Subsequently, additional public input will be provided for during the public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Board. 

Below are the project steps that include public input: 

1.      A draft document will be made available for public review (scheduled to occur through the month of March).

·        Drafts sent to the Planning contact lists requesting feedback.

·        Drafts posted on County web page for 2050 Evaluation with request for feedback.

·        Advertisements for comment period are posted in paper and on County web sites.

2.      Public comments are compiled and digested by staff and consultant in drafting revisions to the draft analytical report and technical manual.

3.      Public hearing advertised for and scheduled in front of the Planning Commission.

4.      Public comments are compiled and digested by staff and consultant in drafting revisions to the draft analytical report and technical manual.

5.      Public hearing advertised for and scheduled in front of the Board.

6.      Public comments are compiled and digested by staff and consultant in drafting revisions to the draft analytical report and technical manual.

7.      Board approves a Resolution adopting a set methodology for determining Fiscal Neutrality on 2050 developments.

In addition to the above, all work products and drafts will be available on the County website as they are developed and throughout the process.

If you have any additional questions, please let me, and I will ensure that staff provide a timely response.  Please feel free to forward this email to all interested parties.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Cunningham, AICP, CPM

Assistant County Administrator

1660 Ringling Blvd.

Sarasota, FL 34236

Phone: 941-861-5293

Fax: 941-861-5987

Email: mcunning@scgov.net

From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 5:03 PM
To: Joseph Barbetta; Carolyn Mason; Nora Patterson; Christine Robinson; Charles D. Hines; Alan Maio;Paul.Caragiulo@sarasotagov.com
Cc: Allen Parsons; 'Vicki Nighswander'; 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Larry Grossman'; 'William Zoller';zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com
Subject: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Commissioners:

This is to follow up requests by the Sarasota 2050 Action Network for transparency and public participation in the formulation of a new fiscal neutrality methodology by the County’s consultant for that purpose, AECOM.

I have reviewed your contract with AECOM.  There are numerous provisions for consultations between the consultant and “stakeholders”, presumably representatives of development interests.

Two points:

(1)    Certainly, taxpayers are stakeholders in this too.  As such, this is to request an opportunity for participation by me and other representatives of the Sarasota 2050 Action Network in the formulation of the fiscal neutrality methodology, equal to that given to the development interests.

(2)    All steps needed to make this a transparent process should be undertaken, as transparency is the stated goal of the new methodology and it will have no chance at credibility if the process is not transparent.  There should be no secret, behind-the-scenes machinations by development interests to influence AECOM to formulate a methodology that favors developers’ interests over the taxpayers’ interests.  As such, this is to request that the County require that all communications with AECOM about the methodology be in writing and that all such communications (including all to date) be promptly provided to other stakeholders requesting a copy, including by this request Cathy Antunes as chair of the Sarasota 2050 Action Network and myself.  Also, if there are to be communications to AECOM verbally rather than in writing, this is to request that AECOM be required to make an accurate and complete written report of all such communications, and again that such reports be provided to all stakeholders who request them, such as is hereby provided.  Further, this is to request that all stakeholders, including the Sarasota 2050 Action Network and myself, be given notice of any conferences by stakeholders, staff or Commissioners with AECOM, upon such meetings being scheduled and be provided an opportunity to sit in on such conferences to unobtrusively observe and record.

I look forward to a substantive response for the County at the earliest opportunity.

Thank you for your considerations of this request. 

Dan Lobeck

President, Control Growth Now

Letter regarding transparency in Fiscal Neutrality

A letter from Vickie Nishswander addressing the question of public participation in the process of developing a working model of fiscal neutrality, a key componenet of Sarasota County's 2050 Comprehensive Plan:

Dear Sarasota County Commissioners,

On behalf of the community supportive of Control Growth Now and the 2050 Action Network we would like to offer a collaborative effort in the development of the “transparent, effective, practical formulas and applicant guidance for 2050 development projects and  their submission of acceptable fiscal Neutrality Analysis” and its extension for further approved developments which have fiscal neutrality monitoring requirements that was an assignment from the Oct. 22, 2014 Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to 2050 Policy/ Regulation.  In this way, community input will be built in the development of the fiscal neutrality model on the front end.  A consultant was indicated to have been hired and the draft development is to begin this month.  In accordance with the contract, we would like an amendment to be approved.  We would like to offer at least two representatives to attend and provide input to the consultant working group or as another option to provide the 2050 Action Network with benchmark reviews, discussions and updates during the draft process and routinely thereafter till the final product is developed over the 9 month period.  This offer is a win/win for the County as the community input on the front end may expedite the process and provide transparency and inclusion. Since this particular consultant is not local, local participation can only be seen as a plus for a better product.

It would be preferred for the Network representatives to be part of the working team providing the transparency listed in the contract including:

• Attendance and participation at working group meetings in the development of the fiscal neutrality methodology
• Participation in the review process of technical definitions
• Participation in schedule development
• Participation in the review of methods

Thank you for this consideration.

Sincerely,

Vicki Nighswander MAT, MPH

Member 2050 Action Network

Sarasota County community stakeholder

Fiscal Neutrality: Write to the County

From Cathy Antunes (via email):

The creation of the Fiscal Neutrality methodology is where the rubber meets the road.  It is critical the process and information shared be transparent, that the most important stakeholders - taxpayers - have a prime seat at the table.  Please write to the Commission (you may want to include the others Larry has written to as well).  Let the Commission know the public must have the same access given to private interests in this process.  If you would like me to share you letter with others (which would be much appreciated) please cc me.

Thanks for caring for our community and have a great weekend!

Cathy

Letter to Sarasota County Officials from Cathy Antunes:

Dear Commissioners, Mr. DeMarsh, Mr. Roddy, Mr. Parsons and Mr. Polk,

I am writing to applaud the stated goal of transparency in the creation of a fiscal neutrality policy, and to request details on how interested citizens can participate in the creation of fiscal neutrality methodology. Taxpayers are key stakeholders in fiscal neutrality policy creation, and as such expect and deserve a prime seat at the policy creation table.

The process for introducing 2050 policy changes was initiated by County planning staff meeting with Neal Communities, Schroeder Manatee Ranch and others private interests before the public process was initiated. The inequity in access undermined public confidence in the creation of 2050 policy changes. We do not want to see the same kind of inequity with fiscal neutrality. I’m sure we agree the process must be open, transparent, inclusive from the beginning.

Citizens interested in fiscal neutrality methodology and policy creation expect the same access and information afforded to private interests. It is the citizens of Sarasota County who will, after all, be responsible for resulting infrastructure costs if the fiscal neutrality methodology is lacking.

How will the County ensure effective public participation and oversight at the outset? What is the plan to ensure interested citizens are included and given the same consideration and opportunity for input which will be extended to landowners outside the USB? A transparent process includes:

Access to fiscal neutrality meetings
Timely (real time/swift) access to policy creation information, including:
- terminology, definitions being employed in policy creation
- all methodology under consideration

Welcome to our new Commissioners! I look forward to a cordial working relationship with you both.

Cathy Antunes
Member, 2050 Action Network


2050 Action Network includes:

Sierra Club
Council of Neighborhood Associations
Audobon Society
City Coalition of Neighborhood Associations
Venice Area Citizens for Responsible Development
Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida
Control Growth Now
Suncoast Waterkeepers
Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government

Letter to Sarasota officials from Larry Grossman:

I appreciate the County sending me a copy of the Agreement for Fiscal Neutrality with AECOM Technical Service Inc.. Although this is a fully executed contract my comments suggest that the contract should be amended to include the citizens of Sarasota County as part of the study process.The contract is now structured so that citizens have no input, no information and no opportunity to affect the technical document and consultant product until it is too late. As we found in the public hearing process with the amendments to Sarasota 2050, none of the comments that citizens offered were incorporated into the final Comp Plan amendments. 

We really don't want a repetition of the futility of participating in a process that affects us but upon which we have no effect.

County Commissioner to step down??????

We were surprised - not to learn that Commissioner Robinson will take a position with the Argus Foundation, a business group that essentially lobbies the Sarasota County Commission - our surprise stems from the newspaper of record not stating whether Ms. Robinson will step down from public office, or plans to lobby herself.

Christine Robinson

Read, then write to the newspaper, drop a comment on the article, write to the County:

Sarasota County commissioner named next Argus Foundation leader

Affordable Housing nowhere in sight for 2000 mall workers

via the SH_T:

Mall may widen gap between renters, homeowners

By Josh Salman

Published: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 at 4:43 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 at 4:43 p.m.

SARASOTA - The new Mall at University Town Center is expected to lift values for middle-class homes that pepper the University Parkway corridor.

Enlarge |

Las Palmas Condominums, in the foreground, are among the residential properties nearest to the Mall at University Town Center.

STAFF PHOTO / MIKE LANG

Facts

BY THE NUMBERS

• 4,827 home sales during third quarter
• $195,650 median home price
• $1,355 average three-bedroom rent
• 108-year wait for subsidized one-bedroom housing
• 1,700 condo-style housing units planned for the mall by Benderson Development

But because developers have generally failed to meet rental demand for the 2,000 mall workers, avoiding earlier agreements to build affordable housing as part of UTC approvals, apartment rents that are climbing at the fastest clip in a decade are projected to rise further out of reach.

That could widen the gap between homeowners and renters in this region, boosting competition for housing near the mall and further tightening supply.

Analysts say that scenario will benefit homeowners already in a comfortable living situation, while making it harder for workers living paycheck-to-paycheck to find decent digs nearby.

“It's great the mall will create these additional jobs, but the vast majority are hourly with no benefits, and the cost of living has gone up so much, most of these folks will have to live somewhere else and drive to the mall,” said Jack McCabe, a Florida real estate consultant.

“There's just nothing affordable within walking distance, and the rapid rise in rental rates is far outpacing what most workers can afford,” McCabe said.

Median home prices during the third quarter reached $195,650 in the North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton area, a figure that continues to flirt with its post-recession peak, Realtor data show.

Meanwhile, the average fair market rent for a three-bedroom home in Sarasota and Manatee was $1,355 in August, according to industry researcher RealtyTrac Inc.

Only Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties have higher average rents in Florida.

The new mall is expected to boost demand for housing along the University corridor, from the 2,000 employees expected to work at the retail hub and retirement homebuyers who want to live nearby.

Already, Realtors are using the mall as a sales pitch in their listings, much like they do for the area's beaches.

Some homebuyers are avoiding the region over traffic concerns. Others want to live near the action, said Gloria Weed, managing broker for the Michael Saunders & Co. brokerage in Lakewood Ranch.

“Some people see it a great draw, and they're going to want to live here because of the mall,” Weed said. “And others are concerned.

“We just don't know what we have here yet.”

Even amid a development uptick, residential supply has not kept pace with ballooning demand, especially in the lower price points.

In October, Iberia Bank sold nine acres out of foreclosure near the corner of Fruitville and Cattlemen roads to a subsidiary of Sarasota Apartment Development Group. If the buyer ultimately builds apartments on the land, it would help feed housing demand near the mall.

MI Homes also is building 62 townhomes near the University Town Center mall, the latest in what is expected to be a rush of multifamily development near the new shopping hub.

The project joins a 237-unit apartment complex dubbed The Venue at Main Street Lakewood Ranch. The first phase of The Venue is open for leasing, with apartments that are expected to attract more upscale tenants.

Two other apartment projects are in the works for Lakewood Ranch.

The vast majority of those homes and rentals will be priced beyond what mall workers and many other families in the area can afford.

“We have a big gap, and that's a real concern because these workers will have to live somewhere,” said Joe Murphy, a real estate agent with Coldwell Banker who specializes in that area of town. “Every new home project we've seen is priced beyond their reach. Even the apartments are going to be expensive.”

“We have really priced out our workforce.”

Mall co-developer Benderson Development Co. has said it plans to build up to 1,700 condo-style housing units near the mall, through a mix of both rentals and for-sale units, although the company has been mum on the details.

In 2007, Benderson agreed to affordable housing stipulations to gain government approvals for UTC, with promises to build as many as 437 homes that would be affordable to middle-income buyers.

But when the Great Recession crimped construction plans, Sarasota County commissioners agreed to allow Benderson to push forward with the retail segment first — and eventually to shed the affordable housing element altogether.

At the time, both sides were armed with studies that showed a sharp drop in local real estate prices had erased the need for more affordable homes.

But since then, a robust recovery has once again thinned the supply of rentals and homes for sale that are within the reach of most typical workers, especially lower-income families.

Todd Mathes, Benderson's director of development said although the company is not obligated, many of the homes to be built at UTC will still meet the previous stipulations tied to the property.

“The mall has had a tremendously positive impact on real estate,” Mathes said. “Everyone recognizes increases in the neighborhoods.”

There are now more than 500 applicants for a one-bedroom unit in Sarasota with rent that is subsidized below market standards by the government, but historically only five of those apartments open up each year, county records show.

That leaves a wait of 108 years.

“Benderson came in with a plan for a mixed-use, walkable community, with some substantial affordable housing,” said Dan Lobeck, an area attorney who advocates for slower growth. “After huge campaign contributions to county commissioners, they got that aspect repealed. This is the pattern we're seeing with development.”

Much of the residential growth near the mall also will be subject to recent changes to Sarasota County's 2050 plan, including a proposal to increase density east of Interstate 75 and south of University Parkway.

Critics fear that will only heighten the affordable housing gap. Earlier in October commissioners overhauled the rural growth regulations, amid community concerns over environmental harm, housing sprawl and the cost of development to taxpayers through infrastructure like roads and emergency services.

“Because we have very few projects going on, there has been and there will continue to be some pent-up demand,” said Kirk Boylston, president of LWR Commercial Realty. “We have kind of been playing catch up a little bit.”

Real estate analysts say those already living in established homes near the mall are poised to see the biggest benefit.

There is not a lot of empirical data to quantify a shopping mall's impact on surrounding real estate.

In areas of South Florida, where similar luxury centers have sprouted, values have generally increased. Most appraisers expect similar results in northern Sarasota and Southeast Manatee.

But they say it will depend on the price points at which existing homes will start changing hands — and how that compares with pricing before the mall's opening.

Traffic congestion also could curb some of the expected real estate appreciation.

“We'll look at other sales near the mall after it opens, and decide if it was a result of the mall or just the economy being robust,” Sarasota County Property Appraiser Bill Furst said.

“We're not in a position to predict what's going to happen.”

Call for a Sarasota Foodshed Study

Cooper Levey-Baker

Two weeks ago, Sarasota County's ninth annual Sustainable Communities Workshop generated a three-ring binder's worth of bright ideas. The daylong event sparked conversations about how to plan for climate change, how to reach citizens who live in our area's 19 food deserts and how to more wisely invest public economic development dollars.

Amid all that, Transition Sarasota Executive Director Don Hall mentioned a simple and eminently doable idea: Let's raise $10,000 to commission a foodshed study by economist and author Michael Shuman, the event's keynote speaker.

Read more...

"The politicians clearly don't like the public taking matters into their own hands"

Maynard Hiss posting on the 2050 Comprehensive Plan for Sarasota Citizens Page on Facebook:

One gets that perception that a very, very small subset of the development community influences the elections because their favorite politicians often rubber stamp plans for the development of the rural area and do not plan for ecological infrastructure, natural resources, water resources etc. The clear focus of the 2050 plan area is on providing the worst type of rural residential sprawl that is coincidentally promoted by this very tiny subset of the development community.

 
I can see why a lot of really really good developers who used land effectively would not want to support these candidates, and that is because they are getting screwed by these politicians. The fact is, is that the worst types of developers in the rural area are getting heavily subsidized by public infrastructure, and they are also destroying the existing road capacity by using it in the most ineffective ways. The developers who have to compete with this type of subsidized development may not be too happy.

The public has never voted positively for rural sprawl. If you go to a public hearing where the county is proposing this rural sprawl there is mostly a strong outcry and disdain and contempt for the politicians. Contrast this to the overwhelming support for bond issues for conservation lands which get on average 70% or more of the vote in stark contrast to the politicians who promote sprawl. 

The politicians clearly don't like the public taking matters into their own hands, as they came up with the 2050 plan for the rural area after a huge amount of money was voted in a public referendum for conservation lands. While the 2050 plan does not have a future public land element or water development plan or agriculture plan or strategic habitat conservation area plan, it does have a plan to double the development rights to provide and incentive to developers and turns almost the whole privately owned area into a bunch of the most inefficient rural residential development communities. While there will be lots of open space created it will be mostly wasted space with little value and no public access. And which will likely be developed later when there is a shortage of land suitable for a few developers to get cheap.

Even more ironic is that the planners and politicians claim that the County's land use plan for the rural area is so ineffectively planned for 1 unit per 5 acre lots that it creates a perverse incentive to destroy the natural resources and agriculture. They claim the only solution is to provide an incentive in the form of doubling the development rights on the land and then let the developers plan the agriculture and natural resources and recreation within their private development, that will exclude the public. The other incentive is a massive development of infrastructure program and to lower impact fees to support the development.

The public ends up buying huge amounts of development rights that were given to the land owners for free with the conservation money. The public owns over 10,000 development rights for which there is no market for as development rights are given to developers for free. Instead of spending on conservation lands and an agriculture reserve they are spending 10 of millions on roads to facilitate development of the rural area.

The thought of developers coming up with a natural resource plan and agriculture plan has absolutely no credibility. Even if theoretically possible it would have very little value to the pubic since the public would not have access to the benefits. There was no data and analysis to support this nor does the county have a water resource plan, biodiversity protection plan, or agriculture plan for the county. Instead the focus was on how many development units could the land produced. The assumption it seems is that a lot of money could be grown on the land. But a closer look at the plan you will see the money comes from taxpayers' pockets, mostly from outside the rural area.

To think that people who are educated in the planning profession and the politicians who represent the public could get it so wrong that the plan is insulting and perceived by many as contemptuous. In school such an assignment would not get an F but a 0. The public does not get agriculture or natural resources it gets further impacts to them and also gets development types that use much more of them that effective patterns of growth. What it gets for a huge bill is traffic congestion which cannot easily be solved because all the development there requires car trips.

An Election Day Word from Sarasota Audubon

From the most recent edition of "The Brown Pelican" -- the Sarasota Audubon Society Newsletter.


ELECTIONS

By the time you receive this Brown Pelican, the national, state and local elections might have already been decided. Thanks go to those of you who are registered Sarasota County voters and who work and vote for strongly environmental candidates and, especially, those who will vote for amendment #1, the Water and Land Conservation Amendment to the Florida Constitution. Also thanks to those of you who vote elsewhere but who help support those people and that amendment. If you're a registered Florida voter please vote and bring along family and friends to vote as well.


If the amendment passes with the necessary 60% of the votes, let's celebrate! If it doesn't, after crying in our beer, let's start lobbying for the Legislature to put all or most of that 30% of the land transfer tax that the amendment would have allocated to environmental purposes to the same end through Legislative action, as was routinely done only a few years ago.


SARASOTA COUNTY: ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING, WHERE IS IT GOING? WHERE SHOULD IT GO?


Back a decade ago, we were optimistic. The county voters, by impressive majorities, had just passed three amendments to the County Charter requiring a super-majority (4) of the County Commission to amend the Comprehensive Plan to increase the density or intensity of development beyond the urban services line, to require a unanimous County Commission vote to move or abolish that line, and to retain existing land regulations on land annexed by municipalities (a ploy by developers prior to that amendment had already doubled the size of Venice).


A compromise overlay for eastern County lands, called Sarasota 2050, was adopted to guide development for the next 45 years with a series of villages that were fiscally neutral to existing taxpayers, walkable around small urban cores, had ample open space, reasonably wide green borders, wildlife corridors, and many other elements of "new urbanism". While they were denser than many of us preferred, they were, after all, a compromise with landowners and would-be developers. The County Commission at that time seemed responsive to citizen input, and was dominated neither by developers nor environmentalists.


All that has changed. Despite a large majority of opponents at a public hearing on October 22, the County Commission substantially gutted Sarasota 2050, changing it from a means to ensure slow and managed development that preserved a green network for wildlife and people to a means of shoehorning in more people and more quickly, while preserving just enough remnants of the original plan to retain a facade of new urbanism. The result may be hard to differentiate from the standard, new bedroom developments of two to four houses per acre that we see sprawling across the landscape in adjacent counties.


Other results, of course, will be more roads, more cars, more traffic delays, more wildlife roadkill (and probably pedestrian and bicycle roadkill as well), more demand for schools, fire, police, water, waste disposal, gasoline stations, etc. In other words, sprawling suburbia. That's "where Sarasota County is going".


But it doesn't have to be that way, and Sarasota citizens seem to be realizing that as they recuperate from the "great recession", though most Commissioners still don't seem to get it. The County's annual citizen opinion survey done on contract by the University of South Florida shows that population growth and new development combined with traffic and transportation is now the principal concern of 37% of Sarasota County's citizens, up from 20% in 2013, this year dwarfing jobs and the economy which dropped to only 11%.


Even if Sarasota County aspires to be a second Tampa, it can't be. The regional airport, the Interstate nexus, the port, etc. are already there. Its niche for prosperity continues to be as a beautiful, uncrowded place with beaches, arts, outdoor opportunities, open space, birds and other wildlife that attract entrepreneurs and other relatively wealthy people who have made their money elsewhere. They usually come first as tourists and then as residents who spend and invest their money here. Rapid growth and too much growth will destroy that attraction. We already have almost 400,000 residents in the County. Where will it stop? At a million people? 2 million? 20 million?


Why not stop now? Why not focus on quality rather than quantity, stopping the incessant demands for more density that will destroy the natural environment that continues to be a major element in bringing those people who drive our economy and share our quality of life. I hope that soon becomes the direction in which "Sarasota County should go".

Wade Matthews, Conservation Chair 

Telling the best stories: The Future Bristol Project

On the Sarasota 2050 Comp Plan page, Alex Coe posted a link to an interesting project a colleague of hers is working on. It sets out visually two distinct scenarios for the future of the British city of Bristol. Each scenario has benefits and perhaps some drawbacks, but very different emphases. The visual images incorporate information and even opportunities for ideas to be voted up or down:

Future Bristol Scenario X

Future Bristol Scenario Y

The key goal of the exercise is to imagine what Bristol could be like in 2050 if it managed to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions. (More about that here.)

THE PROJECT

This project seeks to engage the public in what it means for Bristol to be a "low carbon city", enabling everyone to have their say and help shape the future that we want to see. The aims are to:

• Engage the public and raise awareness about what a low carbon future means
• Find out how people feel about two different potential futures, which features are desirable and which we want to avoid
• Start a public discussion about how Bristol can become a low carbon city, and gather opinions, thoughts and new ideas 

Part of the value of the exercise is how it renders the problem accessible and communicates it visually. On Future Bristol's Twitter feed one finds:

"Those who tell the best stories own the future."