We have a chance to put citizens back in control

 Our elected officials have been bought and controlled by land developers and special interests who seek to profit at any cost at the Citizen’s expense:

                         All data compiled by Superintendent of Elections, Sarasota County

We complain about the same problems every year; traffic congestion, overflowing sewage being dumped into our waterways, red tide, shrinking school resources, teachers that are not paid enough, and runaway development. Where is all the money going?

It is our elected officials who give tax breaks and direct handouts to their developer benefactors. They are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to plant their people in our Commission and School Board. They also control the Planning Commission,

The Charter Review Board and the Commissioners now want to sit in on the government procurement process that awards tens of millions of dollars in government contracts. Guess who will get the contracts? They do not spend this money unless they are getting a significant return. This is our money that should be used for the Citizens of Sarasota, not given to the developers for the favor of bankrolling political campaigns. Why aren’t the impact fees at 100%?

Developers had a record month in August, why are they not paying their fair share? Why are subdivisions being built on toxic land? Why did Commissioners Moran and Maio try to put a 15-acre dump next to the Celery Fields? Why are our water treatment system, roads, and infrastructure not being adequately funded and repaired? Because the money is being given to developers who control our local government by the elected officials they bankrolled into office.

We have a chance to put the Citizens back in control of our Sarasota County Board of Commissioners by electing three non-developer backed candidates this election. Regardless of party, this corruption must be rooted out. We can do this. We deserve better.

Look up campaign contribution here: https://www.sarasotavotes.com/CFCandidates.aspx

When you get a campaign mailer or see a commercial, find out which developer dark money PAC is funding the candidate here.

Lobeck: Don't repeal affordable housing requirement for developers

Commissioners,

As in my July 23 email to the Planning Commission (which I copied to you), this is to urge that at your meeting Tuesday [September 22] you vote against transmitting to the state a Comprehensive Plan amendment to delete the requirement of affordable housing as a trade-off for the incentives of the Sarasota 2050 Plan.

The claim that this is required by state law is flatly false.  The law allows a requirement for affordable housing in exchange for voluntary incentives which fully compensate the developer for the lost profit.  It is beyond question that the Sarasota 2050 Plan does that.

The amendments would repeal the current requirement that in order to receive the incentive under the Sarasota 2050 Plan to build at urban densities and commercial uses rather than rural densities, not less than 15% of the units must be affordable housing, that is sold to families at under 100% of Area Median Income (with 2/3 of those homes at 80% AMI).

Instead, a developer would be allowed to build at up to 5 dwelling units per acre in the developed area with no affordable housing.  All that would be left is the current “incentive” that a developer could go up to 6 dwelling units per developed area acre if the extra units are affordable housing.

Given the densities that developers have been building in Sarasota 2050 developments, the 5 units per acre will not be exceeded and developers will have no desire to get the 6th by affordable housing.  So, goodbye affordable housing in Sarasota 2050 developments if this is adopted.

The affordable housing standard would be further weakened in the UDC because this amendment provides that while 2/3 of the homes must be for families with 80% of AMI, half of the remainder would be for 100% AMI and half of the remainder would be for 120% AMI.  This would unlawfully conflict with VOS Policy 1.4 in the Comprehensive Plan, which provides a goal that at least 15% of the housing will be available “for families with incomes below the median family income for Sarasota County.”

These changes are based on a complete misunderstanding or mischaracterization of new state legislation as applied to the current affordable housing requirements of the Sarasota 2050 Plan.

Section 125.0155, Florida Statutes now bans a requirement for affordable housing, sometimes known as “inclusionary zoning.” Instead, it allows a local government to seek affordable housing by “incentives.”  Paragraph (2)(a) of the statute provides that the incentive may be “allowing the developer density or intensity bonus incentives or more floor space than allowed under the current or proposed future land use designations.”  [Paragraph (2)(c) broadly includes “granting other incentives.”]

Sarasota County is already complying with this requirement today.  The entire Sarasota 2050 Plan is a voluntary incentive which grants developers increased urban densities and commercial (“more floor space”) uses on land which is otherwise limited to rural densities, if the developer complies with various requirements in return.  One of those requirements is that 15% of the housing be for persons below the Area Median Income.  The incentive has been enhanced since adoption by exempting affordable housing from Greenway density transfer requirements and any fiscal neutrality requirements (although those measures have not been enforced and are proposed to be weakened as well, such as by including the 120% AMI standard).

Fish Farm Public Hearing of, by, and for the People

Despite overwhelming public opposition to the Vellela Epsilon offshore Fish Farm at the January 2020 EPA hearing, the Army Corps of Engineers is set to issue a permit for a Fish Farm off Sarasota's shores without holding a hearing.

The farm, the first in a proposed Gulf aquaculture opportunity area, poses grave danger to marine life, the ecosystem, tourism and the economy. Fish waste, pollution and feed may increase red tide blooms. 

A coalition of concerned citizens will hold its own hearing on September 30 - and the input will be sent to the Army Corps.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Please join the Virtual Hearing to express your views: Eventbrite link to virtual hearing on Offshore Fish Farm September 30.

2. Click to submit audio, video, or text comments

3. On September 30, use this link for the Live Link on Facebook (you don't need to belong to Facebook to participate).

==========

Bonus: 

Here is a sign-on business letter for local businesses. If you can, please sign the letter here. 

 

Calling all fish harvesters, restaurants, tourism/entertainment industries, retailers, and more!

If you are a business owner/operator in the Gulf of Mexico, we hope you will consider signing onto this letter on behalf of coastal businesses to public officials demanding that they prioritize Gulf businesses, support your recovery from Coronavirus devastation, and call on the government to halt the development of new industrial aquaculture facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. You can sign on and read the full letter here. Deadline is Friday, Oct 2.

Industrial aquaculture facilities push external costs of operation onto the ocean ecosystem and coastal economies, from direct discharge of toxins to privatization of the ocean. For the Gulf of Mexico, this means extra nutrients to feed the red tide and increased competition for limited marine space (and much more). The industry has its sights set on the Gulf of Mexico as the first place it wants to operate in the U.S. – starting with a project off the coast of Sarasota, to be followed by a larger “Aquaculture Opportunity Area” to host up to 5 facilities in the region. This could devastate Gulf businesses that have already been struggling to recover from recent natural disasters and devastation from the impacts of COVID-19. 

Join us in telling public officials to support local and coastal businesses in the Gulf, and stop pushing a harmful new industry in the region! Deadline is Friday, Oct 2.

Mega-Hotel developers on Siesta Key seek to lift density requirements for all Sarasota County

Three developers planning Mega-Hotels on Siesta Key have recently filed pre-applications with Sarasota County. 

All three are asking the County to pass an Amendment to the UDC (Unified Development Code) FL Land Use Policy 2.9.1 that will remove density requirements for Transient Accommodations. Current zoning permits 13 units per acre for multifamily use, and double the density for hotels. The proposals would increase density from from 26 units per acre to 170 units per acre -- that's four to seven times what's currently allowed. 

****NOTE: This change in density will affect ALL of Sarasota County.****

All three developers -- Gary Kompothecras, Mike Holderness and SKH 1 LLC. -- request Special Exceptions to raise the permitted 35-foot height to eight stories: 83-85 feet.

The Comprehensive Plan requires that new development not increase density on Barrier Islands. The developers propose two changes to density:

• One would exempt hotels on Siesta Key from the maximum density limits.  
• The other would exempt hotels in the entire Sarasota County from maximum density limits.

These exemptions, if approved, would both be permanent. 

These are radical proposals that will increase density and affect traffic, safety, and the environment. They  will change the nature of Siesta Key and the entire County.

Please sign the Petition against Hotel changes

Please be prepared to attend future Planning and County Commission meetings and to express your opinions.

See the pre-applications to Planning here

This? 

Siesta Beach

Or This?

Hotel developer Gary Kompothecras is a major backer of the entrenched political machine. Both Kompothecras and Holderness have contributed to Michael A. Moran's campaign this year. SKH 1 is represented by Robert T. Anderson Jr. of Sarasota.

 

More on the hotels and opposition:

Siesta Key Coalition Zoom Meeting about hotels

Sarasota News Leader 10.1.20: Redevelopment of Siesta Key Beach Resort Hotel and Suites would increase rooms from 55 to 170, preliminary application says

Siesta Key Association

Mike Hutchinson: Protect existing neighborhoods!

Mike Hutchinson opposed incumbent Mike Moran in the Republican Primary in August. Hutchinson is strongly in favor of protecting Rural Heritage lands like Old Miakka, a 170-year-old community whose way of life and zoning could be severely compromised by proposals for new, more intense rezonings. This is his statement on the Old Miakka Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It contains a video.

------

Dear Commissioners,

A number of you have expressed concern about property rights being taken away from developers by CPA-2019-C. If you look at the law, I think that concern is misplaced. The developers bought the property zoned as 5, 10, 160 acres. They got to treat it as agriculture land for years to save on taxes. They planned to make a profit and they will if they develop the property as 5, 10, 160 acres. There are a number of developments on Fruitville that have been done that way. Bern Creek and Oak Ford are two examples. At the end of the Commission meeting, where Lakepark Estates was approved as a hamlet, I said to the owner I guess you needed the increased density to make a profit. He said no, he could have made a profit with the lower density!

In the Observer on Sept. 3, 2020 "I'm not anti-property owner,” Detert said. "But to me, you've got what you bought." Property owners of large parcels cannot expect to get the County to change the rules, after the fact, to allow them to make a bigger profit.

The real taking of property rights is the impact on existing homeowners of rezoning to put urban sprawl into a rural area. A good example is the homeowners on the eastern side of Bern Creek. They bought their property with the zoning of the neighboring property being 5 and 10 acres. They could expect that someday that property would be developed and they would have a neighborhood similar to theirs (5 and 10 acres) behind them. They were more than surprised years later when the County reneged on the promise that the land next door would be rural and instead it was approved as a hamlet called Lakepark Estates.

The link below is a video that starts with scenes of Bern Creek, a 5 and 10 acre development. In the second section you see scenes showing what a hamlet will look like with homes on small lots all lined up next to each other.

https://berncreek.net/CountryVideo.html

When the Lakepark Estates hamlet is built the view behind the eastern homes in Bern Creek properties will be drastically changed. With the view damaged do you think these home will sell for what they should sell for? This is a real taking of property.

This is exactly what zoning was designed to prevent. Keep the current zoning by passing CPA-2019-C and protect existing neighborhoods!

Sincerely,

Mike Hutchinson

See also: Irreplaceable impact of Old Miakka lifestyle by Carrie Seidman in the Herald Tribune.

Poppycock and Balderdash where Sarasota Needs Vision

To: the BCC

From: Tom Matrullo
Re: Old Miakka CPA Hearing on CPA-2019-C on 9.23.20
Date: 9.9.20

Commissioners, when the people of Old Miakka came to you with their intent to offer a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), you gave them the go-ahead to hold workshops.

Old Miakka map courtesy of Sarasota News Leader

At the workshop I attended, there was strong community sentiment from the residents of Old Miakka and District 1. The consistent theme was that leapfrog intensification of this north-eastern sector of the County contradicts the fundamental logic and purpose of the Comp Plan.

Yet at the 8.20.20 Planning Commission (PC) hearing, the Commissioners failed to treat this initiative as what it is: A CPA brought by the County for consideration. The allegation that this CPA constitutes a taking of property rights rose out of William Merrill III’s mouth to become the nucleus of the PC’s reasoning. If you aren’t sure that this is balderdash, check with your professional planners who reviewed the CPA. Surely they would have raised this concern had it been anything other than a red herring.

Consider a re-set: This long-existing community wishes to maintain something that goes well beyond technicalities of density. They seek to preserve a part of Sarasota’s traditional historical diversity, much as people wish to protect wetlands, or wildlife corridors. This is a cultural plea to help preserve a viable and healthy way of life, intact for 170 years.

The Bert Harris bugaboo simply derails the actual facts.

Invite both parties to seek a way to guarantee the value of this way of life. Don’t put the County in the absurd position of treating its own Comp Plan Amendment as if it were a nefarious scheme to take private property.

You can rise above this: Bring some originality, some creative vision that helps both sides find a win/win resolution. Show us you have the political skill and custodial dedication to do what’s best for Sarasota County.

Thank you,

Tom Matrullo

Citzens for Sarasota County

See also: Irreplaceable impact of Old Miakka lifestyle by Carrie Seidman in the Herald Tribune.

Words mean what developers say they mean - LTE

A Letter to the Editor of the Herald Tribune, Sept. 8, 2020 regarding the view taken of a citizens' effort to preserve and protect the rural heritage of a 170-year-old community in East Sarasota. More on the issues here and see also: 

Sarasota County panel wants stricter rules for public input on growth.

Like Humpty Dumpty, developers must fall

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." – Through the Looking-Glass, Lewis Carroll

Sarasota County has stepped through the looking-glass with residents’ interests upside down to development interests. 

East County residents support a comprehensive plan amendment preserving Old Miakka’s historic rural community.  Developers threaten expensive lawsuits. 

Humpty Dumpty’s and developers’ words mean what they choose – not what is real.  Here are some developers’ words opposing CPA 2019-C at a recent public hearing and the real meanings:

“Chaos” and “hijacking the process” means Old Miakka residents following county regulations and asking the county to preserve existing rural zoning densities.

“Vested private property rights” means rights to imagined future hamlet rezones without filing an application.

“Millions in county liability” means the county paying developers for speculative, unreasonable investments in hypothetical future density increases.

CPA 2019-C is based on facts and the Old Miakka Plan, is in the public interest, maintains Apoxsee future land use, and deserves commission approval. 

Humpty Dumpty must take a great fall.

Susan Schoettle-Gumm, Sarasota, former Assistant County Attorney, Sarasota County

 

Ayech to Moran: We followed the rules

A few weeks ago, on August 20, 2020, the Sarasota County Planning Commission heard a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment from a rural Sarasota community, and unanimously recommended denial. 

The Board -- made up entirely of appointees, mostly development industry insiders -- then went entirely beyond its specified responsibility to urge the County Commission to look into whether a community even had the right to seek a planning provision that would protect its 170-year way of life.

Below is an email from Becky Ayech to District 1 County Commissioner Mike Moran. It explains how her community's effort to protect the rural lifestyle of their 170-year-old community known as Old Miakka was entirely according to the County's own rules.

Ayech urges residents to write to the Commissioners in support of Old Miakka's right to seek a sound plan that would protect her community and prevent leapfrog development potentially all over the county.

===== 

Good day Mike

I would like to address the issue of 20 signatures to REQUEST a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

1.  This is a County Regulation and the Miakka Community Club was TOLD they must take this route.

2.  The 20 signatures was to REQUEST a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would become a Public Comp Plan Amendment, just like any other County initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment after the County Commission voted on this request.

3. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed by Rod Krebs, because it was a language change, affected all the lands identified as Hamlets, including in South County.  Mr. Krebs did not own or control all the lands that CPA-2018-C would have affected.

Another example is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that changed the TDR program.  This affected all lands that were/are subject to utilizing TDRs, including the subject lands of CPA-2019-C.  I didn't hear any complaints from land owners whose property would be affected.  Nor were they all listed on the CPA request.  So in fairness, there are often impacts to landowners when a CPA is adopted whose names do not appear on any of the filed paperwork, i.e. people who own land.

4.  Most importantly, this is a County Comprehensive Plan Amendment, not a private one.  That is why the Miakka Community Club is only given 3 or 5 minutes, rather than the 15 afforded to privately initiated Amendments.

I know you are a fair person who follows County Rules and Regulations.  Look at the facts presented by County Staff and members of the Public when you make your decision.  I am attaching a synopsis of the County Staff Report, dated August 20, with page numbers, for your ease of reference.

The 20 signature debate has already happened and the BOCC considered all the arguments for and against and voted to process CPA-2019-C as a Publicly Initiated Amendment.

Merits not threats should guide your vote.  I am sure the merits will prevail.

Becky Ayech

President

Miakka Community Club

See also: Irreplaceable impact of Old Miakka lifestyle by Carrie Seidman in the Herald Tribune.

Jono Miller on Shakett Creek rezoning

For the past thirteen months I have been working as a volunteer to help a local couple rezone a parcel on Shakett Creek. My file folder on this matter is 885 megabytes and there are over 850 individual files in the folder. I got involved because I'm retired, I'm frequently willing to help people out when I can, the outcome will be better for the environment, and I think this case has the potential to address some serious systemic problems with County Planning.

This is all heading towards some resolution at 1:30 on Wednesday September 9th when I make a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. Although I am very optimistic, ya never know what will happen with the Board and we have to contend with an online petition opposing (501 signatures) and a 7-0 vote against from the Planning Commission. 

If, in addition to the basic cover letter summary stuff (page 1737), you only read two things, I'm recommending an email I sent to the county on March 16th (page 2108) and a Special Report I produced (How Sarasota County Mistook a Wetland for an Upland, an Upland for a Wetland, and Why it Matters) starting on page 1949. 

Here's a link to the Board Packet.

This links to a website created by the owners of the parcel. 

To view/listen on Wednesday click here and scroll down to the 9/9/20 meeting. 

Wish us luck.

Jono

PS By my calculations it will be 50 years to the day that Julie and I arrived (separately) in Sarasota to attend New College. 

Tiger Bay Forum with Commissioner Moran and Mark Pienkos

The Tiger Bay Forum held September 3, 2020 between Mark Pienkos and Mike Moran: