Political Committee Contributers

The current Sarasota City Commission election has featured the negative attacks generated by members of Sarasota's land use and business community. This Political Committee, named "Citizens for a Better Sarasota" has attacked candidate Terry Turner.

Turner received the highest vote total in the general election and is now in a runoff wih the next two highest vote receivers.

Contributions to Citizens for a Better Sarasota – 8/21/2006 – 3/05/09
------------
$18,500 - Piero Rivolta
Lancaster Partners
M&R Sarasota Development
Parkway Collectors Extra
Rivo at Ringling
Rivolta Yachts

$11,000 - John Cox
Half-Acre Construction

$11,000 - Frederick Derr
Frederick Derr & Company

$11,000 - H.R. Foxworthy
Retired

$11,000 - Donald McDonough
Wm. F. McDonough Plumbing

$10,000 - Robert Flanders
Quality Walls Enterprises

$10,000 - Walter Mills
W.G. Mills

$6,000 - Tom Dabney
Beneva Retail Assoc.
Gateway Investors
Gulf Coast Property Serv.
Tuttle Retail Assoc.
University Retail

$6,000 - Abel Band
Law firm

$5,000 – Sen. Michael Bennett/Rep. Ronald Reagan,
Citizens for Housing and Urban Growth PAC

$5,000 - William Dooley
Dooley Mack

$5,000 - Stanley Mueser
Retired

$5,000 - Donald E. Murphy
D.E. Murphy Constructors

$5,000 - F. Fred Pezeshkan
Kraft Construction

$5,000 - Donald Powers
Rusty Plumbing

$3,000 - David Sessions
Willis A. Smith Construction

$3,000 - Robert Soran
Marina Jack, Inc.

$2,500 - David Bustard
JDCK Operations

$2,500 - Fred Starling
Fred M. Starling

$2,500 - Charles Wilson
Charles H. Wilson Construction

$2,000 - Dr. Mark S. Kaufmann
Developer

$2,000 - Sam Norton
Norton Hammersley, PA

$1,500 - Brian Turner
Hi Hat Ranch-Florida Premier Turf

$1,250 - Charles Nebec
Vision Homes of SW Florida

$1,000 - Kathryn Angell Carr
Abel-Band attorney

$1,000 - John King
Contractor

$1,000 - Michael Moulton
Realtor-Michael Saunders

$1,000 - Jeffrey S. Russell
Abel-Band attorney

$1,000 - Ronald Shenkin
Hunters Creek of Sarasota

$1,000 - Jon F. Swift
Jon. F. Swift, Inc.

$1,000 - Anthony Abate
Abel-Band Attorney

$500 – Jay Turner
Hi-Hat Ranch – LBJ Ranch

$500 – Richard Turner
Hi-Hat Ranch – RET Montana

$300 - Charles Githler
Real estate

$50 - Thomas Christian
Abel Band Attorney

Treasurers

9/1/2006-12/31/2006 Christine M. Mayer
12/31/2006-3/5/2009 – Frederick M. Derr

Consultants

The Nolan Group
Bradenton, FL

Barcelo & Company
Jacksonville, FL

Negative Campaigning

Two recent campaigns in Sarasota were noted by the increased activity of negative campaigning by political committees.

One election considered a city charter amendment that would change to an elected mayor with tow added commissioners and increased powers given to the mayor. During the final two weeks of this campaign, the proponents of the amendment began a series of negative attacks targeting the current mayor (a ceremonial post, selected by the five commissioners for a one year term).

The amendment was soundly defeated.

The other election was for two at large city commissioners. Eight candidates entered the race and one candidate was targeted by a political committee (Citizens for a Better Sarasota, composed mostly of developers and related land use business people). This campaign failed as the targeted candidate (Terry Turner) garnered the most votes.

Sarasota Herald Tribune editorials have decried the negative attacks. However the negative attacks by the developer group continues in the runoff election.

The Pelican Press has urged voters to "cast only a single vote for Terry Turner" as a way to show the "bullies" that are behind these negative attacks that their tactics will not work in Sarasota.

It is also important that those contributing to these attacks be held accountable for their actions. A future column will list the contributors.

The Greening of Main

From an article in today's SHT concerning the proposed downtown green policy:

The intersection of Main Street and Palm Avenue has been due for a makeover for more than four years, with as much as $130,000 set aside to install plants, brick and benches.

But for those same four years, the project has been mired in debate.

On one side, members of the downtown group Save Our Sarasota want more trees and plants. On the other side merchants and some downtown residents prefer an urban look with more brick and fewer plants.

But everyone agrees Main and Palm is a key intersection, and ought to be a model for other intersections.

Now, after several failed attempts at compromise, city officials have appointed a committee to break the stalemate.

The five-member group -- which consists of a property owner, a restaurateur, a gardener, a downtown condo resident and a person who has lobbied in the past for more greenery downtown -- will have its first meeting Tuesday to talk about improvements at Main Street and Palm Avenue.

.................

Janice Green, who voiced concerns about an earlier plan to spruce up the intersection, hopes that the committee will come up with something more palatable.

"There has to be some greenery so you don't feel overwhelmed," Green said. "Even New York City has lots of trees on the east side.

"Green is chairwoman of Save Our Sarasota, a group that has lobbied against several proposals to make downtown more urban.

"Let's see what they come up with," Green said. "So far, SOS is very pleased with what is going on. I think it is a wonderful first step."

Carol Reynolds, also a member of Save Our Sarasota, will serve on the committee.

Changing Sarasota

Below are two pictures of the Payne Park area of Sarasota. The first picture shows what the park and surrounding area looks like today. The second is a postcard picture of the same area when the baseball field and trailer park were still there (about 1970?).

The area just east of Payne Park has been the subject of a proposed development for the last two years. Concerns about height, density and traffic have resulted in a number of changes to the original plan.

More recently a design charette was conducted to find "community consensus" concerning these issues. A description of the charette and the result can be found at School Avenue Charette website.

The process will continue to the Planning Board and the City Commission in the next month or so.

[The picture showing the current view of Payne Park is from the Charette website. There are other aerial pictures of this site also.]

Mooring Field and Marina Jack - A Saga

"There's a war going on here over who owns the water-the rich or the many."*

Written by Harry Hilson in 1980, these words ring true today, as does much of his satirical Ahoy City Hall*. In this little book, Hilson made a direct attack on City Hall's efforts to get rid of the perceived riffraff occupying the Sarasota bayfront and also on the lucrative contract awarded to Marina Jack. Today's debate about the creation of a municipal mooring field has its echoes in this earlier era.

It seems there is always a certain tension between those who want things neat and orderly and those who prefer the picturesque and a more laissez faire approach. In 1980, the orderly crowd got the upper hand and the City Commission took steps to control the bayfront by passing a new regulation requiring boats to moor in an approved location. The number of approved locations was significantly smaller than the number of existing boats, and the regulation was widely perceived as an effort to get rid of the more eccentric elements of the bayfront community. Turned out that it also stepped on a lot of middle class toes, and within two weeks boaters collected 1,000 signatures protesting this action. Although the regulation was approved by the City Commission, community sentiment prevailed: the police chose to enforce it in such a fashion as to render it meaningless.

Municipal involvement at the bayfront has a long history. A public marina for Sarasota was first proposed in 1959, but voters rejected it in a referendum. Nevertheless, by 1963 the project was underway, using $500,000 from a bond issue and $100,000 in general funds. (This time around, they skipped the problematic referendum.) The money provided not only the land for the marina, but Island Park itself, all created with fill and completed by 1965.

The initial contract to build and run the restaurant, pier and docks was never put out for public bidding, and the history of this lease is very complex. Although the first contractor, Marina Mar (i.e., Gulf Oil), successfully completed the construction, they quickly ran into problems actually running the marina, and rent payments to the City became sporadic. Long-time residents still recall the many problems of this early phase.

In 1968, Marina Jack (then owned by Jack Graham) bought rights to the contract and then signed a formal lease with the City, essentially taking on the original 30 year lease which provided for a rent payment of 3% of gross sales. In 2006, that contract gave the City $327,433 on gross sales of just under eleven million dollars. Seems like a pretty attractive deal for Marina Jack, doesn't it? Hilson thought so too:

"What is this - some new form of government? A City Commission which acquires prime real estate, builds a complex facility, and then leases it for only 3% of the gross? It almost sounds too crooked to be true: but it's not crooked at all, just a far out deal."

Flash to 2005: the deal continues. Although the existing lease was not due to expire for another 22 years (due to numerous lease extensions that had already taken place), Marina Jack, now owned by Bob Soran, requested a twenty year extension to 2047. Having recently acquired O'Leary's, Marina Jack asked that the O'Leary lease also be extended (another 33 years) so that both leases would expire at the same time in 2047. In exchange for this additional time, Marina Jack agreed to take on the management of the soon to-be-created public mooring field and - in 2027 - slightly increase the minimum rent. In 2047, this contract will have been in effect for 84 years without once having been put out for public bidding. To date, no independent audit of Marina Jack has ever been performed and the last appraisal of the lease was done in 1994.

Why would the City agree to a 20 year extension? The City wants an organized mooring field for a variety of reasons including environmental concerns, insurance issues, and aesthetics. Not everyone agrees that a mooring field is desirable, but for the moment let's accept that we need a mooring field and that someone will have to operate it - either City employees or a contractor.

Given its long term relationship with Marina Jack, perhaps it is not surprising that the City would look to this known entity first. And perhaps Marina Jack's suggestion that they might exercise the no competition clause in their contract also had something to do with the decision? A 10/27/2005 memo from Deputy City Manager Schneider notes that "Marina Jack would not exercise its non-compete provision in its lease with the City if the lease extension were approved." In an article in the Pelican Press, the City's director of general services gave another reason. She said that "Marina Jack has made significant capital improvements to the leasehold in recent years and it needs the extension to amortize those." (Pelican Press, 11/23/05). Yet another factor is that state law requires there be no profit generated by the mooring field - this is a condition for the City obtaining the submerged lands lease from the State. The most frequent reason given for the extension was that that since there could be no profit and Marina Jack needed to be compensated in some way for their cooperation, a long extension of the current lease was justified. Whatever the reason, the City decided to move ahead without competitive bids and without making the lease more favorable for the City.

What is most surprising, however, is that in spite of the long process that the mooring field proposal has gone through, few financial details have been hammered out with Marina Jack. The agreement brought to the Commission for approval was almost embarrassing in its lack of detail and clarity. It seemed clear that the agreement was a long way from being ready for approval and yet, there it was to be voted on. At that City Commission meeting (12/17/07), Commissioners Clapp and Kirschner asked a great many questions and Mayor Palmer insisted that the Memorandum of Understanding currently being worked out with Marina Jack be returned to the Commission for approval even though Deputy City Manager Schneider said he thought this was unnecessary.

This Memorandum of Understanding is essentially the only card the City has left in negotiating details of an agreement that will expire in 2047. Surely that deserves some serious attention to detail. As Ronald Reagan famously said years ago, "Trust, but verify." Particularly when agreements are being made that will span decades, it is the City's fiduciary responsibility to its citizens to ensure that public dollars and property are being protected.

Kate Lowman
Guest Contributor

*Ahoy City Hall or throw me a line I'm sinking, Harry Hilson 1980, J.R. Isgur Co., Houston TX

[Part II follows]

Mooring Field and Marina Jack - A Saga

[Part II - continued from the above post]

This Memorandum of Understanding is essentially the only card the City has left in negotiating details of an agreement that will expire in 2047. Surely that deserves some serious attention to detail. As Ronald Reagan famously said years ago, "Trust, but verify." Particularly when agreements are being made that will span decades, it is the City's fiduciary responsibility to its citizens to ensure that public dollars and property are being protected.

Here are some of the main issues that have not been resolved:

Rates for using the mooring field. The figure most frequently cited is $15 per day with a 10% discount for longer stays. Many of the current residents can't afford this. They are being asked to transition from a place where they can anchor indefinitely and for free to one where they can stay only a maximum of six months at considerable cost. No distinction is made between large and small craft. As Hilson said, "Happy Jack runs that marina like Admiral Jack's Private Yacht Club. How do you do that? Simple: charge the hell out of the public and in that equation you'll end up with just those folks who can afford to romp around on public land and water."*

How much has Marina Jack already invested in this project? Numerous comments have been made at the City Commission table about the $450,000 that Marina Jack has "already contributed" to this project by expanding the showers and other facilities. Marina Jack currently supplies these services to its customers, but a mooring field will require additional facilities. Not only was there confusion as to whether Marina Jack had "donated" this money, but there were no clear statements about exactly how much had been spent and on what it had been spent. Were they simply improving services for their existing business or was it really all for the mooring field? Since it turns out that Marina Jack will get this money back from the mooring field revenues, and the expenditures were never approved or reviewed by the City, these are details that turn out to be pretty important.

Profit vs. non-profit: Since Marina Jack is a for profit enterprise and the mooring field must be non-profit, how will the accounting for these two entities be managed? Particularly since the City is obligated to pay 90% of any losses for the mooring field, there is an incentive for Marina Jack to shift costs to the mooring field. (That 90% would be deducted from the rent which Marina Jack pays to the City.)

On 1/7/08, Commissioner Clapp renewed questions about the agreements, stating that there were widespread concerns about Marina Jack's "sweetheart deal" and emphasizing the public's need for openness and transparency. Three items were agreed upon:

1. Audit the claimed expenditure of $450,000 to determine how much should be allocated to the mooring field (ie., should some be allocated to Marina Jack or O'Leary's?)

2. Audit the proposed operating expenses of the mooring field to make sure only those costs directly associated with the field are allocated to it. This is to ensure that no costs for operating Marina Jack and O'Leary's are charged to the mooring field.

3. Do an "appraisal" of the use of City land and resources used by the Marina Jack and O'Leary's operations to make sure the lease payment to the City is fair and equitable. Determine the fair value of the use of this land and resources. This will require comparison to similar agreements elsewhere (in real estate terms: comparables).

This measure passed on a 3-2 vote, supported by Commissioners Clapp, Kirschner and Atkins. Mayor Palmer stated that, even though many hard questions needed to be resolved with the Memorandum of Understanding, there was no point to conducting an in-depth analysis since the lease did not expire until 2047. She also noted that Marina Jack had invested a great deal of money in the bayfront and had helped make it a great community asset. Commissioner Shelin said he could not support the proposal because it was "putting the cart before the horse", (i.e. the Memorandum of Understanding.) The three Commissioners voting in favor of the measure all stressed that public confidence and trust in the City and its agreements demanded greater clarity.

As an outside observer, one has to note that asking these questions two years ago before extending the lease would have been even more timely, but better late than never. Fortunately, several of the Commissioners are asking hard questions and we can only hope the answers are forthcoming. Unless these details are fully worked out and there is some independent review of the numbers, it should not be surprising that many members of the public will continue to view this as another sweet deal and giveaway of public dollars.

Kate Lowman
Guest Contributor

*Ahoy City Hall or throw me a line i'm sinking, Harry Hilson 1980, J.R. Isgur Co., Houston TX

Help Establish A Sarasota Green Policy

What: City Commission will discuss preserving and enhancing greenspace
When: Monday, October 15, during the 6:00 PM Session
Where: City Hall - First Street and Orange Avenue
What You Can Do: Attend to show support and email the Commissioners

At this meeting, we will have a unique opportunity to increase the quality of our lives by urging the Commission to preserve and enhance our greenspace downtown as well as develop an overall green policy for the city, including the protection of our coastal waters.

For simplicity, greenspace refers to trees, flowers, shrubs and grass.

We are asking for a new Green Policy that clearly articulates the importance of greenspace, providing that the destruction of any public greenspace be only a last resort, not a first option, and then only with appropriate mitigation.

It is essential that we show widespread community support for this initiative.

Ways you can help include:

• Attending on Oct. 1st and bringing your friends and neighbors with you,
• Forwarding this message to your friends and neighbors via email, hard copy and word-of-mouth,
• Emailing the Commissioners (addresses below) to express your support for more greenspace
• Calling 954.4115 and asking to leave one message for all five Commissioners.

Thanks for your help in letting our Commissioners know how important this issue is to Sarasota's residents.

SOS Steering Committee

Addresses to click and send:
LouAnn.Palmer@sarasotagov.com
Kelly.Kirschner@sarasotagov.com
Fredd.Atkins@Sarasotagov.com
Richard.Clapp@sarasotagov.com
Ken.Shelin@Sarasotagov.com
robert.bartolotta@sarasotagov.com
saveoursarasota@aol.com

Pelican Press Endorses Super Majority

From the Pelican Press

Super majority amendment is good government

Come November - and much sooner actually as absentee ballots are being mailed out this week - voters will be faced with a chance to require significant changes in city and county government, some of them possibly confusing.

But one issue is simple. It would require a super majority of at least four commission votes instead of three to permit increased height or density changes in our comprehensive plans. ...

The Pelican Press strongly believes the community of Sarasota deserves the added protection of super majorities on comprehensive plan changes in both the city and the unincorporated area of the county.

Read the entire editorial here.

City Charter Amendments - Vote Yes

Dear Friends,

Save Our Sarasota's Steering Committee has endorsed four amendments to our City Charter that will be on the November 6th ballot. As a public interest group, we do not endorse candidates. However, we feel these amendments are important enough to the future of our City to merit our support and encourage your support as well.

The amendments will give Sarasota citizens a stronger voice in growth decisions and provide local campaign finance reform.

A super majority amendment would require the vote of four of five City Commissioners when changing the City's Comprehensive Plan to permit an increase in height or density.

Three campaign finance reform amendments would:

• Lower the campaign contribution limit from $500 to $200, bringing the City of Sarasota in line with Sarasota County;
• Allow contributions only from individuals, thereby preventing corporations from bundling multiple contributions from several business entities; and
• Change campaign finance reporting dates so that the press and public learn where the money is coming from before they vote, not after.

Sarasotans for Good Government, chaired by Susan Chapman, has been formed to support passage of these Charter amendments. If you would like to contribute toward the cost of signs and mailers to promote these measures, you may send a check,* limited to $200 per person, to:

Sarasotans for Good Government Campaign Account
46 Palm Avenue South,
Sarasota, FL 34236

If you would like a sign for your yard or are able to volunteer, please send an e-mail with your request and it will be forwarded to Sarasotans for Good Government.

Please vote Yes on November 6th and forward this to others who care about our city.

SOS Steering Committee

*No corporate checks. If check is for more than $100, please note occupation.
Political advertisement paid for and approved by Sarasotans for Good Government Political Committee.

Sarasota Election Results

Two new commissioners will be seated on Friday, March 13. Kelly Kirshner and Dick Clapp received more votes than the incumbents they are replacing.

News story about the latest election is here.

Growth Control

Orlando Sentinel article.

Sierra Club backs push to let voters rule growth

The group's $35,000 gift boosts Florida Hometown Democracy, which business groups decry.

Kevin Spear Sentinel Staff Writer Posted March 1, 2007

Backers of a statewide proposal to give voters ultimate authority over new subdivisions, shopping centers and other future growth received a $35,000 contribution and vows of vigorous support from one of Florida's largest environmental groups Wednesday.

The Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club stepped firmly behind the Florida Hometown Democracy campaign, which aims to gather enough voter signatures to put a proposed constitutional amendment on next year's ballot. If passed, local politicians would have to win voter approval to change growth-planning guidelines.

"I think more and more people are becoming outraged by how we are growing," said John Hedrick, Sierra chairman for growth issues, who announced his group's support in Tallahassee. "I think people feel cut out of the planning process."

Hedrick said the Sierra Club in Florida has 18 local groups with a combined membership of more than 30,000. Each group has pledged to secure thousands of voter signatures.

Ross Burnaman, co-founder of the movement, said the proposal needs about 611,000 verified signatures by early next year. So far, Hometown Democracy has gathered 250,000 signatures, and about 110,000 have been approved by county elections supervisors, he said.

The proposal has drawn the ire of business associations and interest groups. Among them, the Florida Chamber of Commerce has launched a campaign that mocks the proposal as a "Hometown Democracy Scam."

"It would mean no new jobs and no new roads in Florida," said Adam Babington, coalition director at the chamber in Tallahassee. "It would turn every growth decision into a negative political campaign."

Florida Hometown backers said that kind of reaction stems from fears among development interests that the proposed amendment would make it harder to maximize profits.

"I think the Florida Chamber of Commerce is a little hysterical," said Lesley Blackner, the other co-founder of Hometown Democracy. "It's not a scam; it's about letting people vote. Maybe they don't want endless [population] density crammed down their throats."

Burnaman, of Tallahassee, and Blackner, of Palm Beach County, are land-use and environmental lawyers who joined together in 2003 to start Florida Hometown Democracy.

Voters can get ballot-petition forms online at florida hometowndemocracy.com or by calling toll-free 1-866-779-5513.

The initial effort to get on the 2006 ballot was struck down in 2005 by the state Supreme Court, which ruled that the proposed amendment's language did not meet legal requirements. The two lawyers regrouped later in 2005 with revised language that went on to win approval.

Another obstacle to the initiative emerged last year when Florida voters decided that future ballot questions must gain at least 60 percent support to be approved, rather than the simple majority that long had been the standard.

Still, observers say the proposal has a good chance of getting on the 2008 ballot and perhaps a better chance of winning approval.

"I think if it were on the ballot today it would pass easily," said University of South Florida political-science professor Susan MacManus, adding that resentment for growth is "strengthening day by day.

"If voters approve Florida Hometown Democracy, her worry is whether people would vote on complex growth issues.

"Local elections have low turnout, and I think you might have critical decisions being made by people with an agenda," MacManus said.

Tom Drage, lead attorney for Orange County government, said he is concerned about whether voters will want to inform themselves on many complicated issues.

In the past four years, Orange County has reviewed 262 applications for changes in growth plans and approved 125. Those vary from wording changes to reclassifications for intense development.

Tim Jackson, an Orlando planning consultant and vice president of the controlled-growth advocacy group 1000 Friends of Florida, said his organization is concerned Florida Hometown Democracy will turn local planning into popularity contests based on who has the most cash for marketing campaigns.

"We're not promoting it," Jackson said. "We are promoting people being engaged actively in their community."

The Central Florida think tank myregion.org, which has business and government backing, recently conducted a survey asking residents to pick from among alternative visions for managing a population that could double to more than 7 million residents by 2050.

Hedrick of the Sierra Club said the survey suggested that such growth in inevitable."That's poppycock," he said. "They are not asking the fundamental question of, 'Is that what the people of Florida want?' "

SOS Recommends "YES" on County Charter Amendment

The SHT recommends voting "YES" on the referendum question concerning requiring county approval for land use changes for annexed land outside the urban service boundary.

Sarasota County voters will soon be asked: Should the County Commission have the ability to approve proposals that would make annexed rural lands ripe for city development?

The case for voting "yes" is compelling, especially since county approval would only be required if the land isn't covered by a city-county planning agreement.

A voter-approved amendment to the county charter is necessary to give the commission a say in city-initiated changes to lands lying outside the "Urban Services Boundary" and designated by the county plan as rural.

Likewise the Pelican Press recommends a "YES" vote:

Let's cool the overheated growth in South County

Voters countywide have a chance March 13 to slow the growth that is exploding in southern Sarasota County, as Venice and North Port expand their tax bases by bringing formerly rural lands into the cities and permitting massive, sprawling developments.

Fortunately for the cities, the residential streets from all these projects empty onto county roads - rural county roads - and ultimately onto state roads, which the cities have no obligation to improve or maintain. That falls to all county taxpayers.

The same is true for providing schools for these residents' children, water and sewage treatment, drainage, storm sewers, parks ... The list goes on.

Since 2000, North Port has increased its size by more than 18,000 acres and has rezoned land to accommodate 26,520 new homes or apartments. County Planning Department calculations say that ultimately will mean 253,796 more vehicular trips and a demand for 3,276,500 additional gallons of water - per day.

A proposal worth venturing to the polls for - it may be the only thing on the ballot in many precincts - is a proposition that would in effect give Sarasota County veto power when cities attempt to annex rural county land for expansion, stemming this growth before it is too late.

Developers, big landowners and their legal, banking and business allies are expected to mount a late, negative campaign against the measure. Don't believe it.

The Pelican Press strongly urges all county residents to go to the polls and vote "Yes" on the county charter amendment.

Save Our Sarasota agrees with these recommendations.

Super Majority

At the Saturday CCNA (Coalition of City Neighborhoods) meeting, the topic of requiring a city commission super majority (4 out of 5 votes) in order to change the comprehensive plan was brought up and discussed.

This would make it more difficult to change the comp plan without having community involvment and acceptance of the change before enacting the change.

CCNA voted unanimously to:

1. Ask thecity commissioners to put this question (requiring a super majority for comp plan land use changes) on a referendum ballot.
2. If the commissioners were not agreeable to this, CCNA would consider collecting signatures to put this on the ballot.

There is a petition effort to have a similar super majority requirement for land use changes in Sarasota County. The group has more than half of the required signatures.

Rosemary Community Garden

The issue with the city decision on the Rosmary Community Garden and the process used continues to stir deep feelings.

Jono Miller has written an excellent op-ed piece in the SHT. In part he says:

On Nov. 6, without bothering to notify any of the four dozen directly affected gardeners, or any neighbors or other stakeholders, the Sarasota City Commission held a 10-minute discussion to consider what is now the Rosemary Community Garden as a site for workforce housing. The commission was acting to seize an opportunity -- a grant with a mid-December deadline and the allure of $5 million.

No one asked if density could be moved off the garden site. No one asked how it did or didn't match up with the Rosemary District Neighborhood Action Strategy. No one asked what role the garden was playing in the Rosemary community or the city. No one asked if the gardeners should be notified and allowed to speak. After 10 minutes, the commissioners all voted to apply for the grant, which, if awarded and accepted, will mean the end of the Rosemary Community Garden. They had exercised their long-held right.

There are three problems: the first is why the affected stakeholders were not notified of the process. The second is the potential loss of the garden, and the third is the collateral effect on public opinion if people come to conclude that if this approach (destroying social capital, not consulting community plans, eliminating greenspace, ignoring assets, expunging a community garden, and not informing stakeholders) is representative of how advocates plan to treat the public in reaching community housing goals.

People are still debating how and why the gardeners received no notification of the discussion that could doom the garden. However that happened, it was wrong.

This lack of process and reactionary decision making is an issue that has come up again and again with the city commission.

The community garden has inherent community benefits that have not been given due consideration. This is also an on-going issue with the commission. How do we value the needs and desires of the entire community, how can we find solutions that satisify a broader segment of our community? These questions do not get asked by the commissioners and of course they are then not answered.

Community Conversations - Value Judgements

A week ago the city commission was asked to donate land that has been used for a community garden for the last 11 years so that affordable housing could be built instead. The request was based on the need for temporary artists visiting Sarasota as part of the cultural venues that Sarasota is noted for. The group that asked for the land indicated that they could fund a building but could not afford the land. They suggested that the Community Garden land on 6th and Central.

A number of gardeners asked that this particular lot be kept as a community garden. They argued that it not only provided green space within the city but that the gardener community crossed social and economic lines and provided a unique and wonderful sense of community. The gardeners have been working this plot of land for more than 11 years. The city has described the land as being in a "land bank" for future use.

Jono Miller, New College environmental professor argued that while affordable housing is important the community garden in Sarasota was also important. We should not have to give up one to get the other. Later he wrote the following e-mail on the subject:

Commissioners:

Things happen. You meet someone and agree it doesn't make sense to have a serious relationship and 36 years later you're leaving a City Commission meeting to drive together to Tampa to pick up your soncoming back from college. A friend leaves an abandoned puppy with you for a weekend while she finds someone to take it permanently and fourteen years later you're wondering if house guests can smell the pee from your old incontinent dog. You pick a place to go to college and find, for whatever reason, it might be a place to live.

I'm sitting here with the most recent copy of the New College student newspaper, the Catlyst.

The lead story relates how student efforts to vote were thwarted. How after decades of being able to use the college address to vote, this year students had to use arcane dorm addresses (and re-register if they changed dorms!). Then on page four there is a story about two students who tried to vote for Jennings and when they got to the review page, their vote was gone.

Things happen. But these are our young people, many voting for the first time and this was their first experience with local government. That has nothing to do with you. Except imagine that context and then coming to your first public hearing.

Imagine being told not to get excited because nothing had been decided only to hear moments later that two weeks previously something HAD been decided, without any notification of the people being affected.

Imagine hearing the City Manager say he will always bring matters to the Board before letting those who will be affected know about it.

Imagine hearing the land was vacant, which it probably is from a real estate point of view, but certainly not in the sense of being abandoned or neglected – it is probably the most nurtured and fawned-over two thirds of an acre in the City. Imagine it is the first, and maybe only place where you feel safe talking with strangers in Sarasota because you share a common bond.

Imagine hearing that providing temporary residences for a couple dozen of out-of-town artists is apparently more important than the needs of about fifty people who live here in the City right now. Imagine being told it was play when it feels like work, or that people who speak on its behalf are elitists, or that it is about flowers and not food. Imagine elected officials who can only see it as they did many years ago, as a nasty sandspur patch, when the students experience it as a vital third place, where people from many walks of life meet and interact. For some, this month has seen their first vote and their first hearing.

For whatever reason, many New College students want to learn togarden. Its not really down the center line of what one of the best liberal arts colleges in the country is supposed to be doing.

But it is important to them. And I support it, not because I think they willbe feeding themselves, but because working in the soil is an act of faith, because it fosters humility, and because, usually, they have little idea what they are doing. Nowadays they are likely to sit intheir dorm rooms and Google "vegetables" and "Florida" and come across some list made by someone in Gainesville and then they find an online seed company and order seeds. I don't need to tell you how that works.

There is a garden on campus outside my window. But here students arejust talking to themselves.

I tell them they need to forget the computer and go downtown and find someone who knows what grows and talk to them. We are raising a generation that is not learning how to find real people who know something and ask for guidance. Sending them to Sixth Street has been one part of the antidote. If you want to call them elitists, that's fine --- some probably come from wealthy families and head to WholeFoods after struggling in the garden. But I'm telling you their"playing in the dirt" is just as important as moving off campus and"playing house" or being on a team and "playing Ultimate Frisbee" –all this playing is preparing them to be responsible engaged adults that can take care of themselves and their community. And while most of our students graduate and take off for graduate school or whatever,some stay, despite the housing situation and make Sarasota a morevibrant place to live. They fill any number of roles from waitresses and house sitters to teaching or selecting the films you'll be seeing at the Sarasota Film Festival.

I'm not asking you to set aside your affordable housing agenda so New College students can play in the dirt. (I think they may only have one plot anyway). I'm just telling part of the story of one of the 28 plots. I think it is obvious you decided several weeks ago what you wanted to do with this land without hearing any of the other stories. (Or consulting the Rosemary District neighborhood plan?)

That is flawed public process and if there is any way you can back up and do this right, I think you should. I think you owe it to the people you cut out of the process. You should have to listen to the other 27 stories before you vote to take this away or even to relocate it.

Relocation pits gardeners against park users, who will justifiably argue "their" park is being nibbled away. People take ownership and fight for things they care about. They get emotional.

Your comments last night reveal that you have set on this path without knowing all the facts, or at least without hearing all the stakeholders. Plain and simple, that is wrong and I think most of you can see that now. I expect more from my City Commission. I won't ask you to open your hearts, but I will ask you to spend some time in the community garden. I haven't been there since January, so don't take myword for it. See for yourselves.

And I will ask you to open your minds. We were told this entire site is about one acre. We all know you/we aren't going to scratch the surface of the affordable housing need with this one acre effort. This is about getting started. But you need to ask if you want to start by destroying community and alienating a broad cross section of this community. Less than 2/3 of an acre is the garden. Why aren't we talking about putting some units on the parking lot site and transferring the remaining units elsewhere to city or private property?

I can't remember ever heading downtown to oppose more units downtown.

I support downtown growth and affordable housing. I will show up to support rezonings if that what it takes. What's more I think a lot ofpeople would support adding a few units here and there in the RosemaryDistrict if it means we can and leave the garden. Instead of hiring landscape architects to design "green space" citizens have created it for free by themselves (with some mulch and water).

I know that eleven years ago you or your predecessors didn't intend for this to happen --for people to get attached to the "temporary"garden. But things happen. People have created a specialized densely-used "micro-park" where diverse citizens not only come to re-create but to have social interactions they can't have anywhere else. No one expected that.

But things happen. Go see for yourselves and be open to rethinking this. That's all I'm asking.

Jono

The SHT has an extensive article about the community garden in today's paper.

Listening to Citizens

More on not listening:

Residents and their attorneys have lined up to challenge county commission-approved growth plans that state planners said fly in the face of growth-management laws.

A group of suburban West Palm Beach residents, the growth management group 1000 Friends of Florida and environmental activist Rosa Durando filed paperwork with the state this week to participate in negotiations to settle the fate of four county comprehensive plan changes approved by commissioners in August.

The state's Department of Community Affairs last month ruled that the four comprehensive plan changes, as well as a fifth one, were out of compliance with county and state growth laws.

This is from the Palm Beach Post and reflects what citizens are being forced to do as developers use their muscle to get commissioners to over extend growth.

Throughout meetings this year, the residents said that project was too dense, compared with the one-acre lots in their community. The city of Greenacres also opposed the project, and county planners had recommended that commissioners deny it approval.

The commissioners "need to review what the professionals in planning have done," resident Jim Harangody said. The association hired environmental and land-use attorney Jane West to represent them.

This is similar to what has happened here with the School Ave. proposal. Planners and citizens opposed the proposal because of height and traffic. Commissioner passed it anyway, then the DCA had an objection. Now it appears the city may look at changing its growth requirements to allow this proposal anyway.

Why do we have no accountability to citizens - no desire for consensus building?

PACS and Local Elections

From a recent SHT editorial:

More than $20,000 from a political action committee helped John Simmonds get re-elected to the Venice City Council last week.

Simmonds received the campaign contributions from Citizens for Quality Government, which was formed in 2000. Since then, all the City Council candidates supported by the group have won. In other words, CQG is 10-0.

This is one of the reasons that the City Charter Review Committee was reluctant to endorse an elected mayor. A number of citizens raised this issue: PACS can put large amounts of funding into local elections and their advertising (truthful or not) can sway voters.

The Charter Review Committee also recommended limiting individual donations to candidates to a maximum of $200. This is the amount allowed in the county elections.

Negative Ad Loses in Sarasota

Maybe Sarasota has seen a breakthrough.

Wednesday morning the local election news had stories about voters that were really negative about the negative ads. (Two negatives make a positive, right?)

Keith Fitzgerald commented that he believed his opponent's negative ad was an element of his victory. Here is a Democrat, first time political office candidate, in a heavily Republican district that refused to run a negative ad even though his opponent did so. He did have harsh words about his opponent's use of false statements in her ad. But he stuck to the promise he made - he would not run negative ads.

In the end Fitzgerald won a close contest.

We hope that other negative ad producers take note of this result and think long and hard in future Sarasota political campaigns.

Negative Ads and Integrity

In September we commented about the negative tv ads that were placed by people that hid their identities. The ads were directed at Joe Barbetta and were placed by a group of developer special interests that were identified after the election.

We have become inured to all the negative ads during the current campaign. It seems that both candidates for many positions are slinging mis-truths and half-truths around like crazy.

Another ad has appeared that is a little different.

Laura Benson has recently started running negative ads in the race for District 69 State House. Her opponent, Keith Fitzgerald, stated in a Tiger Bay forum that the ads are lies. He has pointed out that his 1996 book, apparently referred to in the ads, is a policy study that clearly says that uncontrolled immigration must be controlled or our country will face many serious difficulties. He has also pointed out that immigration policy is a federal government policy issue according to the U S Constitution, not a state policy issue.

What is disturbing is that while both Fitzgerald and Benson signed pledges with the Civic League that they would not engage in negative ads, Fitzgerald has kept his pledge, but Benson has not.

SOS does not endorse candidates. However one of our mission principles is that we "preserve, enhance and promote integrity of public management". We have difficulty with a candidate that pledges not to use negative ads then goes ahead and runs negative ads anyway.

Can an elected official maintain integrity during the term of office when they obviously show a lack of integrity while running for office?