And although the proposal was placed on the short list of the "A" list, it really doesn't matter where the project is ranked if no additional money will be forthcoming. According to the Sarasota Herald Tribune, the Florida House has included no money for land acquisition this year. The state's economic downturn has created the perplexing paradox of not having money for land acquisition at a time when some relative deals are to be had. And the Myakka Ranchlands project appears to be time sensitive -- it is unlikely the offer will be around in its present form when the economy rebounds.
Reacting to the sobering story in today's paper, Dan Lobeck wrote to a number of local leaders proposing, basically, that the county forget about the state and field another local land protection referendum to raise the funds to protect the Myakka Ranchlands.
Lobeck is the President of Control Growth Now and is known for speaking his mind. As a result he simultaneously enjoys two somewhat contrasting reputations, first as saying what others won't and in the process frequently representing the views of 'average' Sarasotans more closely than many other spokespeople, and secondly as having utilizied a style that has, for some people's taste, relied too much on personal attack and accusation.
His Myakka Ranchlands suggestion probably reflects his first tendency -- no doubt others have wondered about the County going it alone, but shied away from discussing it publicly.
Could it work? It would involve asking people for a lot of money to purchase an alternative future at a time when many are likely more preoccupied with the present challenges. But Dan argues: "Surely the taxpayers will perceive that it will cost them less to preserve the land than to pay the consequences of its development."
Dan proposes a next step of doing some polling or survey work to determine if the 'surely' in the preceding sentence is actually warranted. Such testing the waters could provide valuable baseline information about public attitude, but the numbers might be higher and more encouraging if someone actually developed a case statement that would explore and lay out for scrutiny the anticipated benefits of this ambitious vision.
I've put my time in fighting developments and I eventually realized the County could gain more true protection for natural areas by working to buy land and development rights from willing sellers than by trying to constrain development projects. I still believe that, but I'm not sure the values are intuitively obvious to the electorate. At least I know I spent a lot of time over two campaigns to drive home the point.
If Sarasota leaders want to assemble the facts regarding local protection of the Myakka Ranchlands and take them to the people for consideration, first through polling and then, if warranted, through referendum; I'll be there.
Of course, the cost of protecting the Myakka Ranchlands could be greatly reduced if the public were only paying for the land and the development rights could be preserved and relocated elsewhere in the County. That may not appeal to Dan, but it probably should be explored as an alternative strategy. The devilish detail, of course, is where those units would be welcome. Dan is already on record as opposing any relaxing of traffic concurrency, a key growth management element that, paradoxically, many feel is actually fueling sprawl.
It is seen to feed sprawl because it limits growth in developed areas (where many want more density to support transit and affordable housing) while offering no comparable constraints on more remote areas that have not yet become clogged enough to trigger limits. The County Commission will be holding a workshop (no public testimony yet) on these issues on Tuesday April 15th.
Meanwhile, I need to find some more issues (see my March 25th blog entry) where Paul and I are on opposite sides.