Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
DEP Fail at Lido Key Nourishment Public Hearing/Meeting
DEP's performance at the Waldemere Fire Station did not inspire confidence in the state agency charged with minding the shore.
Where to start?
1) Contrary to the official notice/advertisement, the meeting did NOT provide "an overview of the proposed Lido Key Nourishment Project ". Instead, there was a excessively brief, un-illustrated summary. When I say brief, I mean 78 seconds -- rather than an overview, it was more of an underview. A newcomer would have learned very little.
2) What a crowd scene - I was almost surprised the Fire Marshall didn't intervene. The acoustics, combined with the crush of people eager for more information made it very difficult to get information. Many people were reduced to eavesdropping while agency staff interacted one-on-one.
3) Near-complete failure to supply enough materials. They ran out of handouts. Some agency staff ran out of business cards. They even, and this is both embarrassing and tragic, ran out of comment forms. A spokesman said they brought "two or three hundred" (which seems unlikely), but their inability to plan for lots of interested citizens from both Lido and Siesta reflects agency misunderstanding of the level of controversy surrounding this project.
4) Many of the graphics displayed contained stale information that no longer reflect what is being proposed. One would think the agencies would have the courtesy to show up with displays that reflect what is currently being considered, but they didn't. Areas no longer being considered for dredging were shown the same as areas still being considered.
5) No station for Sarasota County. Like it or not, Sarasota County (which has requested an EIS and been rebuffed by the Corps) is a major player in this Project, but there was no County table.
6) No one could tell me how to access online the most current information being processed by DEP. I was promised that link would be sent to me, and I suppose it will, but shouldn't that have been advertised for all?
7) Although they ran out of comment sheets, no one offered me the option of recording my comments, as was promised in the introductory comments.
8) I received contradictory information at two different stations. At one I was told the assessment of impacted seagrass would be locked in with the data in the application. In other words, there would be no adjustment at the time dredging would start to figure out if seagrass extent had increased or decreased. A Corps rep. suggested that's not how its usually done, but that it is going to be DEP's permit.
9) Perhaps most important --billed as a "hearing/meeting" the event bore no correlation to a hearing. A hearing is an organized process in which everyone gets to hear a presentation and then the assembled public gets to hear everyone's concerns or support.
Why are real hearings better than the chaotic stations-with-tables format we were subjected to?
a) In a hearing, everyone is getting identical information from the agencies. Having a shared starting point is a big advantage in any contentious issue. At this meeting NO two people received the same information.
b) In a hearing, everyone is hearing the concerns of the public. The potential for working towards a compromise or consensus has its roots in understanding and appreciating the concerns/needs of the other side. If Siesta Key residents never hear the passion and desperation of Lido Key residents, how will they be moved to work collaboratively towards a solution (and vice versa)?
c) In a hearing, the various agency people get to hear what the other agencies are espousing -- which couldn't happen with tonight's format. That would have helped surface and resolve the issue regarding exactly when seagrass will be measured.
Meanwhile, while we were meeting, a series from the Naples News was starting to make the rounds. Called Shrinking Shores: How Florida leaders are failing the state's famous beaches, the multipart article includes an interactive map feature that shows critically eroded beaches in red and building permits issued. While it is not clear whether DEP was involved in all the permits, or whether the start date was 1980 or 1989, the map makes it clear local governments have been allowing coastal development despite the challenges faced on our Gulf.
Where to start?
1) Contrary to the official notice/advertisement, the meeting did NOT provide "an overview of the proposed Lido Key Nourishment Project ". Instead, there was a excessively brief, un-illustrated summary. When I say brief, I mean 78 seconds -- rather than an overview, it was more of an underview. A newcomer would have learned very little.
2) What a crowd scene - I was almost surprised the Fire Marshall didn't intervene. The acoustics, combined with the crush of people eager for more information made it very difficult to get information. Many people were reduced to eavesdropping while agency staff interacted one-on-one.
3) Near-complete failure to supply enough materials. They ran out of handouts. Some agency staff ran out of business cards. They even, and this is both embarrassing and tragic, ran out of comment forms. A spokesman said they brought "two or three hundred" (which seems unlikely), but their inability to plan for lots of interested citizens from both Lido and Siesta reflects agency misunderstanding of the level of controversy surrounding this project.
4) Many of the graphics displayed contained stale information that no longer reflect what is being proposed. One would think the agencies would have the courtesy to show up with displays that reflect what is currently being considered, but they didn't. Areas no longer being considered for dredging were shown the same as areas still being considered.
5) No station for Sarasota County. Like it or not, Sarasota County (which has requested an EIS and been rebuffed by the Corps) is a major player in this Project, but there was no County table.
6) No one could tell me how to access online the most current information being processed by DEP. I was promised that link would be sent to me, and I suppose it will, but shouldn't that have been advertised for all?
7) Although they ran out of comment sheets, no one offered me the option of recording my comments, as was promised in the introductory comments.
8) I received contradictory information at two different stations. At one I was told the assessment of impacted seagrass would be locked in with the data in the application. In other words, there would be no adjustment at the time dredging would start to figure out if seagrass extent had increased or decreased. A Corps rep. suggested that's not how its usually done, but that it is going to be DEP's permit.
9) Perhaps most important --billed as a "hearing/meeting" the event bore no correlation to a hearing. A hearing is an organized process in which everyone gets to hear a presentation and then the assembled public gets to hear everyone's concerns or support.
Why are real hearings better than the chaotic stations-with-tables format we were subjected to?
a) In a hearing, everyone is getting identical information from the agencies. Having a shared starting point is a big advantage in any contentious issue. At this meeting NO two people received the same information.
b) In a hearing, everyone is hearing the concerns of the public. The potential for working towards a compromise or consensus has its roots in understanding and appreciating the concerns/needs of the other side. If Siesta Key residents never hear the passion and desperation of Lido Key residents, how will they be moved to work collaboratively towards a solution (and vice versa)?
c) In a hearing, the various agency people get to hear what the other agencies are espousing -- which couldn't happen with tonight's format. That would have helped surface and resolve the issue regarding exactly when seagrass will be measured.
Meanwhile, while we were meeting, a series from the Naples News was starting to make the rounds. Called Shrinking Shores: How Florida leaders are failing the state's famous beaches, the multipart article includes an interactive map feature that shows critically eroded beaches in red and building permits issued. While it is not clear whether DEP was involved in all the permits, or whether the start date was 1980 or 1989, the map makes it clear local governments have been allowing coastal development despite the challenges faced on our Gulf.
 |
| Building permits on Lido Key |
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Challenge to Sarasota County Environmental Lands
Please contact Sarasota County Commissioners on Thursday
June 9th and respectfully ask them to
honor the voters and leave PARKS Policy 1.1.5 intact.
In 1999, the County Commission printed a brochure (seen here) to inform voters about the upcoming Environmentally Sensitive Lands Referendum.
The FAQ below is copied from that brochure.
The FAQ below is copied from that brochure.
(First FAQ in the middle column above)
There are two relevant sections in the code of ordinances:
On Friday the tenth of June 2016, the County Commission may consider amending PARKS Policy1.1.5 to allow recreational hunting in areas voters were promised would not experience consumptive uses or activities that were not ecologically benign.
Email the Commissioners at Commissioners@scgov.net
If you would like to listen to the Board Discussion of this matter, click on the link below
sarasotacounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=41&clip_id=3393
Advance to 2:03:50 for the start
My comments at 2:46:00 and 3:22:30
If you would like to listen to the Board Discussion of this matter, click on the link below
sarasotacounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=41&clip_id=3393
Advance to 2:03:50 for the start
My comments at 2:46:00 and 3:22:30
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Taylor Swift • 1989 Tour • Tampa • Halloween • 2015
I know I’m expected to write about important environmental
and political issues, but when the biggest solo pop star since Elvis plays a
gig (on Halloween!) just 54 miles away, it is hard to resist some cultural
commentary.
This is Taylor Swift’s 1989 World Tour – so named for her
birth year and most current release – and Raymond James stadium in Tampa on
Halloween was the last U.S. stop before taking her (two dozen?) conspicuously-labeled
semi trucks to Singapore.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Response to Commissioner Caragiulo regarding Hunting
On September 2, 2015 the Sarasota Herald Tribune ran a guest column written by County Commissioner Paul Caragiulo, who apparently advocates recreational hunting in some, yet un-named, county preserves or reserves.
His column may or may not have been in response to my guest column, which ran on August 21st. It should be noted that neither of us got to choose our own headline.
Rather initiate some sort of back-and-forth in the newspaper, I wrote to Commissioner Caragiulo directly and provided him with an annotated critique of his column, which appears below -- my comments are in red:
---------------------------
His column may or may not have been in response to my guest column, which ran on August 21st. It should be noted that neither of us got to choose our own headline.
Rather initiate some sort of back-and-forth in the newspaper, I wrote to Commissioner Caragiulo directly and provided him with an annotated critique of his column, which appears below -- my comments are in red:
---------------------------
HUNTING HELPS THE ENVIRONMENT
A public meeting notice published in the Sept. 14, 1949, Herald-Tribune asked: “Attention all hunters — would you like more hunting grounds in Sarasota County?” Frank Meyer’s Nov. 8, 1973, column, “Sarasota Hunting Areas Grow Smaller Each Year” includes this quote from a citizen: “The problem is finding a place to shoot, every year there are more and more houses.” (Luckily, things have improved since ’49 and ’73 -- there are now 7,295 more acres of public hunting land in Sarasota County than there were in 1973. Over 4/5 of Myakka State Forest (which didn’t exist in ’73) and an area larger than the Pinelands Reserve is open to hunting.) Yes indeed — more development, more roads and more people. (Yes, more people who have moved here without a hunting tradition – people for whom wildlife viewing is a more popular way of enjoying and connecting to the outdoors than hunting).
It was in response to that reality that previous county commissions, with the support of the electorate, (or in other cases now under discussion, the electorate with the support of county commissions) engaged in a tremendous effort to acquire lands for preservation and conservation.
I love that nearly one-third of the total land area in Sarasota County is made up of conservation lands, with more than 47,000 acres owned by the county and paid for by county taxpayers. It is an essential part of our quality of life. Let’s preserve more.
These natural lands provide us the opportunity to enjoy many diverse outdoor activities. Unfortunately, some people hotly disapprove of some (proposed)activities. (
One (the only?) primary example is hunting. I am one of about 242,000 hunters in Florida. (This 2011 figure, while accurate, masks two facts: The number of hunters is remaining constant as the state grows [smaller percentage each year]* and that hunters are probably somewhere around one percent of the Sarasota population. That doesn’t mean they should be ignored, but it does suggest their recreational desires should be placed in context with those of the rest of the community since there is a certain zero sum aspect to managing land for hunting and we have limited dollars to spend on recreation.) On occasion, I get critical responses from people when they learn that as well as being a conservationist, I hunt. All of the animals I shoot end up in the same place: my freezer.
Emotion aside, hunting is as essential a component of conservation and management as is the clearing away of undergrowth to prevent forest fires. (No evidence is presented in this piece that management hunting per se is required – it is one management tool that can be used in certain situations, and one that has been used on ESLPP land.) [Technical note: we don’t reduce “undergrowth” to prevent fires, we do it to reduce the severity of fires and encourage fire-dependent vegetation.] Such management may include native and non-native species and this management is critical to thriving conservation lands. (What is your source for hunting being critical to thriving conservation lands?)
Don’t believe me? Ask the Sierra Club. It is quite specific about management practices as stated in its position on hunting: "Acceptable (not necessarily desirable in the Club’s eyes, but acceptable) management approaches include (so other alternative techniques apparently exist) both regulated periodic hunting and fishing when 1. based on sufficient scientifically valid biological data and 2.when consistent with all other management purposes and 3. when necessary [for] total protection of particular species or populations." (This is not a menu – all three conditions have to be met to please the Sierra Club. The County will probably have a tough time meeting these three conditions for species other than feral hogs.) I agree totally with this philosophy. The club is opposed to hunting in parks; this is also a policy I agree with. (Some cognitive dissonance here – you oppose hunting in parks, but not preserves and reserves? I suspect the general public is laboring under the impression that preserves and reserves are to be afforded greater protection than parks.)
So let’s look at the reasons behind our county conservation lands. Some were purchased for water, some for recreation, some for county services and some specifically to ensure their delicate habitats remain undeveloped. In the past few days much has been said regarding lands purchased subsequent to the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program approved by voters in a 1999 referendum. This program was expanded in 2005 to include neighborhood parkland. The total amount of land purchased under that program is approximately 18,000 acres, and properties need not be designated “Environmentally Sensitive” to be considered for acquisition. (All ESLPP lands DO need to meet the environmentally sensitive lands test, recognizing that some acquisitions require purchase of other land uses.) Still, these lands are only a portion of our total conservation land inventory. (ARRGH! The commission's failure/inability to identify which other lands it thinks might be appropriate combined with its feigned ignorance regarding the meaning of non-consumptive as used professionally and technically by FWC and USF&WS continues to be the greatest weakness in the county’s current course. The Commission seems willing to rule out county parks [which could easily have been done in the exemption] so that leaves preserves and reserves. The only county land greater than 300 acres not encumbered by the “non-consumptive” mandate is Scherer-Thaxton Preserve, and I have no objection if the county wants to allow hunting there, but I suspect that is not what local sportsmen & women have been led to expect.)
Some say to allow hunting on any county land violates the public trust. I have no way of knowing how specifically citizens feel about management practices, (well, you do – you could hire a firm to do a scientifically valid random survey, which I believe the county conducts annually anyway.) which may change as we acquire more conservation land. (I’ve been very clear that I can and will support acquiring more habitat for uses that include hunting, if voter-approved ESLPP funds are not used. These sources include Pittman-Robertson, SWFWMD, North Port, county general fund, Amendment 1, etc.) I am sure, however, that we want the land protected from development and to preserve the habitats.
Can you currently hunt on any of our county-owned lands? (Actually people have as part of hog management hunts.) No, regardless of the recent change that was made to the ordinance that governs activities on county-owned land. Any areas eventually identified for hunting will still require addressing a series of environmental, wildlife and safety hurdles — including a detailed wildlife management plan.
As reported in the Aug. 24, 2015, Herald-Tribune, “Individual properties identified for hunting activity must still be approved by county commissioners and remain subject to state regulation.” (Approved by consensus? Resolution? Ordinance? No one seems to know what the process for this consists of. Is there a process?)
Diverse outdoor activities have for many years coexisted all over Florida on public lands designated by the state as Wildlife Management Areas (which, unlike ESLPP lands that prohibit consumptive uses, were specifically acquired to accommodate hunting). Hunting activities in these areas are heavily regulated with respect to size, number of permits issued, species that may be hunted and the time and duration in which hunting is permitted.
Good land management provides the opportunity for different types of outdoor activities to coexist. That has been the case historically. (Historically, three decades of county commissions have chosen not to allow hunting on Carlton, Pinelands, and ESLPP lands. Is that because there was little demand? Because demand was met by the State Forest? Or because previous commissions understood what was meant by non-consumptive?)
--------------------------------------------------------------
*In 2011 there were 242,000 resident hunters in Florida[i], a number that has not increased since 1991.[ii] That same year (2011) there were 4.3 million people watching wildlife in Florida (resident and non-resident).
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This photograph of a sign at Sleeping Turtles encapsulates what the County Commission has so far failed to recognize or accept:
Hunting is prohibited on lands acquired through the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program (ESLPP) not because of zoning or prohibitions in Chapter 90-33, but because hunting or the removal of animals (consumptive uses) were specifically prohibited by the terms of the Chapter 54-87 (a) that made the program possible.
Here's the wording:
Uses of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands protected pursuant to this article will be limited to those activities that are ecologically benign, nonconsumptive and resource-based, except for those uses prescribed within the deeded Use Restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
See also my previous blog posting on the subject:
HUNTING IN SARASOTA COUNTY PARKS??
___________________________________
CLICK HERE IF YOU'D LIKE TO SIGN A PETITION
TO KEEP HUNTING OUT OF SARASOTA'S
PRESERVES AND RESERVES
and please leave a comment.
___________________________________
CLICK HERE IF YOU'D LIKE TO SIGN A PETITION
TO KEEP HUNTING OUT OF SARASOTA'S
PRESERVES AND RESERVES
and please leave a comment.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Palm Ave. Palms Fate Determined Sept. 8 2015
UPDATE: ON SEPT 8, 2015 the Sarasota City Commission voted unanimously in favor of moving forward with the revised plan, which is designed to solve the flooding problem AND save the 26 cabbage palms. No one spoke against the revised plan.
440 days ago I posted Saving the palms of Palm Avenue, which was my entry into trying to save 26 cabbage palms on Palm Ave. On Tuesday, September 8th, 2015, sometime after 2:30, the Sarasota City Commission will consider a landscaping plan that does, in fact save all 26, although a few will be relocated on site.
Unfortunately, I suspect the owner of four of the adjacent storefronts and his allies will be there to argue against the plan, so I am asking you, on behalf of the palms, to contact the City Commissioners, ideally at the meeting, and, if that is not possible, before the meeting.
You can view the agenda item here.
Willie.Shaw@sarasotagov.com
Susan.Chapman@sarasotagov.com
--------------------------------------------------
440 days ago I posted Saving the palms of Palm Avenue, which was my entry into trying to save 26 cabbage palms on Palm Ave. On Tuesday, September 8th, 2015, sometime after 2:30, the Sarasota City Commission will consider a landscaping plan that does, in fact save all 26, although a few will be relocated on site.
Unfortunately, I suspect the owner of four of the adjacent storefronts and his allies will be there to argue against the plan, so I am asking you, on behalf of the palms, to contact the City Commissioners, ideally at the meeting, and, if that is not possible, before the meeting.
You can view the agenda item here.
Willie.Shaw@sarasotagov.com
Susan.Chapman@sarasotagov.com
There are many reasons to support the revised plan:
• The City Commission voted unanimously in August of 2014 to work on a plan than resolved the flooding/drainage issue and saved as many trees as possible. This plan does that. [Note two commissioners now serving were not serving at that time.]
• City Staff recommends acceptance of the proposed Concept Plan and approval of the Change Order.
• The previous plan removed all the palms -- that is, killed them all and sent them to the landfill.
• About one quarter of the palms predate Sarasota's incorporation as a City - they were planted in 1911 and, as far as we know, are the oldest urban landscape plantings remaining in the City. The City was unaware of the historic dimension of the these trees prior to research conducted by volunteers.
• The revised design does a better job of complying with Downtown Greenspace policies IV A.3 and V 3, which address protecting existing trees.
• The revised design will provide more shade than the previous design, making it more in compliance with Downtown Master Plan Principle 2.
• There is one species of tree (not three) making the revised plan congruent with Downtown Greenspace policy III B 1 and the Engineering Design Criteria Manual CS80-56 that call for a single species of tree.
• The cabbage palms have "clear trunks and high canopies" thus meeting criteria in the Engineering Design Criteria Manual CS80-56.
• The Downtown Improvement District Board, which previously had strenuously opposed saving the palms, failed to oppose the new plan on a 2-2 vote August 4th. Board member Ron Soto was not present at that meeting, but had submitted a document expressing his support for the new plan.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Tom Lyons Gets it Wrong on Chapman Sunshine Situation
You may have seen Tom Lyons opinion piece in the Sarasota Herald Tribune dealing with Susan Chapman's fight regarding a possible sunshine violation. If not, here's a link.
I sent the following to Tom Lyons this morning:
Tom:
There aren't many people that have spoken out publicly against Susan Chapman as forcefully as I did. My blog posting [Why I won't be voting for Susan Chapman] was read 446 times. To be fair, this was a position I later tempered as a pragmatic matter. [Whom do I least favor on May 14th? The answer may surprise you]
Anyway, I wanted to establish my credentials as not always subscribing to the Susan Chapman line of thought.
I disagree with the conclusions of your piece. The open meeting and sunshine laws are there to prevent discussion between those governed by the law. Discussion. That means a back and forth, a dialog, call and response, question and answer, scheming, conspiring, plotting, ----- not stating an opinion.
There is a crucial difference -- in order to provide leadership public officials have to be able to express their views, and not just in advertised, open, recorded meetings. AND, they have to be able to find out what their constituents think and not just in advertised, open, recorded meetings The sunshine law exists as an impediment to scheming, vote trading, and strategizing between public officials, but that is different than expressing an opinion on a matter of public policy.
You are correct that with no meeting record we can't tell if Susan or Suzanne responded directly to each other with a "No, I disagree with what she said." or "She's right." But if commissioners want to collude, we have no way of knowing what they may have said on a commissioner-to-commissioner phone call either. Sunshine laws don't prevent misbehavior, they just set expectations and provide impediments and penalties.
There is a difference between Susan having a discussion with merchants with Commissioner Atwell present and having a discussion with Commissioner Atwell with some merchants present -- I hope you can see that.
Your interpretation prevents elected and appointed officials from attending the same meeting if it is not advertised, open to the public, and memorialized in some way. That is very debilitating and that interpretation has kept me from attending meetings I should have been at. I serve with many committed local citizen environmentalists on ESLOC, but recently only one of us could meet with county consultants to discuss environmental matters. When two County Commissioners attend an ESLOC meeting, they apparently have been advised that one has to leave the room if the other wants to say something -- and this is at an advertised, open to the public meeting that will produce both minutes and an audio record!
Taken to extremes, officials subject to your sunshine/open meeting law interpretation could not appear as candidates on a Tiger Bay panel or attend the New Years Eve pineapple drop.
The crazy thing is I can write a Herald Tribune guest column, post on Facebook or any of my several blogs, or tweet my thoughts on any subject and those I serve with (on ESLOC, PARC, and MRMCC) are free to read my pronouncements, so long as they don't respond, which which would make it a communication or discussion. And I am free to read their thoughts in traditional or internet-mediated media. How is that different from two of us attending a meeting and expressing our views, so long as we aren't engaging each other in a two-way exchange?
Susan's challenge is, in my opinion, on target and much needed. Public officials should have the right to express their views, even if colleagues are present. They should not have the right to engage in a discussion with those colleagues.
So, I'm writing to encourage you to rethink, reconsider, and ideally retrieve some of the opinions expressed in today's column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
