Imagine turning your television on to the following Public Service Announcement. A woman is sitting at a small table in her kitchen drinking a tall glass of water with no ice. The camera draws in on her face as she says, “If each and every one of us conserved enough water to cut our use in half, we could double the number of people moving into our county. That’s why every night before I go to bed, I turn on every spigot in the house and leave them running all night long!”

Before you think that I have totally gone off of the deep end, let me say unequivocally that I am not advocating wasting water as a means to limit growth — it would never work. Conservation is an ethical responsibility that we all must follow in order to preserve one of our area’s most vital and limited natural resources, water. The ambiguity lies not in if we should conserve water, but why.

Public perception may or may not be based on reality. Regardless of its basis, the public’s perception of an issue can not be underestimated. Many citizens of Southwest Florida believe that conserving water is not meaningful because the water they conserve is not actually saved. Instead it becomes available for use by someone else. And that someone else doesn’t even live here yet. Unfortunately this perception is not far from reality.

The future water supply plans for both Sarasota County and the Water Management District list every gallon of water conserved as an available future water supply source. The thinking from the water planners’ perspective is that every gallon saved is one gallon less that will have to be taken from the region’s vulnerable ground or surface water resources. Nevertheless, conserved water does end up on the “available-for-consumption” side of the water equation. For many citizens, this is not a compelling motive to conserve, perceived or otherwise.

But what if we actually did conserve the conserved water? From the 1920’s to the mid 1970’s many, if not most of Sarasota County’s natural wetlands were ditched and drained. Even today many of the natural benefits of these altered wetlands are still severely impaired. And due to over-pumping, our aquifers are losing pressure and becoming polluted with salt water from the gulf. If the water saved through our conservation initiatives were required to be dedicated to restoring impacted wetlands, aquifers and natural systems to a healthier state, water conservation would soar, and for good reason.

This new conservation philosophy should also include a policy to ensure that natural systems will not be deprived of the water that they need. As we evaluate new water sources for new development, the needs of the natural systems should be determined and set aside or restored and not available for taking. Rather than evaluating how much water we can get by leaving wetlands with minimal water flows and levels, the new ethic would require that natural systems maintain optimum flows and levels.

Unfortunately, the concept of setting aside and preserving the natural system’s water budget first has yet to be adopted by many water planning agencies. This paradigm shift toward restoring and preserving natural systems is likely to produce just as much water as convention strategies, but at a fraction of the all-inclusive price to be paid. The water is there, we are just need to begin taking it in a more sustainable fashion.

With the conserved water now being dedicated to wetlands restoration, aquifer recharge, open space preservation and healthier estuaries, even the most cynical citizens among us would have a reason to conserve water that is both self-serving and altruistic.

New commercial; same lady, same table, same glass of water, only this time as the camera zooms in she says “Every night when I go to bed, I know that my water conservation efforts are going to help preserve the natural beauty that makes Sarasota a such a special place to live!”

Having a diversity of water supply sources is more sustainable and can reduce impacts to the environment much more than a single supply source can. Using several source types — such as ground water, reuse water and surface water — allows individual sources to be used when they are abundant and replenished when they are not.

During the summer rainy season, surface water, also known as stormwater, can be used while ground water sources from wells are given a chance to recharge. During drier times of the year, ground and reuse water can be used, giving surface water sources a chance to rehydrate wetlands and water tables. Using multiple water sources greatly reduces the strain on the natural environment by minimizing the competition for limited water resources — Wetlands stay healthier, aquifers are allowed to recharge, and we get the water we need.

Larger interconnected regional systems offer additional benefits by not only having the advantages of diversified water sources, but more of them distributed over a larger, less vulnerable area. Ideally a diversified, interconnected regional water supply system offers the most drought-proof and environmentally sustainable water supply system available.

Sarasota County’s newest water supply initiative captures excess surface water from Cow Pen Slough while also restoring wetlands and bay water quality. Combined with existing County water supply resources, the new Cow Pen Slough water may be adequate to meet the County’s needs for the next 35 years, or more.

But there is a catch. The cost to bring Cow Pen Slough water to your tap exceeds $180 million dollars. The Water Management District has grants available to fund just this sort of water supply initiative, but the District may want Sarasota County to surrender ownership of the water source in order to obtain the grant money. The grant money isn’t really a gift, as Sarasota County taxpayers are one of the larger contributors to the source that funds the grant.

One concept presently being considered to create a regional water supply system is to put all of the region’s combined water supply sources into a pool and have a portion of the rate the same for all customers in the pool. This concept may not be favorable to Sarasota County utility customers. Not all jurisdictions in the water supply pool have been able to identify a long-term, environmentally sustainable water supply source and a funding plan to pay for it. They also may not share Sarasota County’s philosophies on growth. Some regional partners may consider Sarasota’s growth management policies too conservative and opt for more aggressive growth policies that would need additional new water supply sources to accommodate their new growth. And that is certainly their decision.

In terms of new water supplies, the low hanging fruit is gone. Future water supplies will become increasing more expensive as the demand for water competes with limited supplies and the environment. As the region’s thirst for more regional water supplies grows, so too will the price. In a regional rate pool, Sarasota County utility customers may see higher rates caused by non-Sarasota County water consumption. To some degree, we could actually find ourselves subsidizing growth in other jurisdictions.

Decades before regionalization was in vogue, Sarasota County worked with Manatee County in a regional water supply partnership. Sarasota County purchased Manatee County’s excess water supply while Manatee County retained ownership of the supply source. Sarasota County is now in a position to offer the same regional partnership to its neighbors who will need water considerably sooner than Sarasota County will. Sarasota would develop the new Cow Pen Slough water supply, with the help of the Water Management District grant, and offer the excess water supply to our regional partners, while retaining ownership of the supply source. A written agreement between the County and a regional water supply authority would validate this partnership and offer Sarasota County an opportunity to stabilize rates for its utility customers.

A diverse, interconnected regional water supply system is clearly in the best interest of all governments and citizens of Southwest Florida. The recent emphasis on regionalization, by limiting new water supply grants to regional water supply initiatives is commendable. However “regional” should be defined in terms of connectivity, environmental stewardship and sustainability, not ownership.

How can the Sarasota County Commission mandate water conservation for existing residents and then approve rezonings that allow for even more development?

To understand this dilemma, it is helpful to understand the relationship between rezonings, growth management and water supply planning. Sarasota County has both a short-term and a long-term water supply planning strategy. Short-term planning considers having adequate water to serve existing utility customers (about 187,000), new customers from homes converting from private wells to County water (about 300 per year), new homes built on platted lots and approved Developments of Regional Impact (about 2,000 per year) and rezoned property (200 per year).

Short-term needs are also two-dimensional; first water consumption varies considerably depending on the resident population and weather conditions. In the winter months when our population swells and rainfall is minimum, demand increases. However year round water supply must account for the peak demand. When a three-year drought stresses this water budget, conservation is a necessity, even if there was a moratorium on new growth and rezonings.

The County has adequate capacity to meet its short-term water needs with about seven years worth of reserve capacity. But this is no excuse to waste water and force additional, costly production that will be wasted when the rain begins and snowbirds return north. Rezoning does not commit the County to, or guarantee a developer water. If the County utility system does not have water when a rezoned property needs it, they don’t get it, period. Conservation enables the County to meet water need in times of peak demand and low rainfall. Conservation savings do not enable rezonings.

More safeguards needed

The County Commission recognizes that additional safeguards are needed to protect our water supply. On June 12 the Board will consider a new water commitment process that will bolster the analysis done at the time of rezoning with a second level of review. This process could require a developer to obtain a water commitment certificate prior to the issuance of a building permit. The advantage will be that water supply would not only be based on what is permitted (the long term view) but also upon what we are capable of delivering based upon the actual ability to treat and deliver water (the short term look).

Long range water planning is where Sarasota needs to be paying close attention. Considering present water supply sources Sarasota has enough water to meet its demands until about 2011, when contracts with Manatee County expire. The Water Management District has identified numerous potential future sources to meet the approximate 15 million gallons per day deficit. These sources include renegotiating with Manatee County, new surface waters (Myakka River) and seawater desalination. However not all of these sources are reliable due to costs, permitability or public policy. Linking Sarasota’s long-range growth management plan with realistic water sources is critical, and the time to do it is now!

Plan for the next drought

Droughts are cyclical. We will see another and it could be even more severe than the present one. Water resources are taking longer and longer to restore themselves, due to an ever growing population constantly using more and more water. So even less severe droughts in the future could have more devastating results, due to lower water tables, depleted aquifers, and drier lakes and rivers.

Without a coordinated planning effort that considers realistic, affordable and environmentally sensitive long-range water supplies, our next drought could make this one look like a walk in the park — a very dry park.

If you are like me, your head is spinning with all the talk about affordable housing. As recently as five years ago, most of us, including those in the housing industry, had never heard of community housing trust funds, land trusts or inclusionary zoning. Now all three, and many more ideas with catchy names, are being considered to alleviate the pent up demand for workforce housing in Sarasota County. It’s easy to be confused. We can’t even decide on a name – workforce housing, community housing, attainable housing, affordable housing. Take your pick.

When faced with a complicated issue, I try to simplify it into its most understandable components by working through simple questions and obvious facts. For affordable housing (what I’m going to call it), the bottom line is we simply do not have enough of it. Why? Because we aren’t building any.

Until about eight years ago, even construction workers could afford the houses and condos they were building in Sarasota County. Building both high-end and low-end homes had been continuous since John Ringling was building his $1.5 million bay front Ca de Zan and my grandfather was building simple frame homes in the Arlington Park area. The need for affordable homes hasn’t ended, even if we aren’t building them. If anything, the need has increased.

If there’s a demand for affordable homes, why did we stop building them? I suggest a very simple answer – the market. Free markets, the hallmark of the American economy, tend to take the path of higher profits and least resistance. And so does each of us. Do you wake up in the morning and say to yourself, “Today, I’m going to find the hardest work for the least pay?” Of course not. We strive for efficiencies, profit and ease, to better enjoy our lives and support our families. And so does the market, because we are the market.

If you were a homebuilder and you had a choice of building a $500,000 home with a high-profit margin for a cash buyer, or building a $125,000 home with a low-profit margin for a buyer who has credit issues and needs a loan, which house are you going to build? There are no incentives in Sarasota’s real estate market to build affordable homes, but many disincentives.

Some would suggest that impact fees, land supply, protection for environmentally sensitive land and density create a shortage of affordable housing. But the facts suggest otherwise.

If impact fees ($5,400 per new home, excluding utilities) were completely eliminated, the price of a new home – the only homes that pay impact fees – would only drop to $494,600 from $500,000. This is about as effective as removing the light bulb in a refrigerator to lower your electric bill. Even without impact fees, the market quickly would drive the price back where it was.

The supply of developable land also is blamed for our affordable housing shortage. The argument is that if you create more supply, prices will fall. But in reality, this hasn’t been the case. Affordable housing is just as much of a problem in Sarasota County as it is in counties such as Lee and Collier where huge tracts of agricultural and environmental land has been approved for massive, high-end development projects. Despite all of the additional supply of developable land, the affordable housing crisis in those counties has worsened.

North Port is a great example. The city not only has 40,000 existing vacant lots, North Port dramatically expanded the availability of developable land by annexing more than 15,000 acres to support another 35,000 lots. Yet North Port is experiencing the most rapid price increases in the city’s history. While the supply of developable land has increased at an unprecedented rate, home prices and taxes have blasted through the roof.

By the time enough developable land is created to effectively offset today’s unprecedented demands and bring prices down into the affordable range, the infrastructure budgets required to service that supply will be bankrupt and today’s quality of life in Sarasota will be a distant memory. The demand is that great!

Most communities throughout the nation with affordable housing shortages have no environmental land protection programs. Even with all of Sarasota County’s existing and proposed land protection programs, there would still be enough developable land to accommodate 10 times our affordable housing needs – if the market desired. But it hasn’t. Several parcels of environmental and potential park lands were recently lost to development – expensive luxury development, and not one single affordable housing unit was built!

Protecting the environment for future generations now, while it’s still available, is hardly an impediment to supplying land for affordable housing. There are no legitimate connections, only self-serving excuses from those who want the land for development and misunderstandings from others.

The density argument alone, which sounds superficially logical, also belies the facts. Affordable housing shortages are notorious in many of the most densely populated areas of the nation, the state and the county. And you wouldn’t want to live in the densely populated areas where this fact isn’t the rule. Downtown Sarasota, where densities have increased dramatically, provides a recent and classic example. Compare the price lists (market values) before and after the additional density. Additional densities have resulted in replacing affordable small homes and apartments with high-end luxury condominiums.

There’s another significant contribution to the affordable housing dilemma. For a large portion of our workforce, the ability to pay monthly housing expenses has eroded exponentially. The rise in housing costs is half of the equation, but inadequate wages are the other half. If wages had kept pace and were still commensurate with the cost of housing, affordable housing would be a fraction of the issue it is today.

Sarasota County and other communities throughout the nation have shortages of affordable housing because we live in a community where buyers with wealth want to live and they are willing to pay to get here. The market is responding to an extraordinary demand for higher priced homes. The lack of affordable housing isn’t the fault of government, home builders, developers or luxury home buyers. Likewise, the solution can’t be the sole responsibility one of these groups either. We got into this mess as a community, and that’s the only way we can get out of it.

The Sarasota County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Sept. 14 to invite citizens’ input on a proposed charter amendment that would retain the county’s present Comprehensive Plan rural land use on designated rural lands annexed by municipalities.

A recent Herald-Tribune editorial asked four salient questions about the proposed charter amendment and suggested that if they could not be answered “yes,” the County Commission should not put the proposal on the November ballot. I agree.

The first question asked if the County Commission could guarantee that the proposal would withstand a court challenge. The proposed amendment is taken almost verbatim from a recent District Court of Appeals decision which ruled that a charter county, such as Sarasota County, could impose Comprehensive Plan restrictions on annexed rural lands. While there’s no “guarantee” that anyone will prevail in any court of law, this is as close to a guarantee as you get.

The editorial also asked if there is sufficient time to answer the questions of voters. The proposal is quite simple to explain. More complex referenda have been considered by Sarasota County voters, and 60 days was more than sufficient time for all views to be heard.

The third question asked if there is an imminent threat of massive annexations that warranted a quick vote. Threat of imminent annexation is not the issue – the proposal doesn’t prohibit annexations at all. It is solely intended to require coordinating Municipal Comprehensive Plan changes on annexed rural lands, with the county’s ability to pay for additional infrastructure needed by the annexation.

Since 2000 North Port and Venice have annexed and have changed, or soon will change, land use designations from rural to urban on over 21,000 acres, all without coordination with the county. The reason that the county had maintained these lands as rural was because there is not funding available to build the needed infrastructure such as roads, parks, schools, libraries and jails to serve the additional development. Unwilling to wait, anxious developers petitioned the cities for annexation with the promise of greater densities sooner.

“Yes,” there is imminent threat of additional massive land use changes that will destroy environmentally sensitive areas and exacerbate infrastructure deficits.

The final question asked if the county and the cities have exhausted every reasonable effort to coordinate planning and development. The preferred way for governments to coordinate planning is through joint planning agreements. JPAs codify where and when development is to take place, and which government is responsible for building what infrastructure. After many years of good-faith negations by the county, no JPAs have been reached. Next the county filed legal suits and challenges to the state planning agency. What we learned from this experience is that while intergovernmental coordination is preferred, it is not a requirement of law.

We have talked, negotiated, sued, challenged and pleaded for intergovernmental coordination to ensure that roads, schools, parks and libraries are available to meet the needs of rural lands that are converted to suburbs. All of these efforts have failed.

The county is now using the last and only legal means available to require a financially feasible infrastructure plan to meet the needs created by municipal development. “Yes,” not only have we exhausted every reasonable effort to coordinate planning.

Municipal Comprehensive Plan changes on recently annexed lands will eliminate thousands of acres of agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands to build subdivisions and malls. We are already burdened with huge infrastructure deficits without the additional impacts from 65,000 more people who could move into these recently annexed areas. It is not unreasonable to ask taxpayers to consider a rule that requires intergovernmental coordination – their taxes will pay for it if we don’t cooperate.

This proposal is not about power, home rule or slowing growth. It is about coordinating growth with our ability to pay for it, nothing more.

Another Herald-Tribune editorial asked cities how they would change their planning and development policies to preclude the need for the charter amendment. Let me suggest an answer – municipalities would approve no Comprehensive Plan amendments for rural lands without a Joint Planning Agreement with the county.

Aside from government officials, home builders and developers, very few people pay attention to impact fees. While rezone hearings may draw standing-room-only crowds, most impact fee hearings have more Commissioners than members of the public in attendance.

Many people feel that since impact fees are only charged on new development, they have no reason to be concerned. However a comprehensive look at what impact fees are intended to do and what they actually accomplish should raise serious concerns with all Sarasota County taxpayers.

Impact fees are a one-time charge to new development that can only be used to fund infrastructure such as land, roads and buildings that are needed to service new development. The fee can only be levied to the extent that new development benefits from the infrastructure built by the fees, and can not be used to fund any existing infrastructure deficiencies or for maintenance or operating cost.

An Impact fee is actually the sum of several fees that are calculated individually, depending on the cost of the infrastructure. A formula is developed that estimates the proportionate share of the need for additional infrastructure for one development unit (typically a house). An easy example is water. The impact fee is calculated by simply dividing the cost of a water treatment facility by the number of customers it is capable of serving. If the facility cost $10 million and it is capable of serving 5,000 customers, the impact fee would be $2,000. However most impact fee formulas are much more complicated and subject to wide interpretation – sometimes very wide.

Sarasota County has been charging impact fees for roads, parks, libraries and emergency services for about sixteen years. Hypothetically these impact fees were to cover most of the cost of infrastructure needed by new growth, and capital budgets would remain solvent. In reality, infrastructure needs required for growth are outstripping impact fees by a wide margin, contributing to future capital budget deficits that could choke a python. And Sarasota County is not alone. Virtually every growth county in the state is desperate to identify enough money to fund the projected infrastructure needed to accommodate future growth. Despite collecting impact fees for decades, infrastructure budgets are going bankrupt and Florida’s counties are facing congested roads, crowded schools and a diminishing quality of life.

One illustration of this predicament is roads. Sarasota County has been assessing a road impact fee on new growth since 1989. The formula used to calculate the fee is very complex and understood by few. Despite substantial increases in the cost of land, labor and materials, this fee has changed little in the last x years.

A recent study estimated how much it would cost to build a minimum road network necessary to accommodate Sarasota County’s projected 2030 population. The study also estimated how much money would be generated over that same period of time from impact fees, gas taxes, property taxes, telecommunication taxes and surtaxes. The costs were estimated at $1.8 billion dollars; the revenues were estimated at $300 million. That’s a deficit of $1.5 billion, on a $1.8 billion budget! Even though Sarasota County subsidizes road impact fees with more additional revenue sources (primarily paid by existing residents) than any other county in the state, we can’t keep up. We can’t even get close!

Regrettably, the County’s future school, recreation, administrative and judicial facilities budgets are also forecasted with large deficits. Many of these infrastructure needs, including roads, are already deep in the red today.

Solutions are limited. Part of the gap could be bridged by restoring state funding that has been reduced as the result of funding cuts, diverting “Trust” funds, and lowered return rates on school and gas taxes. But restoring these reductions will only chip away at the mountain side. The present trend is toward additional State cuts, not increases. Without adequately funded infrastructure budgets, facilities will deteriorate, resulting in crowded roads, schools and parks and inadequate judicial, public safety and administrative facilities. There is no shortage of examples where this has already occurred.

To avoid a diminished quality of life or denial of development petitions, the future infrastructure budget needed to accommodate new growth must be adequately funded. To do so, either impact fees, property taxes or some other tax will need to be increased.

As a community, Sarasota County needs to answer two fundamental questions. What is the true and full cost to fund the facilities needed to support new development? And, how should funding that cost be split between impact fees, paid by new development, and other taxes, primarily paid by current residents?

Sarasota County’s long range planning initiative is on the threshold of change.

On the surface you’ll notice a name change from Resource Management Areas to Sarasota 2050. But the relevant change will be moving from a series of consultant-based decisions to community decisions.

Up until now, the process has primarily focused on decisions made by the planning consultants who were hired to assist the county in designing a new form of development.

Frustrated with a history of sprawling suburban development that destroyed the environment and crowded roads, the county wanted to offer developers an alternative choice.

The village concept suggested by the consultants would cluster development into smaller, more compact areas, leaving large open spaces as preserves. Villages also could provide a more livable environment for their occupants and a more efficient form of development for government.

The consultants’ responsibility to provide maps, planning expertise and data analysis for the new village form of development is substantially complete. It is now the community’s responsibility to make the village form work in Sarasota.

The first step will be to provide incentives for landowners and developers to make the change a reality.

Most of the undeveloped area in Sarasota now allows for one house to be constructed on either 5 or 10 acres.

The Sarasota 2050 plan will not prohibit property owners from developing their land as they can today. So in order for the village form of development to be more attractive than the status quo, there need to be incentives.

The incentive offered in the 2050 plan is an increase in the number of homes that can be built on a parcel – thus higher profits.

When the number of houses is increased, the demand for community services also will increase. Many of these services have limitations. It is the community’s responsibility to balance the needs and benefits resulting from new village form of development, so as not to create worse conditions than those which would result from the current development scenario.

Water and transportation are two of many examples of community services with limited resources. It is critical for the community to have a means to meet the additional water supply demands – without compromising the environment or raising the rates of existing customers.

The village form of development offers some transportation benefits by mixing residential and commercial uses. That way the need for automobile travel is reduced.
However, there will be many more people, so automobile trips on roads outside of the villages will increase.

Sarasota needs a transportation plan that considers the additional impacts to the safety, convenience and cost to the community as a whole.

Here are the two fundamental questions the community will have to answer. 1) Is the village form of development preferred over the status quo? 2) If it is, then how much incentive can the community offer to make the village form of development a reality?

I believe the answer to the first question is “Yes.”

As to how much incentive to offer, I would suggest the following as a guideline: If the additional incentive development creates demands for community services that exceed the available resources needed to supply the service, or if countywide tax or fee increases are required to make the service available, the incentive is probably too large.

About 20 years ago it was suggested that we should begin to cluster development onto just a portion of a property, in a more compact form that preserved the remainder of the property as open space. The concept was viewed with distain by most developers and widely rejected by elected officials. Just the mention of deviating from the typical subdivision pattern of development, now know nation-wide as “urban sprawl”, was considered heretical.

Times have changed. With Sarasota’s 2050 Plan, these once renegade ideas are now the rule, and communities around the nation are rediscovering the benefits of traditional forms of development now known as New Urbanism or Smart Growth. Smart Growth planning principals could redefine how American communities are built to a degree never before seen, except for urban sprawl itself, which catered to the lure of auto mobility and gasoline for less than a dollar a gallon.

Smart Growth is much more than just a visual form of development with special building codes to regulate density, height, setbacks and colors. Smart Growth is a comprehensive concept that considers every aspect of development, in order to provide a more sustainable living environment. Smart Growth includes energy conservation, environmental preservation, social values and viable economic principals employed at all planning levels.

The incentive to build using Smart Growth principals is often an substantial increase in development rights. In exchange for building Smart Growth, a developer may be given a bonus for much more development than otherwise would have been permitted. In Sarasota this typically means going from being able to build one house per five acres to three to five houses per acre, or going from three units per acre to up to 25 units per acre. Rarely does one see Smart Growth built without the promise of substantial density increases.

The Smart Growth label is now put on many new development projects, whether it adheres to the comprehensive concepts of legitimate Smart Growth development or not. Frankly, many recent so called Smart Growth developments are smart in name only. The two most common ways that the Smart Growth label is misused deal with location and infrastructure.

Smart Growth can not be smart if it is built at the wrong location. First and foremost, Smart Growth requires development to be sited in a location that maximizes existing infrastructure and avoids impacting significant natural resources. No matter how cute you make the buildings look, or how compact the design, locating developments in flood plains, environmentally sensitive areas or in locations far removed from supporting urban services, its just not smart.

Smart Growth planning principals provide for more efficient use of costly urban services such as roads, police, fire and utilities. By no means does Smart Growth eliminate the need for these services. Yet many purported Smart Growth projects have no financially feasible infrastructure plan to accommodate the increased development that incentivised the so called “smart” development.

For example, if a development, now with 200%-300% more intensity due to the added units for Smart Growth), is permitted that cannot identify an sustainable water supply, it doesn’t matter that Smart Growth efficiencies have reduced individual water consumption by 25%, you still need to have the a water supply for the new development or it isn’t smart. Likewise, Smart Growth may cut individual automobile trips by 20%, but if the roads and transit services are inadequate to accommodate the “bonus” development that comes with Smart Growth, it isn’t smart. In some cases we may be better off without the additional infrastructure pressures that the added bonus density of Smart Growth brings.

Smart Growth is a development option that by far out performs typical subdivision sprawl and is a chance to avoid paving over every tree and frustrating traffic jams. But misused, Smart Growth could compound existing infrastructure budget deficits and create more sprawl, simply disguised with different name. Smart Growth should be the way that we build new development, not the reason. “Smart Growth” in the wrong location or done without a financially feasible infrastructure plan, is nothing more than dumb growth with a smart name.

In 1999 the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners and the Economic Development Board commissioned Tischler & Associates Inc. to conduct an economic and fiscal impact analysis for 19 prototypical Sarasota County land uses. The economic impact analysis measures broad impacts to the general economy, and the fiscal impact analysis determines the cost and revenues from new development on the County budget.

The report concluded that most forms of residential development are likely to generate budget deficits. The report’s findings suggested that developing residential homes from vacant land produced a net tax loss, despite an increase in gross tax revenues. Ultimately the cost of infrastructure and services required by the new residential development exceeds the increased tax revenues they generated. The report also concluded that many forms of commercial development, high-end residential development and agriculture produced a net tax benefit to the County budget.

When the report was issued in February of 2000, many in the residential development industry feared the Tischler report would be misinterpreted and misused by government officials and anti-growth advocates as a means to stop growth. In response to these fears, I published a guest column in this paper that suggested the report’s conclusions should not to be used as a single factor to determine whether development should be approved or what kind of development should be approved. Instead, the information should be used as a tool, along with many other tools available to the community, to support an appropriate rate, form and amount of new development.

Last week two separate groups with completely different positions asked me: What has been done with the Tischler report? Has the County used the report’s findings to influence development decisions? Or has the report found a comfortable place on that notorious government shelf where it will forever remain dormant, dust-covered and unused?

I believe that the Tischler report has influenced both non-governmental initiatives and numerous, though not all, Board of County Commission development decisions.

While the Tischler report and many others studies have demonstrated a potential net negative fiscal impact for many forms of residential development, a decision to approve only “profitable” forms of development isn’t that simple. Unlike a for-profit corporation, government’s role often is to provide services that are not profit centers, such as indigent health care, national security and education.

One of the main reasons that many forms of residential development don’t “pay their own way” is schools. Residential development that doesn’t generate school age children was found to produce a net tax benefit. Conversely, most homes priced in the affordable and workforce price ranges produce net tax revenue losses. Then are we to approve only childless and million dollar homes? I can only speak for myself, but that is not the kind of community that I want to live in and it certainly isn’t the standard that has made Sarasota the community that it is today.

Managing a viable community involves a great deal more than one economic measurement of profit and loss. A tax base built upon a balance of various land uses is an essential for a stable economy and a livable community. This balance often requires using revenue from one land use to support another.

That is not to say the Tischler report has been ignored – it has not. The report provided additional evidence that the County needs to diversify its ad valorem tax base, to reduce its dependence on residential properties. The County also refocused its economic development strategies based upon this finding. Non-polluting “export” industries with high paying jobs have become the target for economic development policies, replacing a priority on tourism and housing development industries.

Additionally most elected officials now realize that growth, simply for the sake of adding properties to the tax role is not a sound reason to approve development. It may have been valid at one time, or under different funding scenarios, but not anymore. Today’s development should be scrutinized at a higher level that includes a comprehensive balance of benefits and responsibilities.