City Hall at the Market - Tomorrow (Saturday March 11) is everyone's chance to talk to anyone you want from the City one-on-one. We'll all be down at City Hall at the Market as part of the Saturday Farmers' Market from 7 a.m. until noon. So come on down and let us know what you're thinking, all departments will be represented. If you're one of those who demands anonymity in communicating, I guess the disguise is up to you!
posted by Michael McNees at 6:08 PM
49 Comments:
I went to the Market this morning and it was so stange - so many people there with long hair, glasses, a big nose and funny moustache. I'm glad I was different - I went disguised as Commissioner Palmer.
A lot of people went disguised as City residents - I think they were called developers.
I only got to see the set up from afar, but thought is was a great idea. I wanted to go, but was tied up all day and could only drive by for coffee. If I did come, I would have worn my "Greedy Developer - One Dream at a Time" T-shirt, and yes I am a long-time resident.
By the way, congratulations for scoring well on the Public Access to Information test that was conducted recently across the State by the media. The article was in the SHT, and we apparently had no deficiencies. Nice job!
Any thoughts on this density bonus issue?
I agree the Farmers Market meet the City Departments was great. The only thing that would have been better is if all the commissioners would have showed up. Just one did, and I think that stinks. They should be ashamed of themselves. you'll probably de-blog me Mike, but I feel it should be known that OUR commissioner did not even think it was important enough to make an appearance. Well, I hope this stays. If not, then you can relay the message to them Mike that a lot, and I mean a lot of people noticed that they failed to show. What a joke they are. Elelction day can't come soon enough.
Who was the lone Commissioner?
I saw Palmer there, and later on I chatted with Shelin - so, let's see, that's 2.
Palmer must have been hiding. I was there from 8am till noon and never saw her at the commissioners table.
To Shawn Fulker: There are so many unanswered questions about the density bonuses. To start, will these bonuses really accomplish the goal of creating "affordable" housing units in an efficient manner? That is one reason why the members of the City Coalition of Neighborhood Associations voted overwhelmingly to recommend that this issue be removed from the comprehensive plan (EAR). The public needs more time to consider the implications of this proposal. This discussion should not be rushed. We spent over five years on implementing the downtown master plan. This proposal could undo all of that work without the public hearings. This proposal was added after the public hearings on the EAR. Why does this proposal have to be on the "fast track?"
To Susan Chapman: I agree that there was a rush to add this to the package, but should density bonus concepts be approved, wouldn't there be enough time for us to create code language sufficient to mitigate adverse impacts prior to these bonuses going into effect? The amendment cycle takes quite some time as you know. My personal opinion is that current density allowances are way too low in some instances, and should be seriously considered.
With regard to the timing, I think you need to jump on these growth cycles whenever possible. If we think we need "attainable, affordable, obtainable" housing (or whatever the current parlance), the best time to build it is now. If we wait five years, as with the Downtown Code, then we could miss the market entirely. Less demand on "un-affordable" housing will then result in lower prices for same, and so developers will be less likely to see the benefit of bonus units in their projects. This, in turn, will push the date for which the City can reach its affordable housing goals even further to the right, and further exacerbate the current employment problems facing our area businesses.
I understand the CCNA and Downtown Partnership will be holding a forum on this issue on Tuesday, March 21st, at the Selby Library at 7:00 p.m. I look forward to hearing the discussion.
To Shawn Fulker: Well, I guess then the density bonus is a little late. Ask any real estate agent, the market is slowing substantially. Soon, housing will be much more affordable, as the speculative balloon fizzles.
Thanks for derailing the Train, again.
Susan, I respectfully disagree. It is true that listing volume has increased and sales have slowed. However that is on a state or county-wide basis. These districts are located downtown only, where demand is high, supply is limited, and the market is stronger. What's more, investors need to reinvest their earnings to avoid capital gains, and downtown is the safer bet - especially over stagnant areas in other parts of the county.
The laws of supply and demand are tough to skirt, and the fact is there is a strong demand for housing in these areas and almost no supply. One of the curves must move to equilibrium. Ask realtors what would happen if there were suddenly a quantity of affordable homes in the $180-250K price range available downtown or in the walk-to-town areas.
As far as being a little late, I think you are right, but if today is too late, then two years from now is never.
Here's an exerpt from an email from Stan Zimmerman to a long distribution list stating the availability of affordable homes in his neighborhood.
"On my street alone (a two-block stretch of Novus), there are
NINE homes for sale within the financial range mentioned by ALL the “affordable housing” advocates – such strange bedfellows as the Downtown Partnership, City Commission and ERA Consultants.
If you want to buy a $250K “affordable home” in exactly one of the neighborhoods targeted by the 4X and “upzone” comp plan amendments, you can take your pick on my street. I suspect Park East is the same.
But these “affordable homes” are not moving, and some have been on
the market for three months or more."
Just one more reason that maybe the process should be slowed down to be sure we're getting it "right."
Shawn: Wouldn't it be more efficient if the city just built 270 work force units on some its land banked property and rented it? Why can't affordable units be built over the parking garage on Palm Avenue? See today's editorial in The Pelican Press. Sometimes these incentive structures have unintended consequences. I remember when the Renaissance was supposed to be affordable housing. What happened there? Are there lessons that we can learn from that failed attempt to give benefits to get afforadable housing?
Susan: I like the idea of the land trust, but not the one for Palm Ave. There is definitely a lesson to be learned from the Ren. Project, but some City somewhere must have worked all this out. I will try to get a copy of the Pelican. Thanks.
Shawn: While you're at it, read about Million Dollar Murray on malcolmgladwell.com. It's an interesting article about the costs of wide ranging policies for solving small problems.
Susan: I will check it out. I read his book The Tipping Point.
Shawn,
In light of your comments that there are virtually no affordable homes for sale in the targeted areas, how do you explain the homes remaining on the market in Stan Zimmerman's neighborhood - assuming that post is correct.
Perhaps the ERA plan is not targeting the right price range.
I think more study time is needed.
Who knows? What I do know is that when you have a code that allows a 10 story building in the heart of downtown that can only house 12 huge units, we actually have a "lack of" density problem. If correcting that means the average Joe might be able to live, work, and play downtown along side of the affluent, that's a bonus. Personally, I'd rather live on Main Street than on Novus (though I am sure Stan is a good neighbor) Further, I think that there will be sufficient time to discuss the issue without having to delay the process another full year. Are we that disfunctional, that we can't reach a consensus with more than a year in which to do so? If so it is amazing we have come so far.
Shawn: We aren't talking about the average Joe here. We are talking about someone who can afford a 700 to 900 square foot unit priced at $250,000 to $300,000. What's wrong with Novus? It is very close to the School Avenue area that is being considered for 50 units an acre. Using TIF funds to create affordable rental housing downtown could actually add some diversity downtown, not just young wannabes.
Susan: I lost you on this whole average Joe thing. Let's just talk about it in person off line. This is supposed to be the City Manager's forum anyways, and I am sure people are anxious to get back to crying about the Commissioners not coming to the Farmer's Market.
As far as Novus, I never said anything was wrong with it. However the prices are much lower than other areas, and according to Stan they are not selling - so you tell me what is wrong with the place.
I am not sure what your "wannabee" comment is all about either, but I will take them over some of the alternatives.
I've found the discussion on affordable housing very interesting and hope you do not take your conversation off-line.
It's one of the top issues facing the city now and this blog seems like a very appropriate forum.
Shawn, you mention we would still have a year to reach consensus if the plan goes forward now. Could you please explain the process? I thought the Commission would vote in mid-April, it would go to Tallahassee for approval and that would be it.
Thanks.
I posted the respone about derailing. The affordable housing issue is a very important one and the discussion was going well, however that was not the initial topic, hence the derailing comment.
Shawn: What I meant was that the average Joe in Sarasota does not earn $55,000, which is the standard for "attainable" housing used in the ERA study. The density bonus proposal gives benefits for those earning in the young professional range of income. I think young professionals should live downtown. Rental housing can provide that option. I thought the discussion was supposed to be about "affordable" or work force housing. The density bonus proposal addresses neither issue.
City Manager McNees,
There seems to be a lot of confusion as to exactly what is included in each of the affordable housing proposals - the DROD, ERA and AROD. Could you have staff prepare a hand-out for Tuesday's CCNA/DTP meeting that compares some major components such as bonus units, % of affordable units, owner-occupancy requirements, would the DROD be eliminated if either of the other two were implemented, in-lieu of options, income limits, max housing prices, city-provided financial incentives such as TIF, Housing Trust, etc.
A timeline of what decisions need to be made when would also be helpful.
This common set of information should help the meeting proceed in an orderly manner.
A handout explaining all this stuff would be great. I have the ERA report, and have tried my best to follow along, but I could still use some help cracking the code completely.
Hi Mike,
Agree with Shawn. Lots of us have attended public meetings, conscientiously been reading ERA report/DROD ordinance, etc., but, as Shawn so aptly puts it, we could use some help from you experts in "cracking the code."
It is such an important issue and moving ahead very quickly. We need all the help we can get. Might actually save staff time in the long run by avoiding all the telephone and e-mail inquiries from those of us trying to understand and fairly assess all the issues.
Affordable for some is not affordable for others. Take a condo priced at $169,000. With taxes, a $235 maintenance fee, insurance, etc., the monthly payment is about $1500. Is that affordable? And it seems the earnings to qualify for the HCD pretty much excludes most people who make $39,000 or higher - pretty much City employees, servers, secretaries, teachers, etc. Those people are on their own. It baffles me how a person who makes the $36,000 or so for a family of 3 (or whatever the correct figures) can afford payments on a $200,000 house with the small amount of down payment that is given.
Is there a 55 and over age for those downtown condos? I can't believe they would accept children, teenagers and the noise and "commotion" that goes along with kids. Mind you, I am all for it but can't believe those people who have made their fortunes and just want to live in peace and quiet would actually accept families, small children, pets, etc.
Go out on the street, restaurants, grocery stores, and you will overhear everyone talking about selling out and leaving this area. People who were born here no longer want to live here. The man at the Janie Poe event quoted in the paper was right - this town is profit driven, not people driven.
Just wait until the developers are required to put in some "affordable" units. The 55 and over age limit will spring up all over the place or they will find someway to exclude families of more than 2 adults.
The Renaissance duped the City and the City will be duped again.
In response to 3:50 pm's comments about everyone wanting to leave the area, my B___ S____ detector just went off.
You know I find it odd that people seem to evaluate where we are as a City, without regard for where we were.
Not that long ago, Downtown was virtually a ghost town. Businesses were fleeing or failing, crime was high, and the surrounding neighborhoods were riddled with drugs, prostitutes, and mostly slum and blighted rentals.
City millage rates were high, and there was a strong desire by many to consolidate, or merge with Sarasota County.
The public sentiment of the day was a call for City Commissioners, Officials, and Staff to begin working on ways to bring Sarasota out of its rut. And so it did.
There were a myriad of programs and studies developed to address everything from tax incentives, home ownership, crime prevention, arts, tourism, traffic, neighborhoods, redevelopment, etc. All geared towards revitalizing the heart of the City.
Well, with millions of dollars and years of work by public and private concerns, low and behold we started seeing what I like to call "PROGRESS".
Businesses downtown began to flourish and new ones emerged; the surrounding neighborhoods saw increases in owner occcupancy rates, and crime began to decrease as a result. Neighborhood groups grew in strength and relevance and organized to revitalize and redevelop - and property values soared. The goal of having people living and working downtown went from dream to reality, and tax revenue grew to allow for decreases in millage rates, modernization of utilities, and improvements to the general appearance of the City. Developers have grown more interested in bringing projects here, and buyers from around the world want to come here to enjoy the many ammenities Sarasota has to offer.
That's where we are now, and that is a quick snapshot of how we got there. Not complete, but good enough. Greedy developers aren't to blame for our current condition, and guess what, neither is City Hall. In fact, I'd say everything has gone pretty much as planned.
For those thinking we got "duped" by the Renaissance Project. I say take a second look at the original deal, and think about the risks the developer took to pull that project off. For those of you that don't know, that was called the "Mission Harbor" project, and it sold for twice what it was worth at the time. In my opinion, we were lucky we found some suckers to buy it. The only major change was that they were supposed to be apartments, but ended up being sold as condos. As I am sure the rents would not have been considered "affordable", I am not sure what the fuss is all about.
Wow that was long. Sorry.
Shawn, I appreciate your comments. You have stated that new businesses have come in and thrived, that millage rate have come down, that crime has decreased and values have soared. Also, that people are living and working downtown. One of the ways to validate some of these claims is to look at a year, 2000 or 2001 and benchmark it then go from there and determine the reality of the "progress." What businesses have come in and what businesses have gone out. Is this simply the CRA area or all of the City. How many residential units and at what average price have owner occupancy. What entertainment venues have come in and gone out, for example, Golden Apple. Remember, historically Sarasota claimed to be the Cultural area of Florida. Have we preserved that? What infrastructure improvements have been made and can the City wastewater or Public Services also kept up in the improvements. What was the crime rate and what is the crime rate now, utilizing equal benchmarks. Have there been increases in dollars for crime prevention? What overall has been the cost to all of the City during this progressive period, including developer incentives and have we gotten the best "bang for the buck?" Have future expenses related to the developmnent been factored into the scenario.
What is the draw to live downtown? What are the amenities bringing people downtown or into all City neighborhoods and how do they differ from other redeveloping communities? Property values have risen everywhere, not just Sarasota and
southwest Florida. What has actually been changed or constructed to alleviate the trafffic issues? Shawn, I enjoy your comments, you are obviously very passionate and very informed. I just think that if we have a fact based starting point then perhaps people would be better able to determine a future direction.
Anonymous: The positive changes between ten years ago and today are real and factual, but you will need to do your own research to find them all. The ones I mentioned are easy to verify, and I would think most are considered common knowledge.
Consider the progress in my own neighborhood of Gillespie Park. LT Paul Sutton, SPD, provided a report recently depicting the crime statistics for my neighborhood, and I saw the ones for downtown as well. Compared to recent years, the data is impressive. Check it out for yourself. Every category of crime is down substantially.
As far as home ownership and property values, pick your benchmark year, and compare it to present day, and the difference is obvious. Gillespie Park has lots more people living there and rehabbing homes, and there are actually new homes now under construction. Ten years ago Laurel Park had its share of problems, and look at it today. New homes are selling for over a million dollars in that neighborhood. It is true that property values have gone up everywhere to some degree, but few places have seen the types of increases as Sarasota’s downtown neighborhoods. Many homes in G-Park have gone up 1,000%.
As far as business downtown, I picture the ends of Main Street as one example. Look at lower main and up by Hollywood 20, there are new and remodeled places to eat and shop, there are new buildings, and who can deny the large increases in people walking the streets. We even have a grocery store downtown. There are events being held all the time in that area, and people come from all over to be part of the excitement.
You asked if we have preserved the Arts and Cultural flare of our City. I think this too is obvious. The Arts have perhaps been the most to benefit from our progress. The Ringling Museum is flourishing and there is a huge planned expansion taking place, smaller venues like Florida Studio Theatre have expanded onto adjacent properties to the north, and the Van Wezel was remodeled to allow for full-sized Broadway shows. We have a new quality 20 theatre complex in the place of an abandon Maas Brothers, and Sarasota now boasts a well respected Film Festival. Even the Sarasota Opera, has grown, adding more performances, and adding on a little coffee shop.
The information I provided is true to the best of my knowledge, and I think it provides the fact-based starting point you mentioned. You’ll have to research the rest for yourself.
Hi Shawn…
Here’s what the fuss is about the Renaissance:
If the developer paid too much for the property, it was not the city’s responsibility to bail him out and feel grateful they had a sucker (which, by the way, they did not).
The city bent over backward for that project. The developer promoted it as mixed use and affordable rentals.
Show me the mixed use? The Holiday Inn or whatever the big structure is going in south of the building?
The rentals…the developer may have actually, in spite of himself, come through on, not affordable, but some kind of rentals. It’s five years since the development opened and only 35% of the condos have owners who take homestead exemption!!.
And, by the way, out of 244 units, there have been 110 resales…45% turnover. And a lot more are on the market. Flipper’s heaven. I don’t think that was what the city commissioners had in mind when they facilitated the development of the Mission Harbor property.
The biggest giveaway was the 99-year view corridor over the bayfront cultural center, with incredible ramifications for redevelopment of that property. I hope you do not defend that one.
Gretchen,
I forgot about the view corridor. You're right, that was a big negative to the deal. However, as I remember it, the City Commissioners felt that because the developer was paying so much more than the highest appraisal, we had to kick in something to make it worth while. Besides paying somewhere around 3.2 million for it, they were required to spend another million on streetscaping, sidewalks, and public art.
One other thing I remember they got away with was not having to build the pedestrian crossing above US 41. It was a requirement of the original deal, but because the ADA requirements would have called for ramps that were a quarter of a mile long, that plan was dropped. Overall though, I think it turned out halfway decent, despite not getting everything we wanted. We did get a large development started during a time when nobody was lining up to do so, and that development has been instrumental in the momentum to the east through the Rosemary District and northward along 41. I think there were more positives than negatives on this one.
I guess with Shawn on the Planning Board he is pretty much telling us that he will rubber stamp any and all projects that come to him since he is in favor of growth. Go for it, developers, you already have one vote! (Isn't this the City Manager's blog?)
No one answered the question...are the downtown condos 55 & OVER age restricted? Are they going to accept CHILDREN and FAMILIES?
Ask the condo owners or the condo associations - how is city hall suppose to know individual building rules?
If you are looking to provide affordable housing to working people, that usually means people young enough to be working and have families, at least grandchildren who would visit or maybe even live with them. So if the City/County is looking for affordable and workforce housing that would be something they would need to know- is it deed restricted as to age?
To Anonymous 8:33 am.
Thanks for the "rubber stamp" comment. People who lack the ability for reasonable and thoughtful debate always reveal themselves and their stupidity. I’d like to modify the old standard to read “Ignorance, and anonymity, is bliss.”
As far as it being the City Manager's Blog, I totally agree. What can I say? I had off last week, and I was responding to questions asked to me. I happen to like this darn city, and am interested in what happens here. Sorry Mike for taking up so much space on your blog. I tried to move the discussion off line, but it didn’t work.
I doubt any developers will give any credence to your ignorant comment, but if they are reading this then I say: I can't promise a rubber stamp, but I can promise that I will apply serious and rationale consideration to all projects that are presented, and I will not let my personal bias interfere with my decision making.
Shawn - It looks like you kept up a conversation while I was off on vacation - no apology necessary, seems like good timing to me.
Pattie said:
Shawn: No need for name calling. I was pointing out something about comments you made that said bring on growth, do it all at once, etc., and for a member of the planning board to be saying that just does not seem appropriate. I believe citizens want to think that board members will be open to those who speak in opposition to a project, growth, a development. Not everyone wants growth or a huge development in their back yard. So if someone has an opinion in opposition to growth or a development the people will be thought of as ignorant? Stupid? Lack reason? because we DON'T want a huge city and expensive houses? Having that special ability to listen to others who see things in a different way is an important attribute for people whose decisions affect directly the lives of others. I don't think you really feel that way about citizens, but it did seem like an invitation to developers to come on down.
Shawn:
Very good dialogue and no appologies for using the City Managers venue. Is this not a good place for public discussion? I think it is since we want the city in on the conversations. Is having the city involved not a good thing? Well, most intellegent people would say Yes, that is a great thing.
So sad many cannot keep up the converstation. Shawn, thank you from many who read this - even if we stay anonymous we like your input as anyones who can keep in on subject.
And....a thank you to the city manager for doing this blog!!
Pattie,
I appreciate the response, but had to respond harshly because I take serious exception to the rubber stamp comment. Further just because I want to encourage people to bring development to the City doesn't mean it is all bad development. A close look at my voting record will show that I have voted against probably a third of all projects that I have considered.
As far as ways to increase affordable housing, wouldn't it make sense to keep the affordable housing that already exists by introducing some sort of "rental homestead" cap on taxes for rental properties in the affordable range that people are discussing? This might take away some of the pressure on owners who must pass on taxes and insurance bills to their tenants. Or maybe some sort of grant system from the City in conjuction with a registration requirement. Just a thought.
To those attacking Shawn Fulker: Shawn voted with four other planning board members to recommend that the density bonus giveaway be removed from the comprehensive plan. Shawn thoughtfully listened to the evidence from the consultant that "no rational developer" would participate in this plan. He recognized that the downtown is not the place to build affordable housing (on the most expensive land in the city). It's just so easy to go on the attack. However, it prevents meaningful policy discussions with disparate elements. Let's reach some consensus on a good plans for affordable/work force/attainable housing. Let's not stick with bad plans like the density bonus. Shawn, you should receive admiration for taking the high road with persons of different points of view. Your discussions and those of other contributors have been substantive and important. Others may not always agree with you, but you can and do listen to reasonable arguments. You are no rubber stamp. We need more listeners and fewer attackers.
Pattie said:
Shawn is a great guy and has a lot to offer. He is a thinker and is very analytical. But the pro-development fanfare did not seem to be appropriate considering his position. Boy, people sure get testy on here when someone has an opinion different than their own. Mr. City Manager I am happy for this blog and your bringing logic and insight as to what is going on. Otherwise, where would some of these writers release their anger?
Can we start another blog off the City website for people to express opinions? How about it some of the anonymous writers?
Post a Comment
<< Home