At least you can park by the water...

"Conservatives" ask even bigger government to regulate them

Earlier this week, the Manatee County BOCC declared parking at the beach a top priority…at a cost.

Later this same week, the Manatee County BOCC declared the water quality at that beach was not a priority…for a price.

---

The County has been looking at our long-standing wetland buffers for most of 2023. These buffers offer protection to environmentally-sensitive areas which provide for drinking water; runoff to our rivers, beaches and waterways; and habitats for our wildlife and ecosystems. Loss or damage to our wetlands is irreversible and will result in long-term ramifications to our County and our quality of life. This is why strict rules are in place for protection and mitigation.

While it was the worst kept secret that this “County initiated” proposal was anything but, the proposal for a Comprehensive Plan text amendment, which for a while disappeared entirely from the hearings schedule, reappeared over recess for a rushed scheduling shortly thereafter. The proposal was to gut our existing 30 foot and 50 foot buffers down to the state minimums and turn over this regulation to the State going forward; essentially reducing our protective buffers by up to 35 feet in places while simultaneously, willingly asking a bigger government to add oversight and control over our local community.

As staff wouldn’t touch this, with some going so far as to resign rather than put their names on it, an outside consultant was engaged to prepare a study. That consultant apparently didn’t understand that they were supposed to work backwards from the intended conclusion and instead used actual facts, logic, and industry expertise to conclude our buffers were appropriate. So, of course, that guy was removed and we opted for a “second opinion”.

Strangely, we went all the way to the other coast for this consultant; 176 miles from our County building to be exact. For a Board that’s pushed for local procurement, it’s odd that we jumped over so many qualified, local environmental engineers with direct knowledge of our unique coastal waterways, to find someone that agrees with our premise that buffers aren’t really that important.

However, our Manatee County buffers have been upheld as important, legal, and defensible multiple times in court. Our buffers were upheld with a strong 4-2 vote for denial by our very own Planning Commission.

Clearly, our buffers, protecting something as important as our water, with an undefeated record coming into Thursday’s Land Use meeting, would themselves be protected by a Board that strongly expresses its unwavering commitment to “our water quality, our waterways and our environment” at least once every four years.

---

Thursday (video below), we sat through hours…and hours…of well thought out, well-researched, fact-based, overly-compelling presentations regarding our wetland buffers. (We also sat through a few minutes of a presentation by a consultant we hired.) For literally anyone who paid attention, the outcome was obvious (theoretically).

Unfortunately, what we had was a consultant who didn’t know anything speaking to a Board who didn’t listen to anything.

The consultant presented tables with extraneous columns reflecting “Deferred to State” regarding wetland regulations that weren’t actually pertaining to buffers. Broad statements regarding other counties deferring to the state were thrown out ignoring the fact that a majority of counties have their own regulations, above and beyond those minimums, in order to protect their water for their citizens. Blanket statements about buffer widths “having no impact on the quality of the wetlands” were made and immediately disproven with actual facts. You could quickly see why this presentation and this consultant continues to lose in an unbiased court of law.

I did feel for him a bit however. He was left out there alone. As I stated Thursday, from my view up on the dais, I could see multiple developer engineers, land use attorneys and at least one developer sitting in the chambers. All with a vested interest in a few more feet of developable rights at the expense of our wetlands. Two, maybe three, more houses for the small price of potentially generational damage to our water systems and beaches…who wouldn’t make that trade?

Why didn’t they come up to express their views on this supposed “taking” of property? Why didn’t they send their in-house engineers and experts to refute the public’s fact-based testimony? Why didn’t they defend and fight for their rights? Because they knew fighting to strip our community of its environmental protections would be incredibly damaging for public relations. Why would they go on record and tarnish their reputation when they can have others take on that burden?

---

The status quo was to retain our existing buffers. The burden of proof was on those wishing to change it. That burden was clearly and unequivocally not met.

The “best” argument made was that “conservatives” want to remove regulations. I won’t disagree with this as I’ve removed, or proposed removing, more regulations than anyone. However, making an existing regulation worse, while leaving it in place, is still a regulation.

If you’re trying to make a blanket statement about regulations being inherently bad, why don’t we removed all minimum parking ratios, or remove minimum lot size requirements, or discontinue minimum set-back requirements? All are a form of “taking” and, honestly, I’m in favor of removing all of these. At least these only affect the property itself.

Environmental regulations affect the whole community and, by extension, surrounding communities that share our waterways and estuaries. Your personal property rights end where they start negatively impacting the personal property rights of others.

In the end, we all know what happened. With virtually no discussion, the Board voted 6-1 to “transmit” this text amendment to the State for approval.

Why not wait until the full Comp Plan rewrite in 2024? We could work on real incentives for any buffer adjustments. Enhanced wetlands, increased (any) vegetative buffers, extended no-mow zones, fertilizer-free zones. All of these options, and I’m sure many more, could actually create more efficient, more environmentally-beneficial wetland buffers than we have now; potentially with some give on the width. What’s the rush? If we’re spending time and taxpayer funds for it to be done outside of that rewrite, it’s not just for convenience.

A decision with literally no community benefit - the only benefits being to those wishing to build, mine or encroach upon our disappearing wetlands - is essentially a done deal.

It’s said that “it’s just a transmittal” but that’s never actually true. I’ve been on this board for three years and no transmittal has been overturned when it’s come back. We recently had one where the State said that we were literally going to break SR64 and SR70 and create permanently failed roadways if the board approved it…and the board approved it.

I honestly don’t foresee the State having much concern or comment about a request to voluntarily give them more authority and control over us. They’ll be happy to see a local county fall in line and embrace big government.

---

On Thursday, August 18, this Board had to make a decision about standing up for, and protecting, our community and putting its citizens first.

This Board had to stand up and verify the commitments made on mailers and campaign materials about protecting our environment for future generations.

This Board had to listen to all the facts and give all the dedicated, knowledgeable public commenters the attention and respect they deserved.

This Board had to do the right thing.

I’ve been losing many votes 6-1 this year. Call me naïve, but I thought this one would turn out different.

---