My View

Sarasota County’s director of smart growth was shocked to discover that gravity was keeping us solidly on Earth.

Not really, but almost.

Peter Katz looked at how much properties in the county were generating in tax dollars and was shocked to find out that the Walmart in North Port actually generated less tax revenue per acre than 1350 Main St., a 17-story, mixed-use high-rise at the highly desirable corner of Main Street and Palm Avenue.

So, a Walmart, surface parking lot and all, in the lowest property value city in the county, was less valuable per acre than a premier site in the heart of downtown Sarasota.

I’m shocked, too. Shocked that Sarasota County’s head of smart growth was shocked at this.

His conclusion is that if the county wants to maximize tax revenues, it should be pushing for urban development, not sprawl — which is pretty much the nut sentence on smart growth.

But while his “shock” is entertaining, the conclusion and philosophy behind it are not. Those are closer to dangerous as a foundation for governing policies.

Katz is pulling from Joe Minicozzi, a research specialist at Public Interest Projects, which developed projects in Asheville, N.C., and found that mixed-used projects in the urban area create more tax revenue than outlying projects. (Again, shocking!)

Minicozzi encourages local governments to consider themselves private corporations that create a product. And government’s product? All the land within its political boundaries.

“Is the community going to get the proper return on its product?” he asks.

You read that right: “its product.”

You can almost hear the groan of our long-gone Founding Fathers. Just for the record, all the land within the county’s boundaries is not “its product,” which requires ownership. This thinking — and it’s thinking that is intended to lead to action — is the antithesis of private property rights, one of the most basic founding principles of our nation.

It also is a complete violation of free markets, and supposes that government’s role is to maximize its revenues and can do that best by manipulating, if not destroying, free-market mechanisms.

This philosophy ultimately seems to say that all land is the government’s, and you can only do what with your land what government says. Of course, that is called zoning, but it is such an infringement on property rights that it should be done in measured and restrained ways. Basically, this is not what we have been doing and certainly not what this thinking suggests.

What might be some of the results?

Well, if the county decided to go this route, it would want to minimize new development of homes, shopping centers and businesses and funnel those into the urban area — which in North County, is pretty much built out.

First consequence: The county would downgrade possibilities for new development in open land, or have a policy of not allowing any rezonings that would allow for more intense development in undeveloped areas.

That would be a sure diminution of property values, which may run aground the state’s taking laws — meaning any such act would require the county to pay landowners for the lost value.

But clever government lawyers and careful wording could probably avoid that, because they would not be actually downgrading.

Second consequence: The flip side would be the necessity of allowing more intense development in the urban areas. NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) would battle every new, more intense “smart growth” development proposed because that is what NIMBY does. And with local politicians, that is often a deal-breaker.

Third consequence: Some of the best land for this — and it is demonstrated by Katz’s choice of comparisons — is downtown Sarasota. But here is where the concept hits a beige brick wall.

The city of Sarasota has an enormously restrictive downtown master plan. Only two more high-rises of more than 10 stories are allowed downtown — and those are capped at 18 stories. Everything else steps down from there, and the makeup of the City Commission suggests that getting any development beyond a bathroom remodeling approved will be received with hostility.

So the formula is that the county would limit or stop development in undeveloped areas to force urban infill or redevelopment to maximize the flow of cash to government coffers. But that urban infill, and the most prized areas of downtown, would likely be blocked from any substantial development.

Fourth consequence: No growth.

If you’ve enjoyed our economy of the last few years when there has been no construction, you will love this particular consequence.

Fifth consequence: It doesn’t take Adam Smith to recognize some very basic economic impacts on county residents.

Foremost is that development that generates more property-tax revenues is development that costs more by virtue of being in an urban setting — see above shocking revelation.

Retailers who must locate there will have to charge more to cover the extra property expenses and property taxes. That means everything from food to clothing to furniture to light bulbs will be more expensive.

Of course, that would have the happy result of generating more sales tax for government coffers, too. And that seems to be the entire point.

This plan would be great for government. Not so great for everyone else.

Rod Thomson is executive editor of the Gulf Coast Business Review and can be reached at [email protected].