City elections and the Wal-Mart effect

- Cathy Antunes serves as President of Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government and Vice President of the Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA). She has resided in Sarasota County since 1999, and in the City since 2003.

Tuesday night’s zoning appeal of a 24-hour Wal-Mart Supercenter resulted in a 3-2 vote in favor of the appellants’ case for denying Wal-Mart’s proposed site plan. Public input included many comments focused on whether the mass retailer would negatively impact downtown Sarasota merchants. But the Commission was tasked with determining whether or not the site plan conformed to the City’s zoning code, pure and simple. Commissioners Shaw, Snyder and Turner determined the appellants successfully showed the site plan did not conform to City code, while Caragiulo and Atwell decided Wal-Mart’s plan did conform with the City of Sarasota’s standards.

Whether a site plan conforms to City code or not shouldn’t be a mystery. Commissioners ought to explain the site plan elements that were the determining factors in reaching their decision to support or deny the appeal .

Commissioner Turner summed it up for the three commissioners upholding the appeal.

He said explained what Wal-Mart is proposing is essentially a suburban big box store in an urban environment. He cited the bulk, 24/7 operations, truck noise, truck traffic and the intensity of the project as compelling factors in the appellants' case indicating the project is incompatible with a neighborhood area.

Commissioner Caragiulo declined to comment.In explaining her take on the appeal, Mayor Atwell said the staff testimony “met the interpretation of the code in a most substantial clear, competent manner, and we cannot as legislators here at the table engage in a display of dueling planners vying for the correct interpretation of the code.”

Huh? The whole point of the appeal is to determine the correct interpretation of the code, and the commissioners decide. That’s their job. Mayor Atwell’s response essentially communicates: Because staff said so, and we don’t want to challenge staff.

“Because I said so” is an appropriate parental explanation to a child. Because staff said so doesn’t cut it with major planning decisions. Holding city staff testimony as inviolate is a disturbing thing for a commissioner to do. If a commissioner won’t entertain challenges to staff recommendations, who is really running the show? And declining to comment gives us no clue as to why the appeal was flawed.

The Wal-Mart site plan appeal galvanized the community’s interest and attention. Rarely are city chambers teeming with those lined up to give input and observe. At least one city commission candidate has declined to weigh in on the issue, claiming it would be problematic to do so due to a possible future vote on the issue as a sitting commissioner. It may be an artful way to dodge the issue, but there is no prohibition against a candidate stating their position on the appeal.

The discussion and outcome of Tuesday night’s appeal may bring consequences for candidates as well as Wal-Mart. The voters will decide.

- What will the impact of the Wal-Mart vote be on the Sarasota City Commission election? Weigh in and share your thoughts in the comments section below.