The Colony referendum

Precious little would thrill Longboat Key property owners and residents more than a 21st century version of the 20th century Colony Beach & Tennis Resort when it was at its apex as the No. 1 tennis resort in the world.

Elegant, chic, relaxed, first-class and family fun. 

And for a half-century, it set the ambiance for Longboat Key.

To be sure, Longboaters remain forever hopeful for an end to the decade-long dispute and destruction of one of the Key’s most treasured icons. And Longboaters are not all that particular about who resurrects that prized piece of beachfront, except in one respect:

Longboaters want whoever redevelops the Colony to understand and embrace the island’s culture, values and aesthetics. Whoever it is should be steeped in understanding the phrase that permeated the Key’s vision process in 2014: “Keep Longboat Longboat.”

There is much more to that phrase than its literal translation. In 2014, when a panel from the Urban Land Institute came in to help refine Longboat’s vision plan, residents expressed a strong desire to “keep Longboat Longboat,” while at the same time they wanted to move the Key forward to remain the attractive beach community it has always been. 

Stay the same, but modernize, offer the amenities in housing and leisure to stay abreast of market demands. 

Here’s what else “Keep Longboat Longboat” means: Longboaters don’t want Miami Beach’s condo canyons on Gulf of Mexico Drive. Nor do they want an island that turns into a haven of weekly transients for Airbnb and VRBOs.

They want what they still believe Longboat to be: an elegant, relaxed, safe,  active, intelligent Gulf-front community and small town outfitted with housing and tourism choices that reflect the Key’s historical values and aesthetics.

Which brings us to the second question on the town’s March 14 referendum. This is Unicorp Development’s request for voter approval to convert the Colony’s zoning from tourism-use only to mixed use — residential and tourism — and allow up to 180 new, additional residential units to be developed. In short, Unicorp is seeking to increase the Key’s residential density.

This is the golden key to Longboat Key: controlled density. To protect the island from becoming Miami Beach, Longboat voters in 1984 approved a charter amendment that bestowed in voters the power to control Longboat’s residential density. Anyone who wants to increase the approved number of units on the town’s platted books from the early 1980s must obtain voter approval. 

Only a few have succeeded, and their requests were for fewer than 10 units each. Indeed, to illustrate how Longboaters guard the island’s density, just a few months ago they rejected longtime Longboat property owner Oscar Parsons’ request to convert his penthouse office space at 4134 Gulf of Mexico Drive to a single residential unit.

You know where this is headed. So let’s be direct: 

As Unicorp Development’s owner, Chuck Whittall, has heard often at his community meetings recently, his proposed development for the Colony property looks fabulous. Fantastic … Just not for Longboat Key.

It’s not in scale with the island’s appearance and ambiance.

Just look at the two accompanying renderings — Unicorp’s (top) and that of MW Corp. — the ever-patient Longboater Manfred Welfonder and Naples-based Lutgert Cos. With no disrespect to Whittall and his ambitious vision, if given the choice, it’s not speculative to say 99% of Longboat residents would prefer MW Corp.’s mid-rise development over Unicorp’s high-density, high-rise, five-star resort.

But mind you, the March 14 vote is not a referendum on the specifics of Unicorp’s proposed buildings. The vote is about population density — whether Longboaters are willing to give the Colony property the right to add up to 180 residential units, not just for Unicorp, but for whoever owns the Colony property in perpetuity. 

The Longboat Key Revitalization Task Force expresses concern that voter approval would trigger demands for equal treatment from more than 40 other similarly nonconforming properties, calling such demands opening Pandora’s Box. That is certainly plausible. 

But we’ll stick to the Unicorp issue. 

Typically, we embrace population growth. It’s an essential ingredient to economic growth and prosperity. But we also subscribe to the long-standing rule of property rights — do no harm to your neighbor. No one knows whether Whittall’s proposal would harm his neighbors. Harm is often subjective. But everyone can see Unicorp’s proposal is out of scale for the Key.

Unicorp should ask for less.

We recommend: No on Colony density.