Letters to the editor

Preserve Longboat group thanks supporters

Preserve Longboat is simply a group of people who could not sit idly by as a referendum threatened not only the Colony property but the island as a whole.

Our organization would not have been successful without the overwhelming response, both in votes and contributions, which we received. The near 90% rejection of this extreme development proposal demonstrated that Longboat Key is united by a common bond that cannot be ignored.

Whether resident or non-resident, from the north end or the south end, from single-family homes or condominiums, and whether from the bay side or the gulf side, we will Preserve Longboat. With your ongoing support, we stand ready to work with the town, the counties, the state, and any developer, but in a way that preserves our island.

Frank Morneau, president, Preserve Longboat Inc.

Winning candidate did address issues

In reference to the Letter to the Editor last week from Douglas Pascal, I must assume he did not attend any of the candidate forums or read any of the materials Jack Daly put out regarding the issues he believed were important to Longboat Key.

If Mr. Pascal had done his due diligence as a voter he would have known that Mr. Daly has worked tirelessly at the regional transportation authority for the last two years on behalf of the citizens of LBK dealing with the myriad transportation issues that impact our community. Furthermore, Mr. Daly repeatedly addressed transportation issues at the candidate forums and what he would continue to focus on as he continues to serve the citizens of LBK.

It was clear in my review of Mr. Daly’s statements that he understands traffic is a major issue for the citizens of our island and that many of the problems that create our traffic are not on Longboat, but on the south and north end of the island and he is working on a regional level to solve those issues.

BJ Bishop, Longboat Key

Editorial missed one key element

Thank you for explaining the Bert Harris Act in your editorial titled “At What Point is it a Taking?” The problem with your editorial regarding the vote on Longboat Key is that the argument presented ignores one major element of the Harris Act — the fact that the “investment-backed expectation” is for the “existing use of the real property or a vested right ...” That statement in the Bert Harris Act is important.

Developers buy properties with a known existing and future use but usually want a different use. They somehow believe their “desired use” or “wants” supersedes the vested use of a property. If a developer buys a residential property with a maximum density of 13 units per acre in its current and future land use plans, their existing or vested right is a residential use at 13 units per acre. Not one unit more. The fact the developer wants 1 unit more or 25, 50 or 100 units per acre is irrelevant. The developer does not have any legal expectation to have anything more than what is the current and future use of the land he purchased. To be denied for a wanted or desired use is not a “taking.”

In a free market, the developer is responsible for knowing what properties to buy. If he wants to build residential units, he should purchase property zoned residential in the current or future land use plans. If he buys a commercial property which is listed in future plans as only for commercial uses, there is no legal guarantee to get residential zoning. It is the right of the government, or a community as in the case of Longboat Key, to deny any requests for change in use that is not in the current or future land use plans.

Developers have misused the Harris Act to intimidate governments to give them what they want. It is great to see a community stand up for their zoning laws.

Lourdes Ramirez, Longboat Key

Comp plan changes could fix ‘taking’

On March 23, the Observer wrote an editorial on the effect of Longboat Key’s density referenda requirement (no density increases without affirmative vote via referenda) as constituting a possible taking of property rights. Yet no property owner has challenged this provision in the Town Charter despite the fact that property owners seeking a density increase have now repeatedly been denied their ability to even be granted an increase in density of only one unit.

I am not a lawyer so I can’t speak with any authority on whether there is a constitutional question of depriving property owners of due process or reasonable use of their properties or of a de facto “taking” of the property if there is no viable economic use of the property. Comprehensive plan updates consider whether the future land use map needs to be amended to reflect changed conditions such as the lack of demand for commercial uses and whether the town is over-zoned for commercial uses.

In that case the town could initiate comp plan amendments to rezone commercial properties to residential or the property owner could seek such comp plan and zoning amendments as a private initiative based on competent and substantive evidence justifying such changes.

The density referendum provision in the Town Charter denies both forms of remedy, which are afforded property owners throughout the USA.

Larry Grossman, Longboat Key