- December 21, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Jump to candidate questionnaire
A lot has changed since the last time George Kruse ran for Manatee County's at-large District 7 commission seat.
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic made campaigning in person impossible. But he said nothing can compare to the difference between hiring political advisor Anthony Pedicini or running a grassroots campaign.
Pedicini’s candidates receive significant funding from developers. Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge, Kruse’s opposition on the Pedicini ticket, has raised over $235,000 in campaign contributions, more than three times what Kruse has raised.
“If I would’ve just sat there and let (every vote) go 7-0, then all the money and Anthony would’ve gotten behind me,” Kruse said.
Pedicini’s political consulting firm, Sim Wins, has seated every commissioner on the current board with the exception of Ray Turner, who was appointed after Vanessa Baugh retired early. Turner has since hired Pedicini.
This election cycle, Kruse’s wife Jessica is his campaign manager, and his car is stuffed with campaign signs. If you see one, he probably delivered it and stomped it into the ground himself. The week he sat down with the East County Observer, Kruse had nine speaking engagements.
“I am exhausted,” he said. “But I am having a ton of fun on this campaign because I’m talking to everybody.”
He described his last campaign as “transactional" and not necessarily enjoyable. If he wins, Kruse said the connections he's made and the knowledge he’s gained by talking to so many different citizens and groups will make him a better commissioner — but only for four more years.
If Kruse holds another elected office beyond the county commission, it will be because an opportunity arose, just as it did in 2020 when he was approached to run for commissioner.
“People said, ‘Hey, you’ve got a background and a skill set. We need somebody who understands a $2 billion budget,’” Kruse said. “You can make connections and learn about your community, and then go use those connections and skill sets without the taxpayers paying you to do good things. I fundamentally believe in term limits.”
George and Jessica Kruse live in Greyhawk Landing with their two teenage children Alexander and Olivia. Kruse and his wife are active members of the Kiwanis Club, and both completed the Leadership Manatee program.
Next year marks the couple’s 20th wedding anniversary. Having both grown up in Sarasota, they were introduced through Kruse’s cousin at a Christmas party while he was on break from Columbia Business School in 2002.
Kruse had left Sarasota for New York City the year earlier, three weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks. One of his first big city experiences was being locked down on Columbia’s campus.
Despite the rough start, Kruse enjoyed living in the city. Jessica Kruse had joined him, and after graduation, he was hired by a Wall Street fund.
But just as a major event ushered Kruse into New York, a major event sent him packing — the North America blizzard of 2006.
“That’s when my wife said, ‘We’re moving,’” Kruse said.
The location and companies have changed, but Kruse has remained in the field of commercial real estate finance. His prior experience with affordable housing has been useful as a commissioner as he now sits on the county’s Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
“We see a lot of our affordable housing projects using the same tax credits I used to buy and put into equity funds for companies,” he said.
During a brief break from finance, Kruse became licensed as a real estate agent and broker. He was exclusively focused on workforce and affordable housing.
“I used my finance background to help people figure out the economics of it,” Kruse said. “I helped put together investments that made economic sense to retain the affordability of apartment complexes around Sarasota and Manatee counties.”
Once elected to the commission, Kruse returned to the finance side because of the conflict of interest that exists between selling properties and then having to vote on whether or not to rezone those same properties.
If not finance, Kruse thinks he would’ve made a good American history teacher. While he sometimes has been on the losing side of Manatee County Commission votes, it doesn’t discourage him.
“I try to give people facts, so they can make their own decision,” he said. “I enjoy that. I’m not trying to sway their decision. I’m just trying to make sure people understand.”
Kruse is also willing to learn. He experienced scrutiny after driving his truck into a tree in 2022 and the police officer’s body cam footage was released to the public. A DUI charge was filed and later dropped.
Kruse hasn’t had a drink in over a year.
“I learn from the past, but I strive for the future,” he said. “That’s what I’ve always done, every step of the way. My first year at the University of Florida, I didn’t take it seriously and did fairly poorly. I thought about it, and I was on the dean’s list every single semester after that for seven straight semesters.”
Age: 48
Current occupation: Manatee County commissioner; debt originations for hedge fund
Resident of Manatee County: 16 years; 22 years in Sarasota County
First, we’re continuing to see incredible growth in Manatee County. Strides have been made to increase housing for all income levels, but we need to continue to encourage this before we price our core workforce out of the community.
We need to do this while keeping an eye on how we’re growing.
Better incentives to encourage in-fill development, which protect our rural areas, our environmentally sensitive areas and our unique communities from encroaching development, are critical to the future.
Second, our local government has been growing. It seems to be continuously consolidating power and inserting government into areas which should be left to other offices, nonprofits or the public.
In doing so, it’s taking away the voice of the very public the board is presumably elected to represent. A future board needs to bring the government back to the people and divest from unnecessary control.
This includes leaving municipalities to their own governance and focusing on unincorporated Manatee County.
We also need to stay in our lane and avoid non-local issues.
The first step is to get more board members engaged with the public and the community to do what’s right for all citizens of our county, not just what’s politically beneficial. We also need to bring back expanded opportunities for public comment, involvement and broaden our use of advisory boards.
Finally, anyone living in Manatee County knows we’re behind on our infrastructure.
Looking ahead, the cost and timing of catching up is almost impossible. We need to continue improving our roadways, but we need to also be focusing on alternatives to bridge a gap we can’t close.
Redirecting development toward employment centers and services, continuing to focus on free, expanded transit and expediting multi-modal options like the Greenway trail system, will ease the burden on our roadways.
Further incentivizing affordable, workforce housing will lessen the traffic coming from out of the county to deliver our workers.
I believe I’ve honored the pledges I made in 2020, but there is still more to do and see to completion for the good of the community.
More importantly, we currently have a board that isn’t focused on the best interests of the citizens. The public’s voice has been diminished and trust has eroded.
We need a board that will strive toward common sense solutions to our community’s growing pains. We need local representatives who will focus on local issues, not grandstand on federal concerns for partisan points.
We need a board that supports small government and personal freedoms, not consolidations of power with the misguided belief that government knows best.
The future direction of Manatee County will be decided by who we choose to elect this year, and I truly believe that my involvement on this board will help steer us back in the right direction if we can add more voices for the public interest.
There could not be a clearer divide between your interests and those of others than in my race. Therefore, I decided to run for re-election in 2024 to complete what I’ve started and, more importantly, to stabilize our local government for the good of the public and our future.
I have the background and the experience to focus on the issues presently plaguing Manatee County including housing, growth and an inflating budget.
More specifically, however, is my ability to research issues in an unbiased manner and work directly with the public to determine the best outcome for resolution. I engage with the public more than any member of our board.
I have a unique race in which we have two sitting commissioners, both with records for voting as well as public engagement. I would ask all voters to assess our qualifications, our voting records and our dedication and consideration of the public when determining who will best serve them and their future needs.
I have made work force housing my top priority since being elected in 2020. I regularly attend and speak at housing conferences throughout the state to learn best-practices to bring back to Manatee County.
My focus has been and will continue to be on lessening regulations and government burdens stressing the cost of development of workforce housing.
Allowing for as-of-right development, increasing incentives and decreasing costly minimums, such as parking ratios and lot sizes, will encourage private sector development.
Educating the public on the community benefits of these developments and proactively attracting more workforce-focused developers into the county will streamline future projects and get these much-needed units on-line faster for our ever-increasing population of cost-burdened residents.
My philosophical view of zoning is that it’s excessive and overly restrictive.
I fundamentally believe that the free market will work itself out and create a more dynamic community if left to its devices.
We already have restrictions within our development code for open space, setbacks and many other criteria. This is why I believe form-based code works better on a smaller scale.
However, Manatee County has traditional zoning, and we abide by it.
Our community has been built-out under this framework and a dramatic shift at this stage would be difficult. Unfortunately, our future land-use map and overall code is outdated and the as-of-right zoning for some parcels is not in line with the highest and best use for that parcel after years and decades of growth and development.
I regularly get asked to “upzone” a parcel or change a zoning code to better align with the surrounding area. If I feel the request is in the best interest of the overall community and doesn’t have a material negative impact on others’ private property rights, then I will consider the change.
I wouls prefer if we just take a fresh look at our current zoning allowances ahead of time and give property owners more certainty of future uses.
The Future Development Area Boundary (FDAB) serves an important purpose in Manatee County.
While many will point to it as a means to retain undeveloped land east of the line, my views are more cost-focused. We are presently not obligated to provide any services such as additional infrastructure or utilities east of the line.
As the board has continued to approve developments further and further east of the FDAB, we are now outrunning our ability to provide those services with funds available.
We cannot allow development to outpace our limited budget with so many existing needs for infrastructure and utility expansion.
We must keep the FDAB line where it presently sits until existing communities west of the line are sufficiently improved and utility capacity is improved to a point of being able to provide for those new, future developments.
Part of being in government is knowing what you can control and what you cannot. We have limited ability to “stop growth” per se. Any attempt via moratorium will cause a significant supply/demand imbalance and further stress our current affordability crisis.
A key to addressing this growth is focusing it where it should be for the sustainability of the community. Manatee County, and our urban core municipalities, have an excess supply of parcels ripe for redevelopment. Building near the county center through redevelopment in locations already provided with infrastructure, utilities, employment bases and services will be more cost-effective to the county; create less environmental damage; and help create a more dynamic community.
We need to assess our incentives and strive to steer development where it should be rather than allowing it to continuously go where it’s cheap and easy to build to the detriment of the community and our budget. We do not want to turn Manatee County into a bedroom community.
Our oard has continuously called itself the “infrastructure board.” However, we are not collecting or allocating the funds to actually build the infrastructure.
We have bonded more than $400 million and received generous appropriations from state and federal sources to start a number of primary roadways, but it’s at the expense of many others.
There is no way to satisfy the increased road needs without more funding or less demand on the roads themselves.
For more funding, we need to significantly increase our impact fees. For less demand, we need to remember that one way to fix infrastructure is to build more, the other way is to use less.
First and foremost, directing housing closer to employment, schools and services takes cars off the road. Additionally, continuing and expanding our fare-free transit, starting meaningful multimodal trail systems and redirecting traffic away from bottlenecks, such as with a flyover bypassing downtown Bradenton, are our best means of easing our congestion burdens. Otherwise, it all comes down to funds to build more.
I fundamentally believe in the free market. That includes a developer having a right to charge what he wishes for a finished product. But that also includes a developer paying what it costs to produce that product.
I’ve asked before why everyone is seemingly against price controls and subsidies except when it comes to impact fees. These fees are a cost of doing business, not a profit center.
Counties conduct detailed, professional studies to determine the exact dollar of impact a new home, retail center or apartment will have on the community. We should be charging no more, nor no less than that cost.
Outside of ancillary sources of funds from gas taxes, appropriations and sales tax, our primary sources of revenue to build the roads, sidewalks, libraries, parks and public safety facilities in Manatee County are either impact fees or your real estate taxes.
I have no intent to use existing residents’ taxes to pay for future growth, so our options are to charge more for impact fees or simply build less.
As implied by an earlier question, it’s obvious that we’ve historically elected to build less. I have been advocating since day one on the board to have growth pay its fair share and to increase these fees so that our board has the funds necessary to cover these costs and improve our residents’ quality of life.
In 2020, more than 71% of the residents of Manatee County voted to increase their taxes to acquire conservation land. We are a coastal community covered by wetlands and water sheds. We need to protect these to ensure a future of clean water and avoid the detrimental effects of flooding and stormwater issues which are witnessed in older parts of our community before best-practices were realized.
Permanently protecting sensitive areas through acquisition or conservation easements will help protect our future. The further benefits associated with passive park preserves and wildlife corridors only enhance the need to continue this program.
The original ballot initiative unfortunately set a very low cap on the total bondable funds available for this program. In 2024, I have been actively working on a new ballot referendum to significantly increase our acquisition capacity to further benefit from these voluntarily instituted taxes.
I’d give the tax management a C+. Taxes have been adequately managed without any loss of service while lowering the millage twice since I’ve gotten on the board in 2020.
However, our hypergrowth has dramatically increased our tax base while also dramatically increasing our strain on, and desire for, services.
We have not expanded library hours, increased bus routes or kept up with recreational demands, such as pickleball or boat ramps, in spite of the new tax base.
If we’re not going to provide the services taxpayers want, we should give them their money back.
Alternatively, the change we can make in our fiscal management is to reassess needs rather than relying on past budgets and direct tax dollars to where the public needs them, not where we want them.
The single area where spending should be cut is within government itself.
Since my time on the board, the county-level organization has become more and more top-heavy with additional deputies and upper management.
These additions have been brought in to oversee an expanding government slowly taking over aspects of our community it should be leaving to both private and nonprofit organizations.
We’ve made strides with moving economic development to the EDC and contemplating the outsourcing of HR. Then we took steps backward by taking over a beach market, taking over historical museums from the Clerk and expanding our control and funding within municipalities.
If our government stayed in its lane, we could cut excessive spending within the organization and focus those dollars outwardly on citizen needs.
For areas where more should be spent, I believe recreational facilities are still lacking compared to our rising population. Additionally, and more in line with a core role of government, our salaries and staffing for law enforcement and first responders is falling behind comparable communities.
We cannot continue to lose trained professionals to other counties for being overworked or underpaid compared to their peers. The safety of our citizens is one of the few things governments should be required to provide and proper safety comes with a cost.
I believe we’re competitive with similar counties. I’ve made the successful motion twice to lower our millage by a total of 0.50 in the past three years.
If we can lower it more, I’d be all for doing so and putting money back in the pockets of the taxpayers. However, as stated above, there are adjustments that need to be made to ensure services and safety are provided.
There is a balancing act between cost of living and quality of life. I do not want to sacrifice one for the other. If we get our budget straightened away, our public safety salaries on par with other communities and generate other sources of needed infrastructure funding from impact fees, then I believe there is a cushion to allow for a meaningful adjustment downward in the future.
I fundamentally believe that government, while necessary, should have as limited a role in your life as humanly possible.
That goes for all levels of government.
They usually break anything they touch through a belief that “government knows best.”
That happened with college loans, mortgages and the economy as a whole. This is especially true at the state and local levels where there are less controls and oversight.
Government can play an important role by facilitating and, if need be, selectively funding the private sector and nonprofits to provide the services to residents. These will almost certainly be provided faster, cheaper and better through their expertise and focus.
As for taxes, there are certain services that government does provide its citizens, including infrastructure, public safety and quality of life services not available from outside organizations. These come with a cost in need of a revenue source.
I personally believe in more of a consumption-based model. If a developer builds a home, the developer should pay impact fees. If they don’t want to pay them, they don’t build the home.
Those fees go directly toward government improving quality of life.
The same goes for utilities being funded entirely by rates, gas taxes by mileage, sales taxes by purchase and tourism taxes by room rentals. They are all voluntarily paid by a decision to consume the product.
Unfortunately, the largest tax source in Florida is property tax, and it’s the only one that is not variable based on usage.
If you own a property, the government will charge you rent to use your private property built on your private land. In fact, even as your home depreciates, your “rent” most likely goes up due to the values of other newer properties driving up assessments.
I have spoken with people at the state-level about moving away from property taxes being a primary revenue source. If we cannot, we need to seriously look at the negative implications on parts of our community to make adjustments.
We have seniors on fixed incomes who have no mortgage and are getting driven out of their lifetime homes because of ever-increasing property taxes.
If we cannot eliminate all property taxes, we should at least look to eliminate taxes over a certain age or set a homestead exemption at $500,000 over a certain age to keep government “rent” from displacing residents through no fault of their own.
