A letter to those elected
To those who we elect to work for us:
Thank you for your willingness to hold an elected office. Few will do that. It takes much time and dedication, more than I currently wish to offer, but I, like many others, am not just a “back seat driver” when it comes to my community.
My home, and the quality of life my community offers, as a result of personally and collectively investing in wise decision making over the years, to build personal and collective equity, are key reasons I, along with my friends and longtime neighbors, continue to live here.
Keeping pace with all significant changes today is impossible. The complexity of rules and regulations and the demands of multi-layered integrated community planning put inordinate pressures on officials at all levels. But taking guidance and questions in the same breath, accepting rewards and admonishment simultaneously, is part of your role.
Over the years, I have seen changes in the perceived roles of elected, and some appointed, officials. A change in perception which contradicts the time-tested understanding of the electorate that our elected officials are neither leaders nor servants. I have heard the nonsense term “servant-leaders” used recently to describe elected officials. How can one be the back and the front of a horse at the same time?
Yes. A horse. A work horse. One that we partner with and give direction to, but one to whom we never yield a separate and fully autonomous leadership role regardless of physical position. One for whom we must always hold the reins, yet trust that your observance of the conditions ahead and underfoot compliments our choice of direction and overall goals. One we care for and treat well, not as a servant, but one who has power to do the things we cannot, but always in our favor, not for the favor of another entity even when working in tandem with other horses for the mutual good of all. That horse is revered; held in high regard; treated better than many of our peers; but always contained within its appropriate role. A trusted partner as we build and sustain what should be a shared lifestyle of safety and prosperity for all.
Be honored by your role as our chosen prized work horse. Reward us well before you reward yourself or others. Only leaders elect; the elected, therefore, cannot be leaders.
Howard Latham
Clearwater
Why Treasure Island needs a supermajority vote for development approvals
In July, 643 Treasure Island citizens signed a petition in support of a proposed charter amendment requiring a four-out-of-five supermajority vote of the City Commission for planned development decisions.
This referendum is not about stopping redevelopment. Treasure Island can and should continue to improve and redevelop responsibly. The question is how we ensure that major development decisions reflect the broader interests of our community.
A Planned Development ordinance creates a process through which developers may request flexibility from existing zoning standards. These requests can involve building height, size, placement, site layout, and the possible combination of multiple properties into a single development plan. In return, the City will negotiate enhanced design features and, importantly, public benefits through a development agreement.
That flexibility can have significant consequences for our neighborhoods, including changes to neighborhood character, building scale, traffic, infrastructure, and quality of life.
There are four concerns residents should understand.
First, what qualifies as exceptional design? Prior discussions have raised concerns that a PD ordinance may provide only limited objective standards for determining what constitutes exceptional design. Without clearer standards, Commission decisions may become subjective and inconsistent.
Second, how much flexibility should developers receive? Broadly defined criteria could allow substantial departures from the zoning rules residents currently expect to apply based on our current Charter.
Third, how will development density and intensity be determined? Combining properties and redistributing development rights across them could produce projects substantially different from the scale anticipated under existing zoning.
Fourth, how much discretion should rest with the City Commission? Commissioners must weigh proposed public benefits against the requested zoning exceptions. These decisions can affect entire neighborhoods for decades.
That brings us to the central issue: Should a project involving significant departures from existing zoning be approved by just three of five commissioners?
We believe decisions of this magnitude should require at least four affirmative votes.
A supermajority requirement promotes broader agreement among elected officials, encourages greater scrutiny of significant zoning exceptions, strengthens public confidence, and helps protect neighborhood character and community interests.
It does not prohibit development. It establishes a higher standard of approval when a developer seeks substantial flexibility beyond the current rules that otherwise apply.
If a proposed project offers substantive public benefits and represents a responsible approach to redevelopment, it should be able to make its case to a broader majority of the Commission.
Our position is simple: major changes to our community deserve more than a narrow majority decision.
Treasure Island citizens should vote yes on Nov. 3 for the supermajority amendment requiring a four-out-of-five vote for planned development decisions.
Let’s encourage responsible redevelopment while protecting the long-term interests of Treasure Island and the residents who call it home.
Mark Hohe
Treasure Island